Tag Archives: birth control

Support the Female Troops

Posted on by
Reply

Our government should provide the highest standard of care to women who have volunteered to serve our country. Federal law, however, does little to protect the reproductive rights of servicewomen. Why are servicewomen being denied birth control?

Not only are the 350,000 women (almost 15 percent of all active-duty personnel) banned from accessing abortion care at military medical facilities, but some cannot even obtain emergency contraception, which can prevent unintended pregnancy if taken soon after sex, at their base pharmacy.

Given both the restrictions on abortion care in the military and the growing number of reported sexual-assault cases among servicewomen, Congress bears the responsibility, at a minimum, to make sure that this important and time-sensitive method of contraception is available to women at all military health-care facilities.

In 2002 health officials at the Defense Department agreed, and approved Plan B® to be stocked at military medical facilities. However, weeks later, President Bush’s political appointees overruled the decision without discussion or explanation.

This week, Congress has an opportunity to improve health care for women in the military with a bill sponsored by lawmakers in both parties and on both sides of the choice issue. The Compassionate Care for Servicewomen Act simply adds Plan B® to the list of medications that must be stocked at every military health-care facility.

Please urge Congress to ensure that emergency contraception is stocked at every military health-care facility.

Check out NARAL’s list of the top five myths about Plan B®, and the real facts.

Is it ever wrong to terminate a pregnancy?

Posted on by
6

I ended up writing such a long reply to a question posed on a previous post that I’m posting it as well.

Vance from Meditations on an Eyeball asked:

Heidi, as a “pragmatic contextual ethicist with a spiritual sensibility” do you think there are situations where it would be wrong for a woman to choose to terminate her pregnancy? I am assuming that you do not reject the concepts of right and wrong because in my understanding those notions are central to the work of an ethicist. I am not expecting you to generate a black and white decision matrix, but I would be interested in your shades of grey.

It’s a strange question. I am no fan of abortion per se, and I wish that all women were in a position to welcome their pregnancies. In my desire and fantasies, the world would be a happy place, full of joy and laughter and friendship and love. I wish a lot of things, but this is the reality in which we exist.

My answer is less than systematic, but I opted out of systematic theology/philosophy when I discovered how heartless it could be. I am not an absolutist, but rather a contextual (some would say “situational”) ethicist. I believe in thoughtful analysis, including all the factors that affect the choice in a specific instance, and in ranking relative priorities – including religious beliefs, community standards, material realities, and the like. For each person, in each community, at each point in history, these might be reflected differently. We each speak from where we stand, and we are in some sense projects “under construction” for our entire lives. Although complexity and some amount of ambiguity are very anxiety-provoking for some, I find in them a source of hope. It’s not “wishy-washy” to admit that life is a complicated matter at times, and that major decisions are worth thinking through in the context through which they have arisen.

So:

Yes, there are situations in which I believe it is ethically wrong for a woman to terminate a pregnancy. This is not an issue with easy answers. Abortion is not an easy decision to make, nor should it be. Abortion is a controversial subject for a reason.

My concern has more to do with the power of that decision – which is each woman’s to make – being taken from her. Perhaps it is unfair, but I can’t help believing sometimes that if men were the ones who got pregnant, the whole debate would be framed somewhat differently.

My own judgment is that the longer one waits – or has to wait – to terminate a pregnancy, the more problematic it becomes to do so. I would rather see an abortion done at 8-10 weeks than later. I would rather see a late-term abortion than a baby in a dumpster.

I do not approve of woman using abortion as a form of birth control, or being irresponsible about family planning in general (although men share in that responsibility, it more often than not is left up to the woman).

I do have problems with gender selection as a reason for abortion. If that is the only reason, it does not seem sufficient to me.

I have issues with women who use abortion as a way of punishing men – that’s not often discussed, but I don’t idealize people.

I wish that I could think of some way to preserve the rights of the father, but I can’t. Ultimately, the woman is the one who pays the price – with her body, with her life – and so she has to be the one who makes the decision. I think that most women involve the man who got them pregnant if they can. Sometimes a woman fears to bring a baby into the world because she doesn’t want to subject her own child to the abuse that she hasn’t been capable of escaping.

Having (like many women) been the victim of rape, it is difficult to imagine the strength that would be required to carry such a baby to term. Some people can choose to do that, and redeem the situation – for others it would be like being raped again. And then, what about the welfare of that child, born into that situation (especially if it was also an incestuous rape)?

