I think abortion should be legal without any restrictions – no parental consent laws, no mandated ultrasounds, no waiting periods, no bans on late term abortions and no bans on federal funding for abortion. I also believe people should be able to become parents when they want, how they want and without interference from the government. (If you think restrictions on abortion and restrictions on parenthood are unrelated, you are wrong.)
If that were the law of the land, it would also mean an end to rape and incest exceptions – because we wouldn’t need them. Women wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) have to prove that their abortion is of the “acceptable” variety. We wouldn’t (and shouldn’t) have to pretend that women who are forced into sex are somehow more deserving of medical care than women who chose to have sex. We could rid ourselves of the hierarchy of “good” and “bad” abortions.
The decision to have an abortion is personal and complicated, and any legislation that seeks to control such decisions is based on an anti-choice ideology that thinks very little of women. It assumes that women, if not kept in check by the government, are not to be trusted to make good decisions about their bodies and families.”
Commenters at the Guardian asked me: Am I actually arguing that there should be no legal limitations on abortion?
The short answer: yes.
Read more here.
"But what anti-choicers don’t understand – and almost never reflect in their policy or prose – is that pregnancy, abortion and birth are too complicated for assigning strict moral designations, let alone to legislate."
-From my latest at the Guardian, why having a preemie made even more pro-choice