Aborting the Past

The Internet Provides an Abortion Manual for Rogue Clinics

Perhaps the most recent and distressing news in domestic affairs has been South Dakota's abortion bill, which passed the state's Senate this past Wednesday in a 23-12 vote. The bill has yet to return to the House to account for changes made by the Senate. From there it will be delivered into the hands of South Dakota's Governor Mike Rounds for signing or a veto. Political projections indicate an easy passage.

The bill makes it illegal to perform an abortion, except to save the life of the mother.

The bill has filled a contentious role in the abortion debate. Supporters of the bill hope to challenge the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, galvanized by the recent additions of conservative Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Pro-choice groups, such as South Dakota's Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice, have already vowed to take the bill to court if passed. Skeptics from both sides of the debate doubt whether this specific bill has the legal power to overturn both Roe and a later 1992 Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

While the bill is certainly newsworthy, the abortion debate is un-refreshing and tiresome. Defining the conception of life has many scientific answers, but the battle has sparked a ridiculous fight for absolutes. Additionally, ranking the rights of a woman over a fetus (and vice-versa) becomes cyclical and is easily weighed down by prejudices. These issues pose questions that politics cannot answer. It will surely be interesting to hear what the court decides, or how it will argue its position, but I am cynically prepared for recycled and unmotivating rhetoric.

What is interesting is that this scare has provoked a new, and until now, unheard response. The Blog "Molly Saves the Day" has written an Abortion Manual for those interested in setting up rogue clinics in the absence of a doctor:

In the 1960s and early 1970s, when abortions were illegal in many places and expensive to get, an organization called Jane stepped up to the plate in the Chicago area. Jane initially hired an abortion doctor, but later they did the abortions themselves. They lost only one patient in 13,000 -- a lower death rate than that of giving live birth. The biggest obstacle they had, though, was the fact that until years into the operation, they thought of abortion as something only a doctor could do, something only the most trained specialist could perform without endangering the life of the woman.

They were deceived -- much like you have probably been deceived. An abortion, especially for an early pregnancy, is a relatively easy procedure to perform. And while I know, women of South Dakota, that you never asked for this, now is the time to learn how it is done. There is no reason you should be beholden to doctors -- especially in a state where doctors have been refusing to perform them, forcing the state's only abortion clinic to fly doctors in from elsewhere.

Notably, the blogsphere has once more challenged the nature of information and the (potential) legality of its accessibility. The New York Times Op-Ed writer Nicholas Kristof wrote a compelling opinion piece on how terrorist organizations are mobilizing via Internet, circulating hefty amounts of violent "how-to" information. Now it is possible for the average Internet viewer to learn how to make a suicide-bomb vest or to perform an abortion without a doctor. This is a reality that serves "good" and "evil" purposes, depending on the person you ask. We need to think more broadly when analyzing information's availability, because it prompts a more intelligent discussion on censorship and monitoring. More generally, the accessibility of information undermines the influence and utility of traditional informational sources. Molly Saves The Day probes this role while also potentially shifting the abortion debate in new directions. Information which was originally kept furtively underground before federally legalized abortion may now circulate with much more ease and peer-editorialship (note the comments following Molly's post).

Furthermore, this confronts our generation with an issue we have not given much thought, much to what I believe is our expense. The legality of abortion has allowed us to avoid uncomfortable "what-if" situations that earlier generations faced. It has also maintained our complacent apathy. When I say the debate is tiresome, it is because much of it has left Abortion Manuals like this one in the closet. How many of us have read Richard Brautigan's The Abortion? While I honestly hope that no one is put in a situation that requires such action, it is important to be starkly reminded both of the future we face and the past we left behind.