The Battle for Pro-choice

I’m writing my blog this week on an article out of the opinions section in the Austin American Statesman titled “Shift course or risk losing it all.” This article is in relation to the house passing a bill on Friday, stripping all federal funding from Planned Parenthood. Frances Kissling, the former president of Catholics for Choice is making an argument aimed towards those that are pro-choice. Aiming this article towards pro-choicers, he says that instead of pretending the fetus is invisible, those that are pro-choice must “stop holding on to a strategy that is making the legal right to abortion more vulnerable than ever.” The pro-choice argument is almost contradictory, demanding the state to mind its own business, which relieves the government of all of the responsibility for funding reproductive healthcare. Unless we suggest a more compromised balanced legislation and regulation of abortion, we stand to lose ground and eventually end up with no voice in the matter. This makes sense, although compromise isn’t something that is looking likely with two completely opposed groups. He makes a logically sound argument, and I like the way he is approaching this sensitive topic. Fighting to get the government to provide the resources that women need, and making a real effort to reduce mortality rates and pregnancy complications are steps that may give us more ground in the argument. The abortion-rights movement needs to accept the fact of the existence of the fetus, but realize that ending its life has moral significance. I agree with Kissling, and think that in this time and age we need to face the facts, and make an argument that gives both parties a part of the benefit, like ensuring the safety regulations of abortion facilities rather than completely banning them.