I don’t normally write about politics. But the fact that my reproductive choices and future in general are being decided on by distant politicians who only care about me for economic and political gain makes me feel disempowered. Is cutting women’s health care and rights a serious platform for politicians?
Many Republicans supported the Blunt Amendment, which thankfully failed to pass in the U.S. Senate this March. The amendment would have allowed employers to deny coverage for health care services they object to for moral reasons. Meanwhile, presidential candidate Mitt Romney promises to defund Planned Parenthood, a resource for information on safe sex, free birth control, health checkups and free preventative screenings that are invaluable to millions of women.
Mittens also wants to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which made contraceptives and preventative services free and prohibits insurance companies from charging women more for health insurance. As I am a young female student with career aspirations who enjoys having sex, the stakes are high for me in this election.
Reproductive rights ultimately translate into the right to choose if, when and under what circumstances one will have offspring. It’s a basic freedom of choice and probably the most important decision one could make. It is a choice that belongs to women, because we are the ones who carry the child in our own bodies. It’s safe to say that pregnancy affects women more directly than men. So why are women being denied their reproductive choices?
Due to economic demands, it is hard for anyone, especially women, to have children in this society. The anti-abortion argument places overwhelming value on the human life of the fetus but overlooks the various realities and environments unintended children are born into. A study from the Guttmacher Institute found that “Unintended pregnancy rates are highest among poor and low-income women, women aged 18–24, cohabiting women and minority women.”
Sometimes, supporting a child or carrying a pregnancy to fruition simply isn’t possible. Many women, particularly the low-income women who depend on federal services like Planned Parenthood, don’t have the resources to stay healthy during their pregnancies and carry their children to term. Having a child when you are a teen, a college student or simply a young woman generally means becoming economically dependent on others while looking for low-wage work with possibly limited skills.
Pro-choice or not, no woman ever wants or intends to have abortions. A few close friends of mine have made the painful decision to have an abortion, and recalling the experience afterward is always difficult. The process of finding out you’re pregnant to attaining the abortion to recovering from it mentally and physically is grim and unsettling.
The fact is, a large portion of modern society doesn’t have sex purely for procreation in marriage. It’s not realistic to impart anti-sex measures on Americans, such as limiting their contraceptive access and family planning and simply condemning the 95 percent of Americans who have premarital sex by age 44. Modern society needs family planning.
Being able to have sex for fun is a privilege that is made accessible by having knowledge, resources and choices concerning our reproductive rights. Taking away reproductive services prevents women from enjoying sex. Is it fair to say that having recreational sex should remain a privilege reserved only for men and that women don’t deserve to have sex for their own pleasure?
Women have historically practiced abortion using methods ranging from ingesting mercury to using coat-hangers to terminate pregnancies. There have no doubt always been women — and men — who wished that this service were readily available to them. Even if abortions are made illegal, the reality is they will never stop happening. There will always be women who have no way of supporting their children, and the number of dangerous, botched abortions and maternal deaths will rise. It’s critical for women to continue to have access to the resources that can prevent unintended pregnancies and that abortions are available in safe medical environments.
For those who endorse egalitarian values, here’s what equality looks like. All women deserve access to quality health care. Women should have the choice to be parents or not, to plan their own lives and pursue their life goals. Women should also be able to enjoy sexual freedom and pleasure. Seriously consider what values and beliefs your politicians have been conveying, whether they truly meant it at the time or not and if you are willing to promote sexist political views. It’s not just abortion and birth control that is at stake — it is sexual equality that is also on the line.
Contact Nadia Cho at [email protected].
Follow her on Twitter @nadiiacho.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
Besides the moral stance against abortion:
There is, aside from cutting costs allocated to abortions and “free” contraception, a very basic economic argument against abortions. This is for you Keynesian economists; or for that matter, anybody who has taken a basic economics class.
Long Run Aggregate Supply, a.k.a. the potential of an economy, is measured by three factors: Capital, Technology, and Labor (the workforce). Abortions kill potential workers. Thus, the potential of an economy grows slower as more abortions are being committed. Ceterus paribus, more workers = more people to tax, thus increasing Gov. Revenue. Yay for everyone.
