Amy Richards is a role model

I'm puzzled by the outrage over Amy Richards' account of selective abortion, When One Is Enough. Pregnant with triplets, Richards elected to abort two fetuses and carry the third to term.

Hugo Schwyzer reports Crying With Rage over Richards' decision. Even the pro-choice Unf of Unfogged is appalled by Richards' story:

"I haven't suddenly concluded that life begins at conception, but I do start to think that motives ought to matter. And in particular, when you have the motives expressed in this article, you ought to be sent to jail."

I agree with PZ Myers and Kevin Drum who argue that there is nothing morally remarkable about Richards' decision. If you think elective abortion is ever morally permissible, then you should find nothing especially troubling about selective reduction. As far as I'm concerned, all that need be said is that Richards wanted one baby rather than three.

However, for those who argue that one needs some "better" reason to have an abortion, let's look a the facts of Richards' case. As a single mother, Richards felt that she could provide a good home for one kid but not for triplets. If you think it frivolous to balk at the costs of two extra babies, imagine the difficulty of securing childcare for three infants, or the expense of keeping them fed, clothed and diapered. Three college savings plans... So, Richards bravely chose to bear exactly the number of babies she wanted. If those aren't good reasons, I don't know what are.

Besides, Richards and her partner plan to have more children when they are ready. When spacing births by selective abortion means a better life for the mother and her entire family, we should celebrate the practice. (PZ Myers makes a similar point.)

Various bloggers argued that Richards had no good medical reason not to carry triplets(!). They are appallingly misinformed. Richards had no special risk factors, but triplet pregnancies are intrinsically high risk. Humans aren't really built for litters. Ninety percent of mutliple births are delivered prematurely, and therefore suffer increased risk of complication including lifelong disabilities. Over 50% of women carrying triplets suffer from preeclampsia, a treatable but potentially life threatening form of gestational hypertension. Th risk of hypertensive crisis may explain why Richards' doctor predicted that she would be confined to bed for almost half of her pregnancy . Incidentally, many fertility doctors consider higher-order multiple pregnancies to be a serious complication of fertility treatments and offer selective abortion as standard treatment option.

If anything Richards' frank account will help reduce the number of abortions. Many women don't realize that selective reduction is an option. Thanks to Richards, some women who would otherwise have terminated their entire pregnancies may choose to carry their preferred number of fetuses to term. For that, both pro-choice and pro-life activists should salute her.

EDIT: Click here to read my followup post.

Comments

[Ben]

There is nothing morally remarkable about this!?!! I'm sorry, but killing two babies because they are inconvenient is just plain wrong. My suggestion: if you favor abortion rights, this is not a winning battle for you to fight.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

This isn't a battle anymore, it's a fait accompli.

[Thad]

As Kevin Drum said on his site, the vast majority of abortions are performed not for heath reasons or in cases of rape, but because the woman simply doesn't want to have a baby. (That would be the choice bit in pro-choice.) After all, babies are inconvenient, to put it mildly. If you're not ready to commit to raising a child you shouldn't carry your fetus to term. It's never clear to me why anti-abortion types seem to think that bringing millions more unwanted children into the world would be a good thing.

Besides, Amy was ready to commit to raising one child, just not three of them, all at once. There is also nothing particularly unusual about this type of abortion -- it's perfectly legal and it goes on all the time (although evidently that was news to a lot of people).

At any rate, I think this case is causing the anti-abortion crowd to show their true colors. It's not about the "rights" of the fetus, it's about publically shaming women who fail to live up to some platonic June Cleaver ideal of traditional motherhood. All of this kabuki-theatre shock that Amy Richards wasn't willing to bear any burden (including giving up everything else in her life) for the sublime honor of raising triplets.

[Shelley]

Very well written. Not only the words but the tone. One thing I really admired about the original NY Times article is that not once was an emotional edge introduced to the story. It was very quiet, unembellished, and matter of act story. As is what you've written.

This example is by far the best argument for pro-choice. It's much better than resorting to emotionally laden arguments such as abortion considered 'acceptable' after rape, or because of the existence of a deformed child. If we begin to refine what is or is not 'society approves' abortion, then it isn't choice, is it?

Choice means just that -- choice. A mother's choice, not the choice of an uninvolved passerby inflamed by an enormous amount of rhetoric.

[Shelley]

Sorry:

"If we begin to refine what is or is not 'society approved' abortion, then it isn't choice, is it?"

[Rachel Ann]

This isn't a battle anymore, it's a fait accompli.

Um, no. It isn't a fait accompli except for those who have already had their abortions.

