- Important: All passwords were reset on 06/15/11. Old passwords will no longer work. Click here to retrieve your password.
- Subscribe to Our Free Dewsletter
We are non-commercial, all volunteer and supported by our readers. Please help sustain the Dew by making a donation.
How Abortion Restrictions Always Assume That Women Are Bad People
After the Arkansas legislature overrode Gov. Mike Beebe’s not only pro-woman but also pro-taxpayer veto of an unconstitutional abortion ban the state will spend millions to defend, I speculated at Slate’s XX Factor about why the legislature thought that around 12 weeks was a good cutoff point for an abortion ban:
One reason that anti-choice legislators likely went with a ban at 12 weeks is that it’s an easier sell to the public than more aggressive bans. Eighty-eight percent of abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, making it easy to lull the public into thinking this is no big deal. It’s simple enough for moderates to convince themselves that women who have abortions later in their pregnancies do so because they’re fickle, foolish, or lazy.
This speculation was born from years of doing this work and hearing every excuse people make for supporting restrictions on abortions that fall short of outright bans. Despite all the focus on fetal life, by and large the support for abortion restrictions comes from internalized misogyny that’s hard to avoid in a culture that rags on women non-stop for roughly everything that they do. Subsequently, most ordinary people focus on assuming the worst of women who have abortions—the trifecta of believing women are “fickle, foolish, or lazy”—and see restrictions as a way to make sure women who are getting abortions for the “wrong” reasons don’t get them. With this in mind, I figured it was just a matter of time before the implicit argument of this ban—that a woman who “waits” 12 weeks is lazy and deserves what’s coming to her—would be made explicit by a legislator defending the law.
And just like clockwork, here’s state Rep. Ann Clemmer (R), defending the ban on those grounds:
I really believe that we are not eliminating choice at all. We’re just saying after 12 weeks, the choice is over. You have a choice for the first 12 weeks. That’s almost three months. We’re talking the second trimester here — we’re talking about second trimester. abortions.
In fact, the second trimester is generally considered to start around 14 weeks of gestation.
She also denied that abortion “aids a woman’s health,” invoking the magical powers of anti-choicers all believe they have, the ability to determine a patient’s needs better than her doctor without examining the patient, talking to her, or even knowing her name. Lots of invoking the word “believe,” because for anti-choicers, what you “believe” trumps what women and their doctors actually know about women’s lives and health care needs. You can watch it here:
While Clemmer doesn’t say it directly, it’s clear that she’s using people’s negative stereotypes about women who have abortions to garner support for the ban. She emphasizes “three months” (in reality, for the average woman, it’s closer to two months between discovering a pregnancy/choosing to abort and the 12 week mark) in a deliberate attempt to invoke an image of some dumb lady who dithers around for months before getting around to that abortion. She wants you to think that women “like that” don’t deserve full reproductive rights.
In reality, as I noted at XX Factor, women get abortions after 12 weeks not because they are bad people, but because circumstances make it hard for them to get the abortions sooner. They don’t have the money or time earlier in the pregnancy. They didn’t know they were pregnant. They are young and don’t know much about how their bodies work. They’re traumatized and are in denial. All these sorts of things are situational reasons, and not the result of a woman having poor character.
Psychologists have a term for the kind of mistake that Clemmer is making here: the fundamental attribution error. Definition: Overestimating a person’s personality/values/character and underestimating a person’s circumstances as the explanation for their behavior. I like this example of how it works:
Imagine this situation, you are at school and someone you know comes by, you say hello, and this person just gives you a quick, unfriendly “hello” and then walks away. How would you attribute this situation — why did this person act this way? If you react to this situation by saying the person is a “jerk” or an “ass,” then you have made the fundamental attribution error; the tendency for an observer, when interpreting and explaining the behavior of another person (the actor), to underestimate the situation and to overestimate the personal disposition. Maybe the person was having the worst day of their life, just found out a loved one died, failed a test and was feeling devastated, etc.
This cognitive bias was brilliantly observed in the 18th century by Jane Austen in her book Pride and Prejudice, where a couple has to overcome their first, erroneous impressions of each other in order to fall in love. (That plot then became the basis for an entire sub-genre of romantic comedies.) Clemmer is relying on this tendency in making her point. She hopes that by emphasizing how long 12 weeks is, the audience will fall back on the fundamental attribution error and think the choice to wait is the result of stupidity or laziness, instead of the result of having a really bad time getting to the doctor any sooner.
This bias is all over the discourse about abortion. The right routinely wants to make abortion a matter of a woman’s character, when in nearly all cases, not only is the choice to have an abortion but also the choice of when and how a matter of a woman’s circumstances. (Really, the fundamental attribution error is a popular one amongst right wingers on all sorts of issues, not just abortion.) Unfortunately, sexism creates a situation where many to most people are trained to assume the worst of a woman based on the slightest of evidence, making this tendency to believe you can predict a woman’s character based on if, when, and how she got an abortion even worse.
This is why the anti-choice movement’s strategy to try to convince people they’re looking out for women’s best interests is such a laugh. You can’t look out for people while assuming the worst of them at every turn. All they’re doing is exploiting and reinforcing nasty stereotypes about women while restricting women’s rights. Nothing “pro-life,” much less “pro-woman,” about that.
- Editor's Note: This story originally posted at RH Reality Check and is posted here under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License. Like this story? Your $10 contribution to RH Reality Check helps support their research, writing, and analysis.
Worthy of Comment
Also on the Dew
I knew I liked him early on by the way he told a joke. He had timing and delivery and the punch line was not telegraphed. Whenever I get off my mountain, I’m alert to serendipitous opportunities to meet such people and to get a peek into their lives. So on a recent trip to Atlanta for a couple of woodworking classes, I had the pleasure of spending a few nights with a dear friend in Asheville, one of the world’s finest and most civilized of cities. My friend is also a fine lady and like her adopted city, most civ Read on →
But the sacred is something that Liberal America, by and large, has not been tapping into. That was not always true. One can sense the sacred in the words of FDR, for example, engraved in the granite in that memorial on the National Mall. (And FDR was not shy about going toe to toe against his enemies, whether it be to help make the nation a better place or to stop the predations of the fascist powers against much of the world.) That was then. But if one listens to the voice of Liberal America in these times, one does not get Read on →
How did it come to this? How did our political life in America get to be so drenched in hostility? While reading an article about how “anti-environmentalists” are spending thousands of dollars to alter their vehicles to increase the smoke they produce, I came across this statement from one of that group, who call themselves “coal rollers”: “If [Obama’s] into the environment, if he’s into this or that, we’re not.” And it’s not just the president they’re hostile to, it’s also those Prius-driving “librels” who, according to the article, might be specially targeted with a blast of smoke and soot. How did “if they’re for it, I’m agi Read on →
One night about three years ago when Jake was five, I was settling him to sleep with a book about Chicken Licken. I hadn’t met her before but Jake knew her well. When we got to the end of the book and he asked for another story, I was too tired to fetch another book, and didn’t want to disturb his sleepy state, so I made up a variation on this theme. We lay with our eyes closed, imagining. Taking the character’s name in vain, we casually began to invent life situations and adventures for Chicken Licken. “Chicken Licken goes to school” Read on →