Educate the people who are having recreational sex. Let them know that there is a price tag on everything, and the tag on a baby is a huge one. Let the people be responsible for their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness; do not let the government be society’s rotting crutch.
It’s hard for “anyone” to have children in this society? Wrong. It’s very difficult for anyone paying their own bills. What used to be the middle class can’t really afford to reproduce itself. However, illegal immigrants get free health care with no obligations whatsoever. Take a look at the demographics in this state. Whoosh, there went the tax base!
“It is a choice that belongs to women, because we are the ones who carry the child in our own bodies. It’s safe to say that pregnancy affects women more directly than men. So why are women being denied their reproductive choices?” The only reason women are being denied their reproductive choices is because we don’t know when life starts. You wrote about about carrying a child, and a society that has any claim to being humane or human shouldn’t advocate killing children.
Nadia brings up economic reasons for abortion. How do so many in Berkeley care about the poor and homeless on one hand, but say that the poor would be better of dead when it comes to abortion? The truth is the poor and abused prefer to live, how can anyone argue that we should kill children who might end up poor or abused? The choice to live is a right for each person.
Are you backing away from confessional sex-columnist?
I would say I can’t believe the bigotry, ignorance and generally stupidity in the responses to this column, but as we all know, the dumbest fanatics are unfortunately often the loudest. Fucking trolls. Great column Nadia.
Worst SOT columnist ever.
Why am I supposed to pay for this slut’s birth control?
For the same reason you buy battleships. You do buy them, right, when you are buying Nadia an abortion.
Battleships protect Americans, while abortions kill Americans.
What about the baby whose skull is being punctured and brain sucked out with a vacuum tube? What choice does he have, Nadia?
You are the ultimate selfish *****
don’t we all chose our parents?
Imagine if you were not planned and your parents had access to free abortions…
Then I wouldn’t be here and your point would be, what? Humans make life and death choices all the time. Do you think it really makes a difference to a blastocyst?
It made a difference to Steve Jobs. And Steve Jobs made a difference in many peoples’ lives.
I wonder how many of the 50 million+ abortions killed the other “Steve Jobs.”
Wow. You’re a terrible writer.
And you’re a terrible troll. Nadia is brilliant.
great writer, irresponsible views.
abortion is first degree murder
if you say so
This is the best Sex on Tuesday column I’ve read so far.
When will people understand that birth control is a medical expense and a contraceptive method used by many, many women who engage in widely varying levels of sexual activity? Not to mention that it’s also used to treat other serious medical conditions.
You forgot to mention that “birth control” is another term for infanticide, depending on when you believe human life begins. Is infanticide an appropriate contraceptive method for recreational sex?
Healthy eating is a medical expense. Please pay for my food.
Of course, if insurance DID pay for your food, you can count on the vegan crowd protesting your food choice if it’s anything more than tofu and green veggies. What’s funny is how the same right that will demand their “right” to taxpayer-funded abortions will readily protest anything that doesn’t meet their own approval.
All we are sayin’
Is give peas a chance
Ever heard of food stamps? Their use is restricted to nominally-nutritious items (although arguably not sufficiently so).
“Being able to have sex for fun is a privilege that is made accessible by having knowledge, resources and choices”
Sex is fun, let’s agree on that. We know you like your fun, and despite your recent lesbian adventures you still enjoy sex with men. Sex is not a trouble-free sport though. Like rock climbing or base jumping there are some risks. Carabiners can break, parachutes may fail, and condoms can slip. One of those risks is that a human baby might have to be killed for you to enjoy sex. You only mentioned your rights yet curiously never mentioned your baby’s rights. You don’t break your own legs, you suck your baby through a machine so you can continue to have recreational sex. I’m a conservative but I fully support your choice to have recreational sex with any man or woman you want while you use whatever pre-conception contraceptives you want. However, you must take responsibility for your actions too, which means not killing a human life after an accident. After all, how do you un-break a leg after skydiving? Even if you do wish to kill a human life, you ought to do so through your own health “care” funds and not expect society to pick up the costs.
