R U 4 Choice? (sorry, I had to)

It is the 26th anniversary of the Morgentaler decision. As always we should celebrate this milestone, but only for what it is; a milestone, not the journey's end. Just because abortion is legal in Canada does not mean any person can have one at the drop of a hat, or at all. Rich white people have always been able to get the health care they need; choice means nothing without access.

Health Canada has spent over a year considering whether or not RU-486 (mifepristone) should be available in Canada. RU-486 would allow people to have medical, as opposed to surgical, abortions, which require significantly less trouble for patients and doctors alike.

In many places across the country, access to surgical abortion is severely limited (to non-existent), and as always it is marginalized populations who suffer the consequences. Rural communities, folks who cannot afford to travel long distances, folks who cannot take time from work, etc. Abortion providers, too, are over-worked and clinics are often under-staffed, and still waiting lists build up. Being able to have an abortion in one's own home, in a less intrusive fashion, would make a huge difference to so many people.

Consider undocumented agricultural workers, some of whom are fired and consequentially deported if they become pregnant. Taking a day off to drive to the nearest urban centre for an abortion can be an insurmountable obstacle; a medical abortion could really change that.

I don't think RU-486 being available in Canada will really turn anything on its head on a national level, or make a dent in the overall attitude of the federal or provincial governments regarding bodily autonomy. But on an individual level it could change lives. It is harm reduction. There is no reason for Health Canada to continue sitting on something that is already being used safely in several other countries, and I hope they run out of excuses soon.

Fuck. This.

So I just read the This Magazine cover story "No Choice: Why the pro-choice movement won't let women grieve after abortion" and...well. I have thoughts.

First of all, in the interests of full disclosure, I was interviewed by the author, Rebecca Melnyk, at the start of her research for this article or what I imagine would become this article. Never have I been happier to avoid being quoted; I can't imagine being associated with this mess. When Melnyk reached out to me she identified herself first and foremost as strongly pro-choice. She probably still does. I'm sure she didn't choose the title of the article. But holy hell, what is going on here?

It seems to me that the premise is that both "sides" of the abortion "debate" only offer post-abortive people counselling in a politicized environment with some kind of agenda, and that the pro-choice side is routinely dismissive of the range of feelings someone might have after having an abortion. At no point does Melnyk quote a pro-choicer who backs up this assertion; on the contrary, every pro-choice person she mentions points out that folks feel any of a variety of different emotions after abortion and that they should have access to counselling:

That same month, on a warm afternoon in Toronto Miriam McDonald, an editor at the Marxist newspaper Spartacist Canada, struts up and down a hallway at the Ontario Institute of Secondary Education at an International Women’s day rally. “Abortion is just a medical procedure like getting a wart off, except it’s all politicized,” she says. “A woman’s capacity to control her fertility opens the doors to full equality. That’s why it’s … stigmatized.” Another woman standing next to her in a baseball cap, handing out newspapers, says post-abortive women need counselling, not to overcome negative feelings related to abortion, but rather, to cope with society’s stigma and culture of shame.

And:

Some women may need counselling services before or after they have an abortion, says Joyce Arthur, executive director of the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC). She does not believe, however, that PAS is real. “It’s like the anti-choice movement works in its own bubble,” she says, “making up it’s own science and ignoring mainstream evidence and consensus.” The result, she adds, is confusion—public misinformation that scares women considering abortion. In Arthur’s mind, the act of abortion continues to be blamed for the source of trauma when, in reality, the unwanted pregnancy is often what’s truly traumatic. It’s not to say women don’t experience negative effects, she adds, just that it’s more complex than the anti-abortion activists portray.

And:

Over in Vancouver, Everywoman’s Health Centre is an abortion clinic that provides free, non-judgmental counselling services and resources like the book, Peace After Abortion. Erin Mullan, who’s been a counsellor for over 20 years, works there. “When it comes to abortion, nothing is in the range of normal,” she says. “A woman’s culture, her religion or history, could all inform how she’ll feel.” For the small number of women she refers out to other counsellors who offer long-term support, abortion is not the main cause of negative feelings, but rather, “it opens a door of pain.” That door can reveal bad relationships, abuse, or mental depression. Mullan points out that coercion—if a woman’s been forced to have an abortion—accounts for one third of the problems she treats. “It can sit unfinished, inside of her for years,” she says, “if she wasn’t given the space to make choices.” At this clinic, the acknowledgment that abortion can be intimately connected to negative feelings serves no greater purpose than a woman’s well-being.

And then Melnyk goes on to describe how many other abortion clinics across the country offer both pre- and post-abortion counselling, usually for free, along with referrals for follow-up counselling with specialists. At no point in the article is there any indication that pro-choicers "won't let women grieve after abortion".

My feeling is that the thrust of the article, the point that Melnyk is trying to make is that the options for counselling after an abortion are either shaming, Christian, anti-abortion drivel or militant pro-choice propaganda, that there is no option for folks just looking for non-judgemental counselling. Which is a load of bullshit not even borne out by her research. Yes there is a lack of accessible post-abortion therapy because there is a lack of accessible any therapy - ask any low income person with a mental health issue how easy it is to get in to see a counsellor. But the idea of a lack of non-judgemental post-abortion counselling is especially heinous when the article itself talks about the many clinics that offer it. "Pro-choice" IS "non-judgemental" - no abortion clinic counsellor worth their salt is going to judge you for feeling guilt or regret after your abortion. That's what counselling is about. That's why it makes a difference that the counsellors in abortion clinics are trained specifically in non-judgemental pre- and post-abortive counselling and the people in "crisis pregnancy centres" are just random volunteers trained only in making people feel like shit - like they have something to "repent" for - because they had an abortion.

There is a disturbing amount of false equivalence being thrown around in this article.

It just really pisses me off because pro-choice organizations in this country - including abortion clinics, sexual health centres, and organizations like ARCC, NAF, Canadians for Choice, and CFSH, among others - deliberately provide listings of non-judgemental counselling options on request, and often go to great lengths to ensure that people find the care they need regardless of pregnancy outcome. All of these organizations are explicit about not favouring any pregnancy outcome over others, and the number one concern is getting folks the care they want and need in the safest and most accessible way possible.

There is no neutral on abortion, really there isn't. Not the way it's framed right now. Either you believe it shouldn't be allowed, or you believe it should. There is no magical third party who are the only people who can provide non-judgemental counselling. If you believe people have the right to choose how to handle an unwanted pregnancy - if you are pro-choice - then that belief extends to how people feel after their abortion. Anyone providing actual non-judgemental counselling is pro-choice by definition.

I think Melnyk knows this, but I don't know how to explain this mess of an article. I think she is (rightfully) concerned for folks - like her - who have had abortions and haven't received the support that they need. And that is legitimate. But the solution there has to be more support and funding for pro-choice, sex-positive, woman-positive counselling services; fighting against abortion stigma; advocating for reproductive and sexual health services in underserved areas - not bizarre magazine articles attacking the pro-choice movement for imagined slights, for not "letting" women grieve. Women can do what they damn well please - isn't that the whole point?

***

ETA: A great take-down of the article at DAMMIT JANET! by fern hill.