Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Women and Politics

Recent antics and debates from Rush Limbaugh and Congress have centered much of the recent nationwide political discussion on the issues of contraception, reproductive freedom, and women's rights. Their discussion has focused on the absurd and patently insulting comments by Rush Limbaugh about a single woman, Sandra Fluke, who testified that the government should force her Catholic law school to pay for her contraception. Putting aside the merits of Fluke's advocacy and the constitutionalism of a government mandate on educational, religious, or commercial entities having to pay for health care of any form, let alone enacting policies that violate their beliefs, this debate is sickening.

The debate is sickening because it has only served to focus the nation's attentions on a childish incident of name-calling. It is sickening because one side insists that government should force others to invest, pay for, or otherwise provide goods and services of any kind. It is sickening because it distracts from the very real and very terrifying escalating assault on women in this country.

A recent Facebook debate amongst my friends discussed a YouTube video that decried the "disposability" of males in our society and especially among feminist thinkers and activists. I read the whole debate and while some very interesting and worthwhile points were brought up, the whole debate began to piss me off. Basically the argument said that because men are asked to give up their seats on the lifeboat, to put women's lives above their own due to evolutionary patterns of behavior, because mothers value their sons' emotions less than their daughters' (all points that can be heavily called into question in today's world), that somehow men are shortchanged. The video whined (in pretentious academese) that men are somehow disposable.

And yet, there are those in American society that truly do believe that women are disposable.

(I'm not laying claim to any moral superiority of the following claims, but I do believe that there is a very real human rights issue emerging here. It is completely focused on women biologically and socially, and it has me furious and terrified at the same time.)

You want examples?

How about HB 954, which seeks to redefine abortion after 20 weeks as feticide and make any woman who seeks to terminate her pregnancy after that point as a murderer? It goes further as to make it a criminal act to remove an already deceased fetus from the woman by artificial means. That means a woman who miscarried but whose body did not expel the dead tissue would be forced to carry that with her until her body naturally discarded it or until she and her doctor could prove that it represented an imminent threat to her life or substantial health.

This bill has already passed the Georgia State House by a vote of 102-65 and is currently be heard by the State Senate. That fact alone is infuriating, but it is compounded by the testimony that actually helped convince my representative and many others to vote on it.

Terry England is a representative from Auburn, GA and is one of the sponsors of this bill and he testified in favor of the changes to the law. In his testimony (and I am actually shaking with anger to write this), he compared the experience that women would go through due to this bill--the experience they would have as they miscarried and were forced to hold on to the remains in their own bodies, the experience of being denied access to their own bodies, the experience of being denied the chance to make painful but necessary decisions regarding their own health and well being-- as sad, natural, and equivalent to his own experiences delivering stillborn calves on his farm.


He didn't stop with that comparison. He goes on to tell of a "salt of the earth" man who says he will gladly give up cockfighting "when those folks down there quit killing babies." As a way to put it in perspective. To frame the debate. Because a "salt of the earth people" will give up killing chickens if the state government will take control of women's bodies.


I'm also not done.

There is an amendment being proposed, also here in Georgia, that will declare that from the moment of conception, from the exact moment of fertilization, an egg is a full human being. This so-called Personhood Amendment would affect the Georgia State Constitution and is being championed by Reps Rick Crawford and Barry Loudermilk. This bill will prohibit any form of abortion, any type of contraception that can interfere with "proper implantation" of a fertilized egg (which includes almost all forms of oral contraceptive, spermicide, and more), and would eliminate in vitro fertilization.

This amendment has been polled across Georgia and has incredibly widespread support.

So far, the proponents insist that women will not be prosecuted for miscarriages, but the very fact that has to be CLARIFIED is a HUGE HUGE HUGE warning sign. They have to explain that "doctors won't be prosecuted for ectopic pregnancies." SERIOUSLY?! As a woman who very much wants to have children in the next year or so, who has known women very close to me who have suffered the unexplainable pain of miscarriage, who have struggled to conceive their own children and had to question the guilt that came with being unable to carry to term, we have a government that is about to tell us that "Yes, it really is your fault when not every fertilized egg in existence comes full term to bring life into the world."

You think I'm kidding?

Consider this case:

In Indiana, a woman is currently being held for attempted feticide and murder. What really happened? Bei Bei Shuai tried to kill herself when her fiance and the baby's father, who also happened to be her business partner in the restaurant they owned and ran together, explained to her that he was married to someone else and was leaving her. He told her this just before Christmas and eight months into her pregnancy. She was devastated and attempted to kill herself by swallowing rat poison bought at her local hardware store.

She survived and gave birth a little more than a week later. Her daughter, however, suffered seizures as a either a result of the rat poison or the treatment her mother received. The child died within a few days. Bei Bei suffered another breakdown and spent a month in a psychiatric ward.

One month later, she was arrested for murder of her child.


If you want to talk about the disposability of individuals, then this is where you start. When there is a separate law for women, when we are compared to farm animals, when our lives stop being our own and our rights cease the moment an egg in our bodies is fertilized, when our right to control our own health and bodies is abrogated by those who have never miscarried or carried a child to term nor will ever understand what that means, when our lives are valued as less, then that is the moment we become disposable.

7 comments:

  1. For anyone who wants to do anything about this, don't just write to your legislators. They can ignore emails too easily. GO! GO pound on their doors and demand that they listen to real people who are speaking to them. That they stop ignoring the real, developed, tangible lives that stand right in front of them. Explain that their ideology is capable of killing, destroying, and demolishing real women.