My suggestion to you is to stick to lesbian sex or oral sex for now. Celibacy is definitely out of the question for a vibrant young lady like yourself. Wait until you find a financially secure committed boyfriend before engaging in coitus so that if you get pregnant, you won’t get an abortion based on financial desperation. “Dr. and Mrs. John Kim, M.D.” has a nice ring to it.
When do fetuses become human? This is a classic example of assuming what must be proved.
Wrong. When it comes to life, the burden of proof has to be on proving the person isn’t alive.
The fallacy is called begging the question; it’s similar to tautology. What males me think this will float over your head, lightweight? By the way, the burden of proof is in defining the word, life. Do your homework, and then mouth-off.
We could just use the same measures to prove life that are used in medicine. Then there isn’t any worry about hurting the fragile egos of the philosophers.
All this from the same geriatric hippie who thinks he’s a “journalist” because he “reports” on the FTP protesters and other non-entities in the greater scheme of things.
the only reason I wrote (published, in what you will call a second-rate publication) about FTP was they came to Berkeley reportedly to tear it up. That’s what the cops thought when they diverted an officer, who could have saved the life of Peter M. Cukor that night.
Trying to show off some rhetoric? You didn’t quite pull it off. I_h8_disqus never assumed the living fetus has life, he used “life” as a topic of debate. He left it to you to prove that the fetus does not have a human life. That is not proving a negative, it is proving a state of existence. And the burden of proof is on you and all pro-abortion proponents because you are affirming an action that could be tantamount to murder.
Fetuses are human. Perhaps not a human being yet, but definitely a human fetus. Your question should be when do fetuses assume the rights of human beings? I don’t know, do you? If you don’t know, don’t kill him or her until you find out. Your problem is you assume a fetus is NOT a human being without proving it. In fact, since abortions are legal up to the third trimester, why don’t you prove a 9-month old human fetus is not a human being? Until you can prove it, why don’t we err on the side of caution and not kill him or her?
Your reproductive choices are not being ruled upon. Your responsibility for your reproductive choices is being ruled upon.
shut up
The Affordable Care Act does not provide free birth control. It provides birth control with no co-pay. There is a huge difference. If you have insurance, you’re ALREADY paying for it. The government isn’t handing out birth control to anyone who asks nicely, it’s just making it easier for people who already pay insurance companies to access the services their plan covers.
The whole “pay fer yer own damn birth control, taxpayer money!!!!!!!” argument is bullshit. What about MY taxpayer money? I pay taxes too, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to expect that some of the money I send back to the government goes towards things that affect my life. And what, is this your first time disagreeing with something your tax money supports? Having tax dollars fund things you don’t necessarily agree with is part of paying taxes. Get used to it.
“The whole “pay fer yer own damn birth control, taxpayer money!!!!!!!” argument is bullshit.”
How’s that? If you’re old enough to have sex, you’re old enough to act like a responsible adult. Otherwise, you’re a child, and the rest of us grownups don’t need to subsidize your activities.
I don’t understand what birth control has to do with being a “child” vs. being a “responsible adult.” One could argue that it’s more responsible to engage in safe sex using birth control and/or other contraceptive methods–and less expensive for taxpayers who might end up subsidizing the costs of unintended pregnancy. Another part of the issue is that men do not bear the cost of oral contraceptives; denying coverage of this medical expense to women is discriminatory and old-fashioned.
> I don’t understand what birth control has to do with
> being a “child” vs. being a “responsible adult.”
Then you’re too young and/or immature to be having sexual relationships in the first place.
these right-wingers would consider free-samples outside a restaurant on the
ave–a subsidy
Thanks for reminding us that you have nothing to contribute to the discussion as usual.
Great read Nadia! Don’t trip on the bunch of idiots. We already know their sex life isn’t as exciting. Keep writing, don’t dwell on the negativity. Trolls.
And we all know how you must impress the ladies when you’re such a loser that you have to depend on the government to buy your own birth control. But then again, I’m sure the women who would spread their legs for you are simply using you as a tool to get their Section 8 and WIC, right? You must be so proud of yourself.
Do students even know about Sect. 8?
College students hope to never find out. If Obama were re-elected though then every young American will become familiar with it.