If this is the pro-choice model than I want out. I have argued for years that most women chose abortion because they did not feel they had any other choice; that it was a well thought out decision. That they considered other options but felt that they weren't workable. This was a shrug and a can't do it and out with them.

The issue will constantly come up for review and for vote, and my attitude is changing, and I am certainly not square behind the pro-choice movement anymore.

[Thad]

Rachel Ann, I don't understand where you are coming from.

This one case makes you reassess your whole support for respecting a woman's choice? Why? Would you feel differently if Ms. Richards decided to terminate the pregnancy altogether?

And... not wanting to undergo a high-risk pregnancy that might endanger the health of all of her children (and her own), not wanting to be bedridden for half her pregnancy, feeling that as a single mother, she is not up to the task of raising triplets -- this is "a shrug"?

Even if you disapprove of Amy Richards's motives, isn't the whole point of being pro-choice that we are willing to give women the benefit of the doubt in such cases? Do you really want the state to apply a litmus test to abortion, to decide whose motives are pure and whose are not? If so, who gets to make that call? Doctors? "Independent government observers"?

The whole premise of being pro-choice is that we trust women to make the choice that is right for them. You or I may not approve of that choice in every case -- in fact, we may approve of it in very few cases, or possibly never -- but that's not the point. We aren't the ones directly affected by the decision to terminate a pregnancy, so we don't get to decide.

Ultimately, only Amy Richards knows what is best for her, and only she knows her true motives, and I don't think anyone ought to be passing judgement on someone based on a few money quotes selected by a NY Times reporter trying to punch up her article by drumming up a little controversy.

[Lindsay Beyerstein]

First, thanks so much for all the comments.

To Rachel Ann's point, I think it's unlikely that selective reduction will be reviewed on its own. Of course, Roe v. Wade could be struck down wholesale. But failing a dramatic reversal like that, I think selective reduction is firmly established for medical and ethical reasons. Banning selective reduction would endanger mothers' lives and the lives of their remaining fetuses. Moreover, there's always a strong medical argument for selective reduction. In their hearts, women may want the procedure for non-medical reasons, but the fact remains that a doctor could always justify the procedure medically.

Restrictions on selective reduction would cripple the fertility industry. Fertility drugs and IVF dramatically increase the risk of higher-order multiple conception. Doctors and drug companies might turn away infertile couples if they knew that their patients would be forced to carry as many fetuses as they conceived.

Finally, it would look really bad for the pro-lifers if they took a stand against selective reduction. Can you imagine the PR nightmare of having a mother and all of her fetuses die because she couldn't have a selective reduction. Think of the weeping father on CNN saying, "If it hadn't been for Proposition XYZ, my wife and I would probably be the proud parents of a healthy baby girl, but now she and all three of the fetuses are dead!"

[Rachel Ann]

1. Yep, one case did it for me, for the reasons I stated. The cavilier attitude and the defense of that attitude.
2. I am no totatly opposed to abortion. The mother's health is more important, and no woman should have to sacrifice her life or suffer severe health problems because of pregnancy. She should have the right to protect herself. If that is what she had stated, I absolutely would have understood, or even if she had said she had come to the decision that it was better to have one healthy child than three children with problems, I might not have agreed with her about her decision but I could understand it.

But that wasn't the case. She gave short shrift to the health considerations.

She is not a good model for abortion rights. She is a poor model. Whether or not she thought things through more than she did the quotes she gave does not suggest a person who gave much concern to this very weighty matter.

That is what scares me. That is what upsets me.

[Thad]

Rachel Ann,

I know this case scares and upsets you. I think if you gave this kind of scrutiny to all abortion cases, most of them would probably scare and upset you. But the question is, what do you propose to do about it? If you are not willing to trust a woman and her doctor make the right decision -- or, as you seem to demand, the right decision for the right reasons -- who do you trust?

[Rachel Ann]

I honestly don't know. I have obviously been dwelling under a misbelief about the whole issue. I want women protected; their right to physical and mental health. But i also want aa many conceptions as possible to become babies.

First I think I would put the doctor back in there.
An older woman related a story to me once; this occured during the 60's. She was pregnant, and exposed to rubella. I think most people know the possible consequences of that. She was told by her doctor that is she had rubella she was getting an abortion. "But i thought it was illegal?" "Not if I sign off on it."

the fact is pre-roe v wade abortions were even done in CATHOLIC hospitals.

In Amy's case it seems to me as if the doctor was missing.

Maybe what I want is some hoops to jump through for non-theraputic abortions.

