Lately we've heard a lot about "single issue voters," a phrase directed as epithet against women arguing to protect reproductive rights. For some progressives and liberals, reproductive rights simply are not a priority. Some argue that women should STFU about our "pet causes" and let the boys take care of things. [No, they don't use such gendered language (usually), but the meaning is clear.]

As rationale, some have even tried to argue that a "pro-life" Democrat will support reproductive rights, because the Democratic Party in general has historically supported reproductive rights. But thanks to bayprairie, who has named names, we can see that this simply is not true.

On Our Word, bayprairie has spent many hours researching Democratic support of TRAP law HR 748. She's also started a thread for comments listing other TRAP laws.

If the TRAP acronym is new to you, here's a little background on TRAP laws: "The Quiet War on Abortion"

One of the most popular methods has been through laws that pro-choice advocates call Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers (TRAP). Pioneered in the mid-1990s by South Carolina and Mississippi, the laws apply licensing requirements specifically to abortion clinics, but not to other facilities that perform similar or riskier procedures. The laws vary from state to state, but often include building regulations that specify ceiling heights, hallway and doorway widths, counseling-room dimensions, air-circulation rates, outdoor weed-control practices, and separate changing rooms for men. Some require the purchase of expensive supplies not normally used in clinics, such as general anesthesia equipment. Others mandate staffing levels above those usually needed for first-trimester abortions. Missouri, for example, requires a registered nurse on staff when most clinics rely on less-expensive licensed practical nurses.

TRAP law supporters, who have been successful in 16 states, insist they are simply trying to legislate good medical practice. "Look, I'd love it if the Supreme Court would overturn Roe v. Wade," says Mike Johnson, a Baton Rouge attorney who has helped draft Louisiana's anti-abortion legislation. "That would be the greatest day of my life. But until we can do that, I accept the fact that they can perform abortions legally, and I just want them to do it under the same health and safety standards that any other medical professional has to adhere to."

The problem, say opponents, is that the regulations go well beyond what other health care providers must follow, while doing little or nothing to improve the outcome of an already safe procedure. "I can say with confidence that these regulations will not have a single positive impact on women's health," says David Grimes, the former chief of the cdc branch that monitors abortion safety. "Having published on every hemorrhaged abortion death in the United States, I can assure you that not a single one was caused by a door width." Grimes calls TRAP laws the "antithesis" of good medical policy. "In public health," he says, "we identify a problem, figure out the causes, look for solutions, and implement them. Here we see a vigorous response in the absence of a problem. It's science run amok. It's public health run backwards."

The real motive for TRAP laws, say Grimes and others, is to force clinics to spend money on costly renovations for fear of being shut down by the state. This drives up the cost of abortions, placing them out of reach of some women. It could even force providers to shut down entirely. In 1999, physician William Lynn shuttered his small clinic in Beaufort, South Carolina, saying he could not afford renovations to bring the historic building with narrow hallways into compliance with the state's new clinic regulations.

These TRAP laws, in the current conservative court climate, have eroded women's rights over their own bodies. If Roe is struck down, not only will these laws flourish, but state laws already on the books will immediately criminalize women's attempts to claim sovereignty over their own reproductive organs.

Dem supporters like to claim that the Democratic Party supports reproductive rights. But look at the list of shame. (Note that while there are African Americans and Hispanics pictured, they are all men. I offer no comment beyond noting the fact.)

To be fair, many progressives and liberals have woken up and smelled the coffee, realizing that reproductive rights are at the very core of personal liberty, and if reproductive rights are sacrificed to government control on the altar of Democratic Party political gains, the Democrats would be complicit in the most pernicious violation of individual freedom since racial slavery.

Yet a lot of people like to avoid the whole issue as too unpleasant, too "icky," too controversial. But avoiding thinking about it -- and certainly avoiding engaging the issue politically -- are just not going to make it go away. Avoiding the issue constitutes surrender. Do we want to surrender reproductive rights?

Consider: If women's reproductive rights are struck down, that means:

1. The state can prevent a woman from aborting a pregnancy, and that means
2. The state, by the same precedent, can force a woman to abort a pregnancy, and that means
3. The state, by the same precedent, can force sterilization of certain women (in the interest of the state, of course), and that means
4. The state, by the same precedent, can force castration of certain men (in the interest of the state, of course), and that means
5. The state controls all human reproduction -- i.e., state-run human breeding programs, and that means
6. Women will become breeder slaves of the state, and men will become studs owned by the state.

Is this really where we want to go out of electoral convenience? A vast majority of Americans support reproductive rights. Isn't it about time to stand up for that?

About author

media girl also blogs at other places.