state control of abortion: funding, or failing to provide?

I am genuinely confused by this recent Feministe post, Michele Bachmann: radical pro-choice feminist?

The author offers two pieces of information that she seems to believe are contradictory.

1. A quote by Michele Bachmann:

“That’s why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress, and let them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions.

2. A video of Michele Bachmann speaking. Basically, she calls for the government to quit funding Planned Parenthood, which provides alot of abortions.

Now, I understand how this is a weird picture if you add a further piece of information:

3. Michele Bachmann is quite radically pro-choice (and that is why she wants Planned Parenthood defunded)

But in the absence of 3, there is no contradiction, and so I don’t really understand the shock value of the original post as presented.

I guess it comes down to this:

If you oppose state control of health care (and thereby abortion), and you think that “control” consists in, or is promoted by, many-strings-attached state funding, then definitely retracting federal funding from Planned Parenthood is the right thing to do.

But I can only assume from the post that the Feministe author thinks that state control of health care amounts to the state refusing to help provide those services promoting reproductive choice for women – i.e., abortion. (Remember, the Bachmann speech wasn’t about outlawing abortion, even if she actually wants to, but merely about defunding it).

Which seems like a better way of understanding “state control of health care/abortion” to you? Or am I totally missing something here?

Edited to add: A very similar story also appeared over at Feministing.  Someone, please explain this to me? I don’t get it.

No Comments

Leave a Reply