Comments Invited on Preliminary Policy Statement drafted by CAR

New Council of Anthropology and Reproduction (CAR) Policy Statement on Safe Abortion Care

July 28, 2014

The Council on Anthropology and Reproduction (CAR) interest group within the Society for Medical Anthropology (SMA) seeks to ensure that anthropologists have a voice in public conversations about reproductive and sexual rights and health.

The CAR Advocacy Committee announces that a preliminary policy statement opposing legislative barriers to safe abortion care is now publicly available for comment on the SMA website. The statement’s primary goal is to highlight the rapid increase in legislation abortion access in the U.S., as well the ways in which these laws disproportionately affect low-income and minority women and communities.

This is just the first step of the process. All are invited to read the statement and to leave comments, ideas, and suggestions through August 29, 2014. Elise Andaya, co-chair of CAR’s Advocacy Committee can also be reached by email at elise.andaya@gmail.com.

Read the Statement Here.

 

One thought on “Comments Invited on Preliminary Policy Statement drafted by CAR

  1. Joel Reed says:

    The research and examples cited as evidence are one sided. For example, no literature is cited on the after effects of abortion and its impacts on families or women’s happiness. American religious rights are dismissed as unimportant, simultaneously, “beliefs” about personhood from foreign cultures (nonspecific) are supposed to be indicators of what is correct. Legislators, who represent people, are positioned as self-serving, while doctors, who run businesses, are positioned as champions of human rights even though some of them choose to take forceps and rip apart entities with heartbeats as they cling to their mother’s womb for the hope of life. There is no mention of the role of men, marriage, or other less deadly mechanisms for the care of an unborn child. The letter is a clear example of authoritarian secularism. It assumes that poor people can’t take care of themselves or their children, and are being “forced” to view sonograms, which is access to another diagnostic procedure that would be unavailable (due to cost) without legislation. Should we take away sonograms so that people can make a less informed decision? Please stop supporting the murder of minority babies through the selective support of partisan “experts” involved with the culture of death.

Comments are closed.