EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- As Death Toll Rises Beyond 500, Garment Factory Disaster 'Worst in World History'
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Report: Toxic Chemicals Found in Thousands of Children's Products
- Move Over, Koch Brothers: A Bigger, Darker Rightwing Funder Is Out to Destroy Public Education
- 'The Gilded Age' Statistics Corporations Don't Want Workers, or Anyone, to See
- After Boston, Eyes-Wide Open Hope?
- Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free
Popular content
Today's Top News
Recognizing Female Personhood
I'm delighted that Rep. Bart Stupak (D-USCCB) is getting a pro-choice primary challenger, Connie Saltonstall, to take him to task for shafting his constituents on health care in order to shaft the nation's entire female population on the question of their autonomy.
It's been a long time since the days when it was common for middle-class, adult white women in the US to die from desperate, illegal abortions, so the nation forgets how bad it used to be. Stupak has capitalized on that, on the acceptability of misogyny, in order to turn himself from 'Bart who?' to the man that's helping Catholic Bishops all over the country change the subject away from their decades-long tolerance of pedophilia and towards their attempt to impose theocracy.
Though if you were looking, you'd be able to tell that banning abortion was a cruel, abuse-enabling, sometimes deadly thing to do to women. Stupak doesn't care about that, nor does much of the rest of Congress. The president doesn't seem very bothered by it, either.
But hey, most of them can't get pregnant, so why should they give a damn?
CruelThe recession has officially hit men harder, but single women with children, who faced a worse employment situation to begin with, have really been devastated.
To say it's hard to be a single mother glosses over the fact that aside from the reasons why single parenthood would be hard for anyone, even educated, middle class, married women haven't figured out how to avoid falling into mommy-track career purgatory and lowered salaries for the rest of their lives. For low-income women, whose jobs are likely less flexible than professional work, less likely to have paid leave or benefits, the struggle to make ends meet is enormous. In a country with as weak a safety net, and as great a need, as the US, it's entirely rational to be afraid of being poor, or becoming moreso.
Speaking of which, these are some of women's most common reasons for seeking an abortion, emphasis mine:
- The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.
For black women, with a median wealth of $5 and alarmingly much of the black male population either incarcerated or part of the ex-felon under caste, the money concerns go double. It's therefore particularly insulting that anti-choice fanatics campaign as if black women were gullible victims of women's clinics and not deliberate seekers of care they believe they need.
Sixty percent of women who seek an abortion already have one or more children and know very well what it means to have a baby and be responsible for its care.
So I can only regard a recent spate of laws that seek to make even miscarriages a criminal matter on the basis of fetal personhood as an obscene failure to either empathize with the difficulty of women's lives or trust them to know best how to live those lives. Because if women are to be full persons under the law, we must own our bodies and the right to make decisions about what's to be done with them.
Enabling Abuse
This is a good synopsis of how partner abuse can pass under the radar due to the carefully cultivated charm of an abuser and the psychological manipulation that leaves their partner, stressed, worn down and feeling crappy about themselves. That same dynamic within a relationship can hide pressures to pregnancy that range from subtle bullying to deliberate, perhaps covert, interference with birth control.
Partner abuse can take many forms, including unwanted pregnancy:
... Sexual coercion and "reproductive control," including contraceptive sabotage, are a common, and devastating, facet of dating and domestic abuse. A growing number of studies, experts and young women themselves are testifying to boyfriends demanding unprotected sex, lying about "pulling out," hiding or destroying birth control - flushing pills down the toilet, say - and preventing (or, in some cases, forcing) abortion. ...
The study outlined at the links notes the influence of these more subtle forms of abuse in high teen pregnancy rates, but some adult women can face the same pressures.
When a woman is in an abusive relationship, whether it's outright illegal, or just some jerk of a teenager flushing his girlfriend's birth control pills, giving a woman no way out of an unwanted pregnancy hands all her rights to someone who has no respect for her at all.