And i still think that at least part of the answer rests in social reforms (so no woman needs to feel a
baby will send her into poverty) and medical advances (so health doesn't beome an issue). What is different is now I feel something needs to be done to curtail or limit abortion on demand.

[Eileen]

Put the doctor back in it? Give me a break here. A woman in the sixties is ordered to have an abortion by a doctor because of rubella, and that's an argument for putting the doctor back in the equation? Rubella might cause a baby to be born blind or developmentally disabled, but it is not by any means a sure thing. Rachel Ann, would you be more comfortable with this if the doctor had ordered her to have selective reduction because she might suffer preeclampsia or gestational diabetes or the babies might be born prematurely with lifelong disablities? I think she made this choice for just these reasons. And because being in bed for half a pregnancy would kill her career, and then how would she support the children? It was her choice, that's why it is called choice. Doctors are not qualified to make every healthcare decision for everybody, and you are a fool if you throw your life into their hands with any problem without educating yourself. Let's keep the PRO in pro choice.

[Rachel Ann]

My point was that in earlier times abortions were a decision between the mother and the doctor. Obviously the woman could have refused. But her doctor felt that it was best for her and her future. Someone else brought up the issue of "doctor and patient" and the doctor really isn't involved now. The doctor is merely someone carrying out the wishes of the patient.

I would have felt better if there had been some discussion of her choices. You say you think she made the decision because of preclamsia etc; but there was no such discussion at all. She is told there are three heartbeats and her main concern is that she won't be able to LECTURE that year. There isn't even an attempt to ask the doctor: could I go and give the lectures lying down? Or; hey, maybe we could have web based lectures? Why do you assume that it would kill her career? Isn't that an important feminist issue? A woman's career killed because of a high risk pregnancy? IMHO, that is a more pressing issue than abortion is. Perhaps what feminism needs to work on is not sidelining mother's and mother's to be.

No, I don't want to go back to the 60's method either; nor would I want the doctor to order her to abort. But I think people dismiss the past as antagonistic to women with problem pregnancies and they weren't. The doctor ordered the abortion and the woman would have gone through with it, not because she had no voice, or no choice, but because she knew this doctor always had her best interest at heart, and she could trust him and she could speak with him and discuss with him and find alternatives if she were really opposed. Unfortunately the type of doctors of the past are also not the norm.

Abortions for conviences sake are not moral imho. That is what Amy Richards made clear to me. A fetus is something more than nothing. To disgard it as if it had no meaning is abhorrent.

[Cole Mitchell]

Is anyone here making the distinction between "X is morally wrong" and "X ought to be illegal"? Being pro-choice, I always thought, was a stance on whether abortion ought to be legal. You could quite consistently think that it's wrong to get an abortion and yet that it ought to be legal. (Just as an example, it's wrong to emotionally mistreat your friends, but it ought to be legal to do so). So you could cluck your tongue disapprovingly at Amy Richards with deep sincerity, and be just as pro-choice as ever before.

In any case, I don't see anything wrong in killing a fetus, no matter the motive. Killing a fetus, in itself, seems to be just as morally neutral as picking your nose or chewing your nails. I mean, if you end up causing the fetus pain, then there's something at least prima facie morally relevant. But until then, why does a fetus's life matter more than the life of a worm? Or is there also something unseemly about killing a worm to make your life a bit easier?

[Eileen]

OK, I believe a fetus is more than a worm. However, until the 20th week, when the fetus has a cerebral cortex, and is capable of thought and learning, it is not IMHO human. Pro-lifers love to protect all "human" life, even life that has less claim to conscious thought than our nearest primate cousins. Thus, we have laws that keep alive anencephalic babies, babies born without a cerebral cortex, just what is called the "reptilian brain". Some parents of these children have wanted to donate their organs for transplant, but can't because they can breathe on their own. That is the function of the reptilian brain, to breathe, to have the heart beat, to regulate temperature. That's all these kids can do on their own. That's why we keep alive a lot of "people" who are in comas or persistent vegitative states. These are like very large newborn babies who must be tubefed because they can't swallow, have to be turned and changed at least every two hours, and cost around $100,000 a year to maintain. Most of this money comes out of taxpayers pockets, because very few people can sustain these costs, so these "people" are on Medicaid. Pro-lifers want to save everything that has human DNA, whether it has the capacity for conscious thought or not.However, at the same time most of them are conservatives who delight in cutting aid to programs. Well, you can't have it both ways. If you want to preserve all these unborn babies, all these babies that would require lifelong care, all these people in comas, you need to open your wallets, wide open. I have worked extensively with "people" in persistent vegetative states. They are difficult on the staff, hard on the family, and hard on society. I believe, with Peter Singer, that we need to change the standard for "life" to what he proposed in "Rethinking Life and Death", the capability of conscious thought. With the new diagnostic equipment we have, we can tell if the cerebral cortex is working, and that should be the basis for "life", not the operation of the reptilian brain.