Then there are other situations – abject poverty, drug addiction, psychologically disturbed women or those in a state of denial about whether they’ve even had sex, etc. When you are familiar with some of the seamier aspects of human existence, there are no end of examples of situations where, when you look at the entire set of circumstances, you can see the reasons why abortion might be the better choice. At the least, there should be provision for psychological and medical consultation for all pregnant woman – not to push a decision either way, but to help her make her own decision in a timely manner.

I count as friends a couple who were so opposed to abortion that they refused to do any prenatal testing – why would it matter if they weren’t going to consider terminating? (My own choice would always be to have all the available information – even if one chooses to go forward, it’s better to know in advance, and line up resources and so on. But that’s me.) Their little girl was born with what turned out to be a very serious, even fatal genetic defect. Yes, they enjoyed her, but not for very long. I don’t think they regretted their decision (although it would be difficult to admit to anyone if they did), but everyone should have a choice on whether or not to continue a pregnancy that will have disastrous consequences.

In my preliminary research on a doctor that I was referred to once, I discovered that there was a case in which he didn’t tell client that there was something wrong with the pregnancy. He was Catholic and evidently suspected that she would abort, so he simply withheld the information – effectively depriving her of the choice. The baby had a very short, painful life – and the parents found that there was nothing that they could charge him with – they tried “wrongful death” but of course it didn’t work. This same doctor chose to inform a girlfriend of mine that he was aware of her feminist political activity while he had her up in stirrups. Incidentally, as a result of a surgery he did on her, she had to have a hysterectomy. No, I don’t think I’ll go to a doctor like that – but where is the oversight?

In my own case, I had a pregnancy where there was no heartbeat at 8-9 weeks. It was an unexpected pregnancy, but not an unwelcome one. I went through a number of tests to make absolutely sure that the pregnancy was not viable, then – on the advice of my doctor – had a D&C when the miscarriage wasn’t happening. Earlier that year, I had an ectopic pregnancy that very nearly took my life and my medical team didn’t want to see me in the emergency room again, especially not so soon. They were concerned about my health. You see, my health counts too.

Some right-wingers would consider both of these scenarios to be abortions. Some right-wingers want to see to it that doctors are not trained even to perform these very necessary procedures.

When a baby is wanted and welcomed into the world, there is no greater experience. I loved being pregnant and I love being a mom to our son. I also still grieve my two losses. I was incredibly comforted when I learned that there is no brain activity that early in pregnancy. That’s one of the reasons that I feel that if an abortion felt to be the better choice, then it should be done as soon as possible. Sometimes that’s possible, and sometimes it’s not.

There are women who have had abortions or have given their child up for adoption, and have profound regrets about having done so. Their experiences count, too, and they should be heard. However, their experiences should not be generalized onto everyone. There are many, many women who are grateful that they were able to terminate a pregnancy early and safely. For them, even living with their regrets (and I think regret and grief are entirely appropriate) they made the choice they felt they had to make.

I would like to see a process – that wasn’t tilted to either side – to help women make decisions like this. In some cases, the choices on all sides are so difficult. Generally speaking, Americans seem to be a bit undereducated on how to make ethical decisions. Listen to the experiences of others, look at rules and traditions, ask yourself how your decision might be affected if the situation were altered, how you might feel about it in a year, in five years, in twenty years, etc. List out the pros and cons of all available options to you, and rank them according to their importance. Site quietly and ask yourself, in your deepest authentic self, what the answer is for you. We tend to simplify too easily. Sometimes the question of whether something is right or wrong needs a few more steps of consideration than we are willing to give it. We allow others to do our thinking for us, far too easily and too often.

The point is that there is a wide range of situations, attitudes, and realities to consider.

I would not be so opposed to this (stacked, divided) Supreme Court decision if it had included provisions for the mother’s health and for medical judgment to override the general rule. I would not be so opposed to it if family planning centers and education were not being cut, if women (and young or poor women especially) had the care they needed to make decisions earlier. Third trimester abortions are very problematic, but I still feel that it is out of place for the government to intervene in medical decisions or to step in to override the woman’s choice. There is some question as well about the extension of abortion bans across the board – even to early pregnancy.

People opposed to abortion are free to choose not to have one.

The thought of mandatory abortions fills us with horror. Then we feel the intrusion. Because we are so divided, because abortion is such a complicated, controversial and difficult topic, I think the government oversteps its bounds here. They’ve been eroding Roe v Wade for some time, even using a murdered pregnant woman to establish a new status for the fetus – one that didn’t even exist in the religious world (as I found out when I tried to find rituals or symbols to deal with my own grief).

