In the wake of the Trump shit-show, there has been some talk recently in Democratic circles that in order to stop losing elections, Democrats need to “widen the tent.” And some people are suggesting that this happen by way of letting in those Democrats who are anti-abortion.
If you are a Democrat who is personally anti-abortion but still in favor of choice for others, I will hold the tent flap back for you, welcome you inside, high-five you and buy you a drink. Hell, we can go hug trees, work to make sure America understands that Black Lives DO matter, and tear down the patriarchy together.

But if you are an anti-choice Democrat who seeks to affect anti-abortion legislation, either directly or by voting for those who affect anti-abortion legislation, then that is where we have to part ways. There should be no room in the tent for those who would actively work to take rights away from women.
Should we let people who are openly “a little bit racist” in the tent? Should we let in those who are “a little bit anti-LGBTQ+?” Should we let them actively work to walk back rights for those people while under the same tent with the rest of us? Y’know. So we can “win?”
I have heard the argument made that abortion is “settled law,” and therefore democrats need to stop bringing it up and putting it in the voting publics’ faces. A few years ago, I might’ve gotten behind that strategy, but no more. Because ten years ago, the religious right really was just using the abortion issue to get votes, blowing a lot of hot air, but not making good on their threats to curb access. This is no longer the case. The evangelical right has worked diligently to elect their candidates to every level of government, and while they can’t (yet) make abortion illegal, they have done a damn good job at limiting its access.
Since about 2010, evangelicals have been successful in instituting several TRAP laws (TRAP stands for Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers) that have closed about 125 abortion clinics nationwide. TRAP laws are often proposed under the guise of “helping” women, when really the goal is to harass doctors and close clinics. States are now legislating everything from clinic room size to hallway width, and if a clinic doesn’t have the funds to remodel, they’re out of business. Some laws require abortion providers to have local hospital access … but what if the local hospital is a Catholic hospital? Eight states require abortion clinics to be located a specific distance from a hospital. If the clinic isn’t within that distance, it has to move or close.
Because of TRAP laws, Kentucky is now down to one abortion clinic. The enforcement of TRAP laws managed to successfully close two other Kentucky clinics in 2016. The last clinic is open only because a judge stepped in and granted it a reprieve, but that may not last. According to the Guttmacher Institute, Kentucky performed 3,530 abortions in 2014. Is one clinic supposed to handle that volume of patients?
Thirteen states now require a woman to undergo a sonogram of her pregnancy before aborting, whether she wants to or not. Nebraska, Oklahoma and Wisconsin now force the woman to look at an image of sonogram, whether she wants to or not.
Here in Kansas, the most recent attack on abortion care is almost laughably silly, but most certainly not funny. It’s known as the “font law,” and it would require abortion clinics to hand out information on the doctor performing the abortion, such as where they went to school, whether or not they’re a resident of Kansas and how many times they’ve been sued. The bill, which hasn’t become law, states that the information has to be printed out in black ink, in 12-point Times New Roman font. Is the Kansas legislature asking for such regulations on heart doctors or brain surgeons? Oh, hell no. Only abortion providers.
Many insurance policies don’t cover abortion care, and many states forbid insurance companies from covering abortion care. Women either have to pay out of pocket, or purchase a special insurance rider for their policy. Most women pay cash for their abortion, so that there’s no paper trail. According to the Guttmacher Institute, seventy-five percent of women who seek abortions are poor or low-income.
Many states have now passed waiting periods that vary from 24 to 72 hours, waiting periods that the medical community agrees are totally unnecessary. Imagine a poor, working woman who has to travel, possibly out of state, to access an abortion. She’s already had to scrape together the money for the procedure itself. If she works a job that doesn’t provide sick time, she’ll lose pay to receive and recover from the procedure. On top of that, some states burden her with an additional three days of lost pay and hotel expense as she waits out the medically unnecessary waiting period. If she has children at home, someone has to take care of her kids while she’s gone. If all of this is already a near financial impossibility for many American women, why in the world would some people force her to go through the pregnancy by making the hurdles to abortion so high she can’t jump them? Are we really so cruel as to make her only other option to give up the child for adoption? What if she can’t afford the prenatal care before the child is adopted?
The religious right has also successfully rebranded the D&C procedure (dilation and curettage) as “partial-birth abortion,” which is not a medical term, but a political one, because it sounds offensive. And this smear campaign has worked. Though the procedure is far safer medically than other methods of removing a fetus from a cervix, this hasn’t stopped evangelicals from trying to pass laws banning so-called “partial-birth abortion,” at both the federal and state levels. But a ban would also make it illegal to perform a D&C on a woman who has recently had a miscarriage. In other words, the right would rather put women’s very lives at risk by making a legitimate medical procedure illegal across the board.
What good is it if abortion is technically “legal,” but can’t be accessed by a good portion of American women?
Though abortion is still 100% legal in the United States of America, we don’t treat it like any other legal medical procedure. Instead of handling it as legitimate health care, we treat abortion clinics like menstruation shame huts. Women who need abortion care often have to endure harassment and public ridicule from protesters. There is no medical procedure for men that would force them to give up work pay to travel over state lines and endure a waiting period for a procedure many insurance policies can't, or won’t, cover while complete strangers scream insults at them. Men wouldn’t, in a hundred years, stand for such humiliating treatment.
Dr. George Tiller, one of just a few doctors in the nation who performed very late-term abortions, was shot in the head in the middle of his church. And contrary to what our Fake President says, babies are not “ripped out of the womb” at nine months. Late term abortions are only performed in cases of fatal fetal abnormalities or a very real health risk to the mother. Late term abortions are ALWAYS medically necessary, yet they are the most vilified.
Even though it takes two people to create a pregnancy, women bear virtually the entire stigma for abortion. Yet some people would now ask women to suffer more. To fight harder for bodily autonomy. To endure additional degradation and judgment. They are asking women to voluntarily take a step backward in order that the collective be able to move forward.
To those people I say: Bullshit.
It is the year 2017, and women are tired of the indignity. What we do not need is to cozy up to those who would continue to use abortion, and women’s lives, as political footballs. What we need to do is take the stigma out of abortion. We need to start talking about it like grownups, vocally and publically. We need to treat it like the health and economic issue that it is. A full third of American women will have an abortion at some point in their lives. Yet this country continues to treat abortion like a shameful, dirty medical decision that women are too stupid to make on our own, without lots of expensive, often unconstitutional, meddling from the very people who claim to be against the Nanny State.
When does this absurdity stop? When do women gain the right to have license over our own bodies? When do we gain the right to have our own say over our economic destinies? Over our very futures? The decision to have, or not have, a child is central to every woman’s life. Taking away a woman’s ability to have autonomy over her own body and her own future is discrimination. Period.
Women require abortion care for a myriad of reasons, all of which are intensely personal. This is the time for the Democratic Party to stand with women, stand up for our life decisions, our healthcare and our dignity. Not treat us like second-class citizens.
-----------
Most of the numbers and statistics for this opinion piece come from the Guttmacher Institute www.guttmacher.org.