[Barbara]

Rachel Ann, I am going to go out on a limb and tell you that I find your perspective to be somewhat offensive. I think that it borders on the more than obvious that the sentiments expressed by Ms. Richards (which were clearly filtered through a third party well versed in the art of distorting comments for maximum sensational effect) were metaphors for the panic she felt when she realized that she had utterly lost control over her life, in a way that she could not have imagined. It would have been a miracle if she had not had ridiculous and frivolous thoughts, along with more sensible ones.

I've been pregnant five times and I know that twins is the most I ever could have envisioned. Triplets are exceedingly rare in nature, and give rise to serious physical risks for all involved and incredible financial burdens, even more so for a single woman. Two of the three might have been identical twins -- who are themselves at far higher risk than fraternal twins if they share the sac. Did you know that? Do you know what the minutiae of Ms. Richards' medical issues were, how tall or slim she may be, whether she has high blood pressure, a family history of diabetes, or pre-eclampsia (now thought to be inherited), all of which are far more likely to occur during a triplet pregnancy?

The doctor was there -- the article made that clear, but even so, this is not an event that happens without doctors being involved, and indeed, I can tell you that there are more women who ignore a doctor's advice to do s/r than who are gung ho for the procedure in spite of their doctor's misgivings. So I have no idea where you are coming from on that score.

That you want as many conceptions as possible to become babies is a generalized sentiment that has zero application to the life and circumstances of a single, specific human being. Which is why the whole pro-life movement finds it difficult to achieve its goals -- people are not abstract principles, they have real problems, and so long as society in general expects them to be solved without societal support (rather than, say, the ad hoc willingness to lend used baby clothes), abortion will almost always occur more frequently than it otherwise might have. In any event, this is one procedure that likely would have survived a general prohibition because of the serious risks involved to the mother.

And this is not directed in particular at you, but many opposed to abortion are also those who oppose making emergency contraception more available as well as other types of intervention that would make abortion less common. Why? Because abortion is just the hook, the loss leader that softens up the emotions. The real subject for many, many is lifestyle and gender roles.

[Rachel Ann]

Barbara,

It is close to Shabbat and I have to go...but I will come back and answer your questions. My change of heart and mind is related to Amy Richards, but also to what the response is of many others, that I find upsetting.

I have five children and I know pregancy; I also know having to clean toilets to put food on the table, and I'm not indifferent to the needs of the woman. I do feel that the fetus has to enter somewhere. I guess that is what I don't hear from Amy Richards, which might not be Amy Richards fault, but it is also what I don't hear from many defending her choice.

[Rachel Ann]

It is after Shabbat.

Barbara, if you read what I wrote it has nothing to do with the type of abortion she chose and everything to do with her attitude, and the attitude of those defending her.

I know that s/r can be a life saver; I have no idea if I would resort to that if I had a multiple birth; I, as an Orthodox Jew, would be speaking with my doctor and with my Rabbi about the situation. No I don't expect that Amy would go to a Rabbi.

But there was really very little talk about the reprecussions; yes the doctor was there, but the conversation that was included in the interview skimmed right by the danger part. And that wasn't the part that seemed to worry her most.

What changed my position was Amy, or the person she was interviewed by, made this the center of concern. It was all about money, and life style.

1. I know various women with multiple births and lots of children. They aren't living the high life, but neither are they standing on the street with their hands out.
2. Amy wasn't a "single mother" in the sense that she was alone, bereft of any other means of support. Her boyfriend WANTED the three. While his desires shouldn't negate her final decision,it was not as if she was alone. Or are you saying the only secure relationship is one when there is a piece of paper invovled?
3.It isn't Amy's comments alone that made me uneasy. I read this and continued reading on different blogs before I wrote my own blog. It was the attitude exemplified by many posters on the different blog who felt abortion should remain "on demand", where the fetus had no value or worth beyond what the the mother endowed it with.

Most of the women I know who had abortions felt that they had to do this. That to me is extremely sad. That in and of itself should be a feminist issue, I would think, because while motherhood isn't everything is it a large part of the lives of most women. As women we should be able to have access to "mothering roles" and "human adult roles" and not have to feel the two are in conflict with each other.