We recognize this in the case of rape or incest, but not only isn't every situation as clear cut as that, we do live in a country where 'she was asking for it' can still win sympathy for rapists. Most rape victims will never tell their stories to law enforcement.
Bart Stupak doesn't have to be there personally to cover her mouth or flush the pills, but he and all his allies might as well be. From a distance, without knowing anything about an individual's situation, or their ability to meet a legal burden of proof in order to get needed care, Stupak would like to enable abusive men all over the country to more easily get the women in their lives pregnant and keep them that way.
If the excuse for that is not knowing any better, well, bull. Anyone so bloody ignorant about what it means to be a woman, that they don't know how common rape and abuse are in our lives, has just got no damn business making laws about women's health care.
I mean, some people talk about a rape 'exception' as though rape were rare and exceptional. Those people are dangerous f*cking idiots.
Sometimes Deadly
I mentioned up top about how the extension of abortion rights to adult white, middle class women who could afford it (well, and poorer women lucky enough to live near an inexpensive women's health clinic that hasn't been shut down by a mob,) had made the specter of how bad things were before legal abortion fade into the background.
But I don't have to speculate about how bad things would be for those women if abortion were made unavailable again. I just have to look at what happens to the other populations of women who've had it taken away from them because some guy who didn't know them decided that he knew better than they did.
For instance, I know candidate Obama mocked having a health exception for abortion in cases where the mother's mental health is at risk, but women can become suicidal when faced with an unwanted pregnancy or because they have a history of pregnancy-related depression. Suicide risks are taken seriously among the prison population, but women, eh, who cares.
What could possibly go wrong with forcing an unstable person to go through a painful, traumatic event and then committing them to an enormous amount of responsibility?
Women who take their own lives, or who suffer from severe postpartum depression and take their children's lives, are rare, unlike rape victims. Though in Andrea Yates' case, she was part of a fanatical, if small, subculture in the US that believed a woman's role was to have children, as many as she could. For Yates, who believed in her faith so strongly that the imminent threat of hell for her children was real to her, this can be regarded as not only a de facto restriction on abortion, but any form of birth control, and her partner insisted on sticking to this dogma even when her doctors told him that she was a suicide risk. It was deadly.
Poor women, a permanent favorite target of social conservatives, have long been denied abortions through the Hyde amendment. Because they can't afford private health care and the federal government refuses to pay for full reproductive health care, they comprise a class of women in the US for whom abortion might almost as well be illegal.
The Hyde amendment passed in 1976, it killed Rosie Jimenez in 1977, when she decided that she could neither afford a second child nor a legal abortion. She went to a back alley provider to try and terminate her pregnancy and died.
Parental consent laws take away the rights of women who can't vote yet in order to make parents who can vote feel better. Indiana's parental consent law killed Becky Bell in 1988, because she refused to tell her parents she was pregnant. Bell died of a severe infection and hemorrhaging from her botched, illegal abortion, and her parents started campaigning against such laws.
Maybe Bell's parents would have dealt with it fine, maybe they would have helped her get the abortion she wanted. But she should have been able to get the care she needed in confidentiality from a licensed physician, the sort of doctor-patient confidentiality even recovering drug addicts are allowed to expect, and if she'd gotten that basic respect, she might be alive today.
People aren't always good at estimating risk and we get embarrassed sometimes for very little cause, such that the embarrassment can seem worse than threats to our health. That's why your doctors aren't allowed to just tell anyone why you visit them, because the greater good is that people seek care and get or stay healthy, not sit at home too ashamed to talk to anyone. When it comes to pregnancy, a fraught and stigmatized condition, this can be deadly.
Last, let's take the most straightforward case, where a pregnancy directly threatens a woman's life.