As I pointed out in the post, it is the height of hypocrisy to oppose abortion while promoting abstinence-only sex education and enforcing a global gag rule (in countries where HIV/AIDS is rampant, opposing condom use could be considered genocidal). It’s pretty clear that the domestic agenda is to control women (as the religious right has no problem acknowledging) and to get votes from their somewhat manipulated base. Whatever their own personal views on abortion, American women – and men too – ought to be appalled to see women’s bodies and rights used as a playing card.

Violence is the Fault of Pro-Choice – Meme?

Posted on by
2

According to the Christian Newswire, Human Life International has opened up a new website that claims to expose the “Real Source of Violence” in the abortion debate. Guess who they claim is responsible for the violence?

“This website exposes the pro-choice movement as the most violent political movement in United States history. In fact, we have documented over 7,000 acts of violence and illegal activities by those who support or practice abortion,” stated Brian Clowes, Ph. D., senior analyst for HLI. “We have launched this site to expose this troubling truth and to draw attention to the fact that this violence is escalating at a very disturbing rate. Since 2000, there have been an astonishing 269 homicides and other killings committed by the pro-abortion movement.”

They include a lot under the “pro-abortion” movement. You’d have to read through the stories yourself to get a sense of some of the problems with the methods and logic. There are probably a few genuine cases of fringe pro-choicers in there – there are always a few at the edge of every line of thought. However, they are trying to conflate the pro-choice idea with an organized violence. Perhaps I’ll tackle the details on another day, but I’m kind of hoping that someone else will do it, someone who actually makes a salary as a researcher, and I can give you a link.

While there seems to be a spectrum among its members, HLI itself looks like a far-right activist Catholic organization. In as neutral a tone as they can manage, they’re calling their new site an “informational resource.” Go to the Newswire link to get the address – there’s no way I’m linking to it on this blog.

One of the things that struck me right away in the news release was their claim that pro-choicers are racists. Wow. That’s really counter-intuitive to my sense of things, so I had a “stop the train” moment. They mention an example of a Maine couple who had abducted their 19-year old daughter, “bound her hands and feet and were transporting her to New York for a late-term abortion simply because the child’s father was black.”

If this story is true, then it seems to me that abduction, kidnapping, and an attempt at an unwanted abortion upon a woman of 19 are crimes in themselves. The racism and criminal behavior, not to mention the lack of care for their daughter implied by this, cannot be generalized onto anyone who is pro-choice. That’s absurd. But this is what they do, all the while complaining at their site that they feel that prochoicers and the media “stereotype” anyone who is against abortion.

— An aside- I’m wondering who wrote this press release. This group has been around since the early 80′s, and it’s pretty big. Perhaps it’s a bias of mine, but I think of Catholics as pro-education (except for sex education, of course). It may be because of my deep admiration for some of the Catholic theologians and scholars I have read, heard, or met. My own experiences have been rather positive. There was a shrine in my hometown, and they had some beautiful christmas lights. I think of retreat, study, monastic life. I was a research assistant for a Catholic bio-ethicist in graduate school. He was a clear, calm, well-educated and kind man, bearing nothing at all like the tone expressed here. Like I say, it could be my blinders, but it doesn’t even sound Catholic to me. Usually, interactions between Catholic groups and the media are, well, better than this. Could this group be on the outs? Just wondering. It reads more like a diatribe from political Protestants, Christian dominionists in particular. I could be wrong.

In their news release, they claim that that Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, wanted the KKK’s slogan to be “to breed a race of thoroughbreds.” Well, here’s another viewpoint on the question of her supposed racism. Dr. Edward A. Kempf was the one who actually said this, and of course it has been taken out of context and with distorted meaning (again).

Sanger’s books were among the very first burned by the Nazis in their campaign against family planning, and of her, Martin Luther King Jr. said:

There is a striking kinship between our movement and Margaret Sanger’s early efforts. . . . Our sure beginning in the struggle for equality by nonviolent direct action may not have been so resolute without the tradition established by Margaret Sanger and people like her.

HLI doesn’t mention some of their own fringe leadership, like their key man in Europe, Siegfried Ernt M.D., who has said some pretty wild things, including this comment about the anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s: “Why is there this attitude of degenerated masochism which makes us destroy systematically our own breed and race and which makes us passively watch how our own mental, moral, and biological inheritance is getting wasted and ruined?” (Ernst is also a close friend of the German Neo-Nazi leader Manfred Roeder, founder of several radical right groups. One would have to consider Roeder, who has stated that violence is the best cure for Germany’s ills, to be a kind of terrorist. He served over 9 years of prison time for charges related to the bombing of refugee hostels in 1980.)

