[net.women] Hypocrisy and Abortion Law

brf (02/28/83)

The following appeared in the "Letters to the Editor" section
of the Newark (N.J.) Star Ledger recently:

        A Birth Control 'Solution'
        - ----- ------- ----------
        Dear Editor:
             I have a wonderful idea for ending all the contro-
        versy on birth control.
             No woman should have sexual relations unless she
        is interested in reproduction.  You'll see how fast the
        male legislature will then pass on the right-to-abortion
        bill
                                       Rebecca Lehrhaupt,
                                                 Millburn

This suggestion is on a par with the one to eliminate the need
for abortions through the use of fetal transplants (into Right-
to-Lifers...), and the letter was obviously written with more
emotional input than factual background.  Nonetheless, Rebecca
has hit upon an interesting point that is pertinent to the abortion
debate and to other women's issues as well.

Has anyone else noticed (i.e., been shocked by) a dual morality
displayed by our elected representatives in these matters?
I would suppose that a certain degree of hypocrisy is inherent
in the political process.  It seems, however, that when our male-
dominated legislature considers women's issues, the Right to Choose
being a particularly good current example, hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Some related questions:

        Do the male legislators expect us all to believe that they
        were virgins before marriage?

        If we had a *female*-dominated legislature, would the same
        attitude exist?  (Is it male chauvinism or just an exercise
        of power?)

        Now that women can vote (And vote their own minds, I would
        assume), why do they continue to condone/support/put up with
        this sort of thing?

I find my opinion of my representatives formed by their position on
the Choice issue, not because I am a single issue voter, but
because their view of this issue tells me a lot about what they
think the is the purpose of government and how they plan to
represent their constituency.  This discussion could quickly
shift in the direction of net.politics, but I'm not sure that
maybe that's where it belonged in the first place.  Any comments?

                                   B. Fowler
                                   ~!ho***!machaids!brf