    Also, to help Bei Bei, go here: http://advocatesforpregnantwomen.org/ and support their defense of other women who have also been prosecuted for their pregnancies.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Did you see http://jezebel.com/5893011/law-will-allow-employers-to-fire-women-for-using-whore-pills ?

    The sad truth is that none of this is about abortion, but instead is about sex. There is still the perception among the supporters of these bills that women should not have control over their own bodies and be able to make decisions about with whom to have sex. Until that is openly stated and acknowledged, this debate will go on while one side uses the specter of sexual immorality causing complications that medicine can prevent and their opposition who refuses to call them on it.

    The Overton Window is moving once more.

    ReplyDelete
  3. @David, I'd go even further and say it's not just about sexual morality, but control and power. It's about imposing a very specific world view on others and criminalizing any deviation from that. Also, the fact that it's specifically aimed at the sexual morality of women as opposed to men, is a worrisome component, pointing to a denigration and objectification of women. Proposals to monitor or even limit the availability of viagra for instance (almost always in direct response to limitations on contraception or other reproductive services) are met only with derision.

    ReplyDelete
  4. True, but that fits with the narrative that women are a commodity and a prize in our society, to be used and won by the most successful males. I agree that it needs to be changed but don't see any way to do so, given the other political party prefers to allow themeselves to be defined as "Not the bad guys" vs. doing anything of real significance to resolve the issue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I love how vague "the other political party" is. As a libertarian, they're both the "other" political party, and the description holds either way. :)

      Delete
    2. To steal from Will Rogers, "I don't belong to an organized political party! I'm a Democrat!"

      My take on political parties is that are best when dealing with single issues, such as a specific war, a specific economic crisis, or some other clear choice. That aside, they should get out of the way.

      Sadly, given the corruption which exists in politics, and the money which buys members of congress, the two main political parties are corrupt and useless. Inasmuch as I recognize Libertariansim as a perfectly valid political philisophy, it resembled the Decomocratic Party to me, in that there is no clear cut statement of purpose. The Republicans, whatever else may be said in criticism about them, and there is a lot, they do state what they want to accmplish. My beef with Libertarianism is that I want there to be enough government to protect the citizens from the Tryanny of Private Enterprise, the business and corporate conglomerate which have purchased the government and who poison, spy on, and steal from the rest of us and are permitted to do so with government approval.

      To unhijack the thread, this is a clearcut case of the use of Governmental Power to enforce a specific religious credo's beliefs on the women of the country, so that "Secular" changes to "Anything which does not overtly mention a religion other than the one who bought Congress".

      For some reason I can't get the Capita challenege to appear, but it's still me. :P

      Delete
  5. These are difficult and complex issues that typically hit people in emotionally vulnerable places: sovereignty over one's own body, the life of offspring, and cultural minefields surrounding sex, procreation, and privacy. It is certainly possible for people with incompatible views to hold them for perfectly logically valid reasons. (As an aside, I'll point out that while religious affiliation may have a correlation to specific opinions on these issues, it is hardly causative.)

    I'm going to start thinking through type for a moment. The biggest sticking point that I see are questions of relative value. For example, at what point do live genetic offspring have value roughly on par with the mother? I think that the two absolutist positions of, "conception" or "after birth" are both ridiculous. They brook no flexibility for what may be unbearable individual situations. Of course, once you say that neither absolutist position is correct, then you are stuck trying to find a middle ground that is acceptable or take it on a case by case basis of what is best for all involved. At that point, either no one will actually be happy (the very definition of compromise) or you are entering a morass of arbitration. Perhaps what is needed is a different way to frame the issue.

    Sorry, I got side-tracked into about an hour's research into the technical solution of ectogenesis and uterine replication. Let me just say that the ethical implications are vast, and it isn't quite the panacea that one might assume by separating the procreative functions to anywhere outside of a female (effectively making the reasons for different laws for different sexes entirely moot).

    I've now spent a lot of time thinking about this but feel like I've said very little, and more importantly that I don't really have much to say. So, how about I try and respond to the specific issues that you've brought up. First HB 954. I can see the purpose of at least the first half of it. Perhaps there is a point at which voluntary abortions should be rated as feticide. I don't know if it should be 20 weeks, but I've done very little research into that. However, the increased restrictions regarding medical necessity are unfortunate, and I can find absolutely no reason why it prohibits miscarriages from being removed. The remarks of Rep. England are insensitive at best and massively ignorant and inflammatory at worst.

    I'm worried about a personhood amendment passing, but I'm more worried about less blatant attempts to ban abortions. If a personhood amendment can be rejected in Mississippi, surely it can in Georgia too. I'm not even sure that it would be valid (given that it would be immediately challenged).

    The story about the Indiana woman arrested for the murder of her child during a suicide attempt is very disturbing. Would that also mean that a pregnant woman who falls down the stairs could be charged with reckless endangerment? What a terrible precedent to set!

    I have more, including a cautionary vignette where a woman goes to the jungle and despite wearing protective clothing and putting up other barriers, she gets infected with a parasite that has no treatment away from civilization. Feeling tired and nauseous, she comes back to the US and to the hospital where she discovers that the parasite can't be removed because she's been away for 20 weeks and she must carry it to term. Alas, it is getting late for me, and I must go to bed. Perhaps I'll have something more coherent tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete