Wipf and Stock is to be congratulated for making Beverly Wildung Harrison's Our Right to Choose newly available. Recognized as a classic in its field from its publication in 1983, Our Right to Choose is as compelling--and needed--today as it was then.
- Nyla Rasmussen, RN, Maternal Child Health Larry Rasmussen, Reinhold Niebuhr Professor Emeritus of Social Ethics, Union Theological Seminary, New York City "This historic book is as incisive, pertinent, timely and morally compelling as it was twenty-eight years ago. Harrison has both ethical purchase and feminist vision on 'The Issue of Our Age.' Read it, learn, be convicted and act!" - Rev. Dr. Serene Jones, President of Union Theological Seminary "Decades after its initial publication, Beverly Wildung Harrison's sex-positive, justice and social welfare affirming study of abortion remains a unique and trailblazing contribution to the field of Christian ethics. From the treatment of women's procreation in the history of Western Christianity to the rhetoric of 1970s abortion politics, she offers meticulous critiques and constructive feminist Christian ideas sorely needed in today's debates about abortion rights." Traci C. West, author of Disruptive Christian Ethics: When Racism and Women's Lives Matter
Relecîng on e orîgînaL ex oFOur Right to Chooseas been an eye-openîng experîence. A e îme oF îs pubLîcaîon, în 1983, severaL peopLe quesîoned e sarîng poîn oF caper 1, a dîscussîon oF e probabLe Leng oF e “aborîon wars” în îs socîey. Now, as I revîew e book, I reaLîze jus ow împoran a dîscussîon urned ou o be, gîven e vas sît a as occurred în e poLîîcaL Landscape oF îs naîon over e pas îry years. Ater e Roe-Wade decîsîon în 1973, I was an acîvîs among e reLîgîous supporers oF coîce, încLudîng among oers aLways a vas group oF LîberaL and moderae Proesans, Jews, pos-Crîsîans, Wîccans, and Femînîs CaoLîcs—especîaLLy a wonderFuL organî-zaîon, CaoLîcs For Coîce. In e Lae 1980s, a random sampLe oF peopLe în my own (en raer LîberaL) Presbyerîan Curc sowed a e Large majorîy oF Presbyerîan women were advocaes oF reproducîve coîce. he pro-coîce marces on Wasîngon were enusîasîc raLLîes For women’s Lîves, For wa e LegaLîzaîon oF abor-îon mean For women’s weLL-beîng; e marces were no prîmarîLy deFensîve or urgen în one, bu raer ceLebraory and proud. he Las pro-coîce raLLy I aended wî my beLoved Frîend Carer Heyward was a Large gaerîng în Wasîngon, DC, abou a decade ago. Wî e many ousands gaered on e NaîonaL MaLL a a îme, Carer and I sared a srong ope a e movemen oF FemaLe and maLe supporers oF coîce was gaînîng ground dramaîcaLLy. Today, owever, î îs cLear a emergîng poLîîcaL reaLîîes are un-dermînîng a ope. hree decades ater e orîgînaL pubLîcaîon oF
vî
Preface to the 2011 Reprint Edition
îs book, e answer o e quesîon posed în e irs caper abou wo saLL conroL e power o reproduce wouLd seem o be e Far rîg oF e RepubLîcan Pary. Aîded and abeed by more an a and-FuL oF anî-coîce RepubLîcan women suc as Sara PaLîn, MîceLe Bacmann, and Nîkkî HaLey, a growîng group oF “Tea Pary” LegîsLa-ors are aempîng o make aborîons unavaîLabLe o aLmos aLL women and gîrLs. heîr efors o roLL back eaL care For women, încLudîng women’s reproducîve opîons, endanger a Fory-year consensus a women, consuLîng wî eîr eaL care provîders, ave a rîg o coose. I îs împeraîve a încreasîng numbers oF women under-sand wa as aken pLace. Persîsen bu oten successFuL efors o deFund PLanned Parenood, and e move o sît LegaL quesîons abou aborîon From a naîonaL o a sae LeveL, ave creaed a sîuaîon în wîc gîrL cîL-dren raped by eîr Faers and aduL women beyond e age oF saFe cîLdbearîng Face screamîng oards oF anî-coîce proesers, wo ac-cuse em oF beîng murderers, wores, and spîrîuaL renegades. Worse, Lawmakers în severaL saes ave înroduced LegîsLaîon crîmînaLîzîng women wo coose o ave aborîons. VîoLence agaîns eaL care provîders—încLudîng e murder oF a Leas seven docors—and e burnîng and rasîng oF cLînîcs ave become rouîne în e aack on women’s rîg o coose. SeveraL sae governmens ave passed Laws requîrîng pregnan gîrLs and women o Lîsen o medîcaLLy încorrec “înFormaîon” because rîg-wîng LegîsLaors do no emseLves know, or care, wa îs scîenîicaLLy accurae. he Four mos conservaîve and generaLLy anî-Femînîs Supreme Cour jusîces—Robers, homas, ScaLîa, and ALîo—seem o ave no more sense oF scîenîic accuracy an do reLîgîous FundamenaLîss wo are împosîng eîr îgnorance on women. Wa mus be sressed a îs îme, wî e repubLîcaîon oFOur Right to Choose, îs a asonîsîng scîenîic and medîcaL îgnorance on e par oF Proesan FundamenaLîss, Roman CaoLîc LegîsLaors and jurîss, and persons eager o punîs women wo seek aborîons