Reproductive Apocalypse in a Post-Roe World? Hirshman in the Washington Post Today.

Linda Hirshman paints a grim picture of a post-Roe V. Wade United States in this morning's Washington Post. When we examined Linda Hirshman's Get to Work last year during our Feminism in Hardcover series, one of our critiques involved what was either an oversight or overt lack of sympathy for the non-professional caste of women. Hirshman vehemently argues that educated and professional women in the U.S. have a responsibility to stay in the workforce. She does not touch the issue of the implications of this on women of the working and lower middle-classes who inevitably are left to do the jobs commodified when this occurs. Her treatment of the abortion issue is a little more inclusive, outlining just how bad it could be for all women in the event of Roe's repeal. However, she still fails to acknowledge that it will be the same women she disavows in Get to Work that will suffer the most from these effects. It will be these women who will not be able to afford the trips out-of-state to places like California and New York, states that will resist anti-abortion legislation. It will be these women who will be forced to resort to back-alley varieties of the procedure and suffer countless health problems and even death as a result. The women you write for, Linda, will book flights to places that still offer abortions. And even if back-alley becomes the only alley, they would be the ones able to afford the high cost of the more credible black-market D&C's.

So yes -- it would royally suck if Roe is ever repealed. Not only would we see our reproductive rights washed down the proverbial tubes, but women's constitutional rights would be so greatly set back that we'd be operating from a position equivalent to the Dark Ages of the 21st Century. There's a lot more riding on Roe V. Wade than just our option to have abortions. So I both get and appreciate Hirshman's message: as feminists we have a pronounced responsibility to prevent that from happening by making informed decisions and taking action in the face of a growing pro-life movement. And I think it's intensely positive that the Post is getting feminists, even controversial and potentially conservative ones, to address these issues. Maureen Dowd can't be the only voice on Sunday mornings to offer a feminist perspective. But I also think it's important to at least open the door to the other issues buttoned up in the pro-choice discussion. Who's really going to be on the losing end of a no-Roe U.S.?

-- Andrea