Pro-Politeness

Last week, the Harvard College Women’s Center hosted a screening and discussion of the 2005 film “Speak Out: I Had an Abortion.” The film introduces 11 women who have undergone abortions and who are diverse in age, race, class, ideology, and sexuality. The film means to present abortion as an issue that “affects all women,” and it hopes to slash the stigma associated with what is the most common elective surgery in the United States.

An estimated 1.3 million American women terminate pregnancies each year; roughly 43 percent of American women have had abortions before age 45. Yet although abortion is legal, the filmmakers believe it is “still so stigmatized that it’s never discussed in polite company.” “Speak Out: I Had an Abortion” aims to change that.

This cute little project is a bit reminiscent of angst-ridden teenagers who want nothing more than to enact societal change and to be part of a movement. Sadly, “Speak Out” has arrived on the scene a bit late. The statistics on abortion rates, which the filmmakers themselves agree upon, would suggest that this supposed “stigma” is not holding women back from having abortions. Talking personally about one’s abortion is not critical to the protection of abortion rights. A woman who wishes to speak out about her abortion has the right to do so, but there is no reason for this to be a centerpiece of the pro-choice movement.

Yet this battle cry is not a new one. A year ago, Ms. Magazine encouraged women to sign an online petition with tick-box “I have had an abortion.” The project was an extension of a 1972 petition that had launched the publication. In that petition, 53 well-known American women came out about the illegal abortions they had personally undergone. This was mere months before Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion in the United States. Still, last year Ms. promised to send the names of these women of 2006 to Washington to remind lawmakers of the importance of the movement—“to make politicians face their neighbors, influential movers and shakers, and yes, their family members.”

Even operating within a pro-choice view, there is no need for abortion to be excessively public. Not sharing your most recent abortion with your barista or with the woman who waxes your eyebrows or with the nice man who does your taxes does not mean that our culture is not tolerant of your right to have one. There are all sorts of things that are not cut out for public discussion. For example, the number of sexual partners you’ve had is not a kosher topic, nor is your past struggle with addiction. The lack of personal discussion of these topics in public arenas should not be mistaken for the stigmatization of personal experiences. Merely, public debate is most productive when it is not distracted by protracted anecdotes.

Still, there exists a perverse preoccupation with “sharing our stories” and “putting a face” on an issue. For proponents of the loud and proud pro-choice movement, this means discussion of abortion in political arenas cannot be effective without emotional narratives from women who’ve experienced abortion. Yet keeping what is personal private does not run counter to a movement. In fact, there is something contradictory about tying personally speaking out to ensuring abortion rights. When Roe v. Wade was handed down in the 70s, the legality of abortion was justified as part of an individual’s right to privacy (this is similar to the justification for a woman’s right to birth control). For years, pro-choice advocates rallied behind the idea that abortion was a private decision by a woman exercising dominion over her body. There is something odd about encouraging a woman who has exercised a private right to go public with it. This irony is apparently lost on the “Speak Out” movement.

What is most troubling is that this pro-choice movement of speaking out is not a push for women’s rights, but a push for sensationalism and shock-value. It stems, perhaps, from this curious impulse among champions of social liberalism to do everything in their power to make social conservatives uncomfortable. In the case of abortion, it is not enough that the procedure is legal—being amenable to discussion of abortion in every societal arena is also necessary. This impulse is no better than the most extreme conservatives who accuse abortion advocates of being murderers. It is exactly this sort of sensationalism that shows a lack of tolerance for belief. A bit of politeness never hurt anyone.

For a woman, the experience of abortion is a time when she should turn to her confidants for comfort. Taking a pass on crying out from the rooftops does not mean she is being stigmatized. It means simply that, like so many things, an abortion is something one may get through best privately. Politicizing personal experiences is the tacky and useless rhetoric of feeble minds.



Lucy M. Caldwell ’09 is a history and literature concentrator in Adams House. Her column appears on alternate Tuesdays.