The Catholic Church has successfully pushed the nation of Nicaragua to criminalize all abortion, and all medical treatment that could result in abortion. So no matter who you are in Nicaragua, if you can't afford to leave the country, you could be the next Rosie Jimenez or Becky Bell. Or, you could be a 27-year-old Amelia, mother of a 10-year-old girl who's been diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. Amelia has been denied treatment for cancer because it might terminate her pregnancy, though the cancer is likely to kill both her and the fetus before the pregnancy comes to term.
Forced birth proponents like to pretend that nothing ever happens that threatens a woman's life during pregnancy or medically justifies an abortion, but it isn't true.
This same sectarian social movement that wants to ban abortion also pushes for restrictions on contraceptive access, pushes to have fetuses recognized as persons with rights superseding their worthless hosts, pushes to jail women for trying to end a pregnancy without permission and make miscarriages a matter for criminal investigation.
The Catholic Church, having gotten full abortion bans in Nicaragua and El Salvador, would surely like to add more countries to the list. No matter that in Kenya, complications from illegal abortions (and they're almost all illegal) are responsible for about a fifth of all maternal deaths. The Church seems happy to work with any and all allies that will let them continue their work to end the autonomy of women during their childbearing years.
Deaths would follow such bans, as well as many more numerous stories of private misery and hardship. Things only work out all right in the end every time in fairy tales, or the minds of people who believe that there's an afterlife that will make up for how crappy we treat each other in our time on earth. I waver about whether I believe in an afterlife, but I don't waver in the opinion that it's a stupid belief to base policy on.
Unfit
There are just people in this world whose religious beliefs don't allow them to care whether or not women suffer or die because of pregnancy. Their motives, their 'real' feelings, are irrelevant. The fact is, preserving women's well-being doesn't matter to them, it's not actionable.
So I'd think they wouldn't be allowed to make policies about decisions that should only be made by people who really care about the outcome. That would be wrong though, because they seem to get extra clout, instead, by virtue precisely of not caring what happens to women.
Which is why I'm donating to Saltonstall next payday. I'm broke and I barely knew who Stupak was a few months ago, but I'm tired of having politicians say that my life, or that of other women, is worthless beyond having children.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

15 Comments so far
Show AllYep.
There is an increasing tendency among some leftists to dismiss these issues as "social" issues, as a "distraction", and as non "working class" issues, thus irrelevant.
Dismissing this as single issue politics is the same road to ruin outlined by Neimoller in his famous "First they came for the Communists..but I was not a communist..".
When it comes to issues of Social justice one group can not be seen as less relevant then another. This applies to "womens issues", the issues of Gays, the issues of people of color, the issues of the poor.
Ultimately all issues are people issues.
Good article.
And the behaviour of the Roman Catholic church is obvious to anyone who pays attention to them. In societies, such as western Europe, the US, where they realise their medieval attitudes, whether to women or LBGT people would be considered unacceptable, even sociopathic, the RC church pretends to be nice(r), the "hate the sin, not the sinner" lie, the "love the sinner, hate the sin" lie, the softly softly approach. In other societies, the masks come off.
An article so full of misinformation (plus mindless expletives) it is hardly worth commenting on. All this talk of "my body, my health, my well-being,my feelings" conveniently leaves out the FACT of my baby. What about the rights of the unborn girl who sleeps safely in her mother's womb and hopefully awaits the tenderness she rightfully deserves. Thankfully she does not hear the clarions of death who howl for her life to end because they cannot "afford" to let her sleep in her crib in ....
Peace
This is an excellent piece. Each and every woman must have the right to choose whether she risks her body and her wellbeing in pregnancy and childbirth, and every child must be a wanted child.
If you can't get pregnant, shut the hell up. I've tried to play nice, but damn it. Living in MI D 1, land of Stupak, has pushed me over the edge!
Connie, give me something to do, I'm going nuts.
Love the good men in my life; sure there are lots others, but they don't get a say until they can get pregnant. 'If you can walk away, you have no say.'
bligh4
Well, hate to disagree, but as a man I say bullshit to that one. Men end up financially responsible on one hand, or voiceless sperm donors on the other-I don't think so.