Cutting babies into tiny pieces sure sounds like your kind of excitement.
Hmm, looks like Nadia has a bit of a dilemma. She really likes sex, but she can’t hook up with a responsible male. Here’s a suggesting for you, girl: ditch the little boys and seek a more upscale demographic. If you can work on the hair and makeup a bit, I am sure that there are plenty of older, affluent, more professional males who can not only cover the cost of your birth control for you, but help you out with college and provide a little spending money on the side, you know what I’m saying?
This is what Nadia will be doing in the not-too-distant future:
Sex Workers and Human Rights in the Bay Area: “Redefining Sex Work”
Jolene Parton is a ho. She’s also a Berkeley native, a comic-book fanatic, a Dolly Parton aficionado (hence the name, which is fake).
And she’s been working in the sex industry, broadly defined, for about four years, first doing odd jobs at what she describes as the “entry-level” end of the sex-work spectrum — foot fetish stuff, artsy nude photography, one night during which she “cuddled with a guy in his apartment for money” — and then in porn and at various peepshows and strip clubs; a bit over a year ago, she started escorting. And when she says she loves her job — which she does, often and unbidden — she does so with the kind of steady-eyed enthusiasm that’s hard to fake.”It’s been great, honestly,” she told me a couple weeks ago at an Oakland Chinatown lunch spot, steam rising from the vermicelli bowl in front of her and fogging her lenses. She genuinely likes her clients, or at least as much as anyone can be expected to like the people they work with, and she appreciates the freedom of being able to set her own hours: “I don’t have an alarm clock,” she said. “I make breakfast every morning, I get to hang out with my friends whenever I want. This job affords me a lifestyle most people don’t get.”
http://northbayuprising.blogspot.com/2012/10/sex-workers-and-human-rights-in-bay-area.html
Great. Try to contact Berkeley’s (Sweetheart of Porn), Nina Hartley. She’s been in the biz for years, and pioneered your sex-positive attitude, 35 years ago. She’s done hundreds of porn flicks.
OMG; can he proposition SOT. SOT, could this be your next column…please!
I don’t read Sex On Tuesday for regurgitated political and ethical issues. I don’t read SOT for botched abortion methods. I barely finished reading this abomination of SEX ON TUESDAY. You say you enjoy having sex; enjoy some this weekend and fill us in. I have nothing against the advocation of women’s rights, keep it on your blog. Your agenda violates me every Tuesday. Do us all a huge favor and read last years SOT column.
Last year’s would be hard to top, and every sex-columnist is different. SOT, will bounce back, I’m sure
“Having a child when you are a teen, a college student or simply a young
woman generally means becoming economically dependent on others while
looking for low-wage work with possibly limited skills.”
Maybe that’s a good reason not to sleep around, or at least have the common sense to pick boyfriend who’s man enough to walk into a pharmacy and buy condoms on his own, instead of expecting the taxpayers to pick up the tab. What is it with your generation that will let any irresponsible man-child in your panties? I
could the trouble with her generation be that they have free access to birth-control, and abortion, as a last resort
They have plenty of access to that already. They just don’t want to have to pay for it, and feel entitled to force others to pay the bill over their personal moral or philosophical convictions.
Why can’t you pay for your own birth control or abortions, instead of forcing others to do it for you? Problem solved right there.
Why is it OK for insurance to cover the costs of pregnancy but not the costs of preventing pregnancy?
Because they are private companies offering you a contract, which you voluntarily agree to when you purchase insurance from them.
D*** that free enterprise and personal liberty stuff. Let’s just let the government control everything!!
The part you neglect to mention is that the entire health care system is set up for the profit and convenience of those private companies, and that only the extremely wealthy can even consider managing their health care on some basis that does not involve becoming a customer of those companies.
Those private companies are dictating the terms of treatment. Physicians and nurses effectively work for them now, and they call the shots in hospitals as well. Call me fussy, but I would prefer to have my treatment decided by my doctor, and not by an actuary somewhere in the organizational web of an insurance company.
Hi, Stan:
Why don’t you buy your own stop-signs?
Why don’t you go back to covering those FTP rallies that are the highlight of your pathetic wasted life?