I do not put the fetus as more valuable than the mother, not even on par with the mother. But it has to have a voice.

You all disagree with me and that is fine. The world goes around because of discussions and disagreements. But this is a point I reached now. And if you read my where I wrote about this issue and linked to another post about abortion you will see that i have changed drastically. I didn't think anyone could do that.

[Barbara]

Rachel Ann -- two points --

1. Discourse: Most women do value the fetus -- Indeed, it is a symptom of their agony that they are too ashamed to discuss their decision in public. Public discussion on abortion by the women undergoing it is, essentially, limited to those who do not feel conflicted. If you cannot see that, I am sorry, but I do see that as a fundamental problem of our all-too-willingness to step into the shoes of women and second guess their decisions. Those who have conflicts are silenced.

2. Necessity. I recognize that there are many women who feel that they must have an abortion and this makes me sad too. But in this case, it isn't access to abortion that is the problem, it is the limits on access to other goods -- like health care and better treatment for working mothers -- that is the problem. Not all feminists are working as diligently as they might to improve the situation, but by and large, they are working far more diligently than those on the other side of the political spectrum, who simply wish that women could direct their expectations backwards in time to circa 1950.

Finally, I agree that motherhood is a fundamental aspect of the lives of most women. But as we live longer motherhood occupies a smaller slice of our chronological lives. This isn't anyone's "fault" but this one sociological change seems to have eluded our policymakers, who still seem to view women pretty much the same way as a gynecologist might -- as beings radiating outward from a uterus. No one ever stops being a mother, but parenting occupies proportionately less of our time than during any other epoch of history. Biologically, women must have children during what are viewed as their "peak" working years, which leads to a kind of unparalleled craziness of competing priorities that I would bet good money Amy Richards intuitively grasped from the moment she got her triple dose of good news. And yet, our commitment to fighting ageism, for instance, (which might singlehandedly make more women willing to take a career break for child rearing) is pretty much non-existent.

By the time my mother was 50 every one of her children was out of the house. What was she supposed to do with the rest of her life?

Most of us muddle along as best as we can. I just find it counterproductive to sit in judgment to quite the degree that you (and many others, I hasten to point out) seem to be willing to do.

[Rachel Ann]

Barbara,

It is actually less about Amy than you think. It is about a degree of callousness that I wasn't aware of; on the part of Amy but other's as well.

Perhaps you are right about discourse. I don't know. Is it really that most women who feel conflicted are silenced? Perhaps; perhaps we should hear from them as well.

What is the nature of their conflict? I would want to hear what their individual answers would be--and perhaps ways to have one's child happily,and not give up or lose whatever it is felt they will give up or lose by having the child.

Please also read what I wrote again; motherhood, the right to be a mother and care lovingly for our child shouldn't have to conflict with being a woman.

I am closing in on 50. I have children ranging in age from 5 to 22. I will have spent the better part of my adult life as mom to little ones. I realize that isn't the course of most people's lives and that chronologically most women do spend less of their adult lives as moms. But once they have that, and raise that child, they are moms forever. Is it time alone that is of importance. Again, go back to what YOU said;

I recognize that there are many women who feel that they must have an abortion and this makes me sad too. But in this case, it isn't access to abortion that is the problem, it is the limits on access to other goods -- like health care and better treatment for working mothers -- that is the problem.

I am not at all for pushing women back into a 50's mode. I not only want better health care, I want better treatment for women who are homemakers, so more women, who want to be home with their children can, as well as expanding the options for ALL working moms, the wealthy and the poor, so that little ones can have access to moms, if moms CHOOSE to continue to work I want better forms of contraception; that work without the hurt. I want programs out there to help women who decide to take off a few years to raise their children, stay on top of their career (and yes, I want it for dads too.)

By the way; Amy left herself up for judgement. She willing consented to an interview to give her point of view regarding an abortion. She was interviewd and basically was giving her opinion towards the validity of her choice. Was the only acceptable answer "yes you are right. Kudos Amy?"

[Maree]

If "Amy Richards is a Role Model", and if selective abortion means "a better life for the mother and family", do you have any more good ideas? How about eliminating the poor? Without all those poor people, all the rest of us would have a better life? And, if we eliminate the handicapped, imagine all of that inconvenience done away with! There was a guy in Germany who had the same idea a few years back.

[Maree]

Why is death the only solution on the pro-choice side? It seems to me it is because they cannot come up with any positive solutions to problems of unwanted pregnancy and other social problems. Pro-lifers believe there are positive solutions to these problems. Death is not a positive solution. Why must they equate "choice" with killing?