For two years (1969/70/71), I lived, worked and went to school in Des Moines, IA. When I was 16, I began working in my hometown hospital as a nurse aid, and therefore, I could find a job quite easily. For most of that two years, I worked on a gynecology floor in a major hospital, and if women who had back alley abortions lived through the emergency room, the women ended up on our floor until they recovered and could go home. This was a startling and revealing experience for a young woman, and I have never been able to forget the frightened eyes of some of the women, or the grip of their hand on mine. To this day, they haunt me!
I NEVER want to return to those days -- before Roe vs. Wade, when women didn't have the option of seeking a clean, safe and timely abortion; and when men didn't allow women to make their own decisions about their own bodies.
I would like to add that the RNs, LPNs, etc., who worked on the gynecology floor were all supportive and sympathetic. I remember once hearing the charge nurse, Phyllis, tell the assistant nurse, "Another woman died last night." Of course, we all knew what she meant -- and the silence that followed as well!
I'm reminded of these women by the stories the author recounted in the article -- Becky Bell, Amelia, and so many others whose lives belong to the times in which we live -- 2010.
Our ancestresses had one baby after the other until she died in childbirth, or finally reached menopause. There was twenty years between my ggrandfather and his eldest sibling, with ten sibling in the middle. His mother died a day or two after his birth. When one wife died, a man married another woman and she produced babies until she died from one, and was replaced with another.
When I was having babies, it was against the law for a woman in good health and of child-bearing years to do anything that would prevent her from getting pregnant.
I've often thought what a shame it is that generations of women living now have no idea what it's like having zero control over their own bodies, especially when the law restricts them, and have their men wanting or demanding to have their needs satisfied at the worst possible times. It's going to be a very rude awakening for them when Roe V Wade is gone and birth control is banned.
If I had a daughter I would try to convince her to have her tubes tied as soon as she could.
I would teach her that there are many people out there, both men and women, who do not care about her at all once she becomes pregnant and will happily kill her if they could to "save the child". That the moment she becomes pregnant she is in danger of being a non-person.
Is it no wonder that fertility rates are dropping given the way women are treated? Why would you want your female children to endure the kind of humiliating patronization shown by men such as Stupak...and have it enshrined in law.
"That the moment she becomes pregnant she is in danger of being a non-person." -- physicscitizen
I don't know if the policy/practice has slowed, but during the Bush years, women discovered that when they took their prescription for birth control to the pharmacy, the Pharmacist refused to fill the prescription, exercising their own form of control of women's bodies -- their religious principles. Some of these women live in smaller communities where there is only one pharmacy. This is preemptive control over the bodies of women.
I remember, years ago, doing some research on Margaret Sanger, and discovering that her mother had quite a number of children, and her mother died young, not from childbirth, per se, but partly due to the fact that she was simply worn out. Her death is what set Margaret Sanger into motion -- educating women -- and men -- about birth control.
"Is it no wonder that fertility rates are dropping given the way women are treated? Why would you want your female children to endure the kind of humiliating patronization shown by men such as Stupak...and have it enshrined in law." -- physicscitizen
I agree! The disdain and contempt directed at women is relentless.
Great article. Abortion is a tough issue and the morality of the choice stand is often lost in the noise.
I get the feeling that conservative Christians are against abortion not so much for the unborn but more because they feel opposing abortion will aid THEM in getting into heaven.
That seems to reflect the left/right divide: The left most often wants to do what is good for the greatest number of people and the right want what they think will be best for them personally. As for politicians I think it is certainly about what they think is good for them and that is an idea that they need to find out is in error. Throw the bumbs out!
One gripe: I don't believe it was "candidate Obama" who mocked the mental health exception. I believe that was one of the Republican candidates.
"No more blood for oil"