It used to be weird for me to see these odd projections and reversals. It has become commonplace under the rise of the reich right. HLI is a tax exempt organization, a non-profit charity – it’s considered a “pro-life missionary group.” And what a stange mix of doctrine and politics it is! HLI is against family planning, contraception, voluntary sterilization, and medically accurate sexuality education – so they actually encourage more unwanted pregnancies, promoting and depending on unrealistic abstinence-only programs. They oppose Planned Parenthood, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). To aid in their work in 39 countries, they have conferences, publish books, issue newsletters and maintain several websites. “Outreach” programs include Next Generation (for youth), Pierre Toussaint Project (for African-Americans) and Latinos for Life (for Latinos). Its Population Research Institute argues against the notion that human overpopulation is occurring and fights UN efforts to control population growth. Their methods include or have included boycotts, clinic blockades, harassment and intimidation of clinic clients and employees, leafleting students with misinformation and other anti-choice propaganda, and misinformation campaigns featuring films such as the discredited The Silent Scream. Among their false claims are that contraception causes abortions and infertility, and that abortions cause breast cancer and severe psychological trauma.

I’m looking at this one group today because I got an email about the obnoxious press release (thanks Karyn!). I don’t mean to pick on them, not exclusively (grin). Hey, they’re only one of many. That’s one of the reasons it interests me.

You see, what you get – effectively speaking – when you spread the “evil birth control” and “evil abortion” memes is more babies born for your “team”! It’s an evolutionary meme – a contagious set of ideas, spread via evangelical marketing, that changes the views of segments of society. Of course, some will grow up and “rebel” – and some will speak differently from their actions – but what you get, generally speaking, are more of whoever supports the meme. More babies, more meme-bots.

As Monty Python’s song “Every Sperm is Sacred” from The Meaning of Life puts it, “You’re A Catholic the moment Dad came.”

Could it be that in some sense it really is about producing more babies for the church, for the fatherland or motherland or homeland, for the cause, for the power, for God – whatever your claim to authority might be for more people remarkably like yourself in some significant way? Don’t study evolution, just BE evolution – is that it?

That’s one disadvantage of higher education (and thus, deferred family-making) and serious family planning – fewer babies for that “team.” Of course, given our global conditions, fewer babies might be better for everybody. Unfortunately, I think that part will be taken care of by scarcity of resources, poverty, war, the effects of pollution and the like.

While I think the matter of abortion (especially late-term abortion) is genuinely difficult and controversial, it’s difficult to see what biblical authority anyone could claim for being against medical education and knowledge, birth control, some measure of planning when (and if) to have children – and yes, perhaps even abortion. Neither birth control measures nor abortion are prohibited in the bible. What is prohibited is the sacrifice of babies upon the alters of false gods. You may recall that other kinds of sacrifice were quite common – you may remember that Christianity itself is based on the the sacrifice of the Christ – God’s son.

To blame all those who are pro-choice for the violence associated with the abortion debate is flagrantly dishonest. Of course, it would also be dishonest to blame all of those who would never have an abortion under any circumstances (even those who believe that it is the government’s job to prohibit others from doing so) for the pro-death violence sometimes enacted under the banner “pro-life.” But not quite as dishonest, because many of the followers of “pro-life” are encouraged to condone and participate in violence for the cause. Yes, that should sound a bit familiar. I have yet to see the pro-choice terrorist. What – “honor a woman’s right to choose, or I’ll choose to blow up my body right here?” Not likely.

Oh, and if somehow, someway, you didn’t happen yet to notice, opposing birth control and abortion activated two other agendas as well as more babies for the team:

  • Stuff right-wing voters “in the booth”
  • Stuff women back “in the box”

These are two things – for sure – that America doesn’t need.

Support the REAL Act for Realistic Sex Education

Posted on by
1

Young people should be taught their values at home – and the facts at school.

If you’re serious about reducing abortion rates, you’ll support education on birth control and the realities of pregnancy and sexually-transmitted diseases. All our kids deserve every chance to make informed decisions about their behavior.

Empowering young people to protect themselves from sexually transmitted diseases and unintended pregnancy is the right thing to do.

I urge you to contact your congressional representatives to ask them to co-sponsor Sen. Frank Lautenberg’s and Rep. Barbara Lee’s Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act (S.368/HR.2553).

(W)e’ll be working harder than ever to make sure young people get honest, age-appropriate sex education that will equip them with the facts they need to protect themselves from unintended pregnancy and STDs. But we need your help.

Anti-choice politicians in Congress continue to spend our tax dollars on unproven, ideological “abstinence-only” programs that hurt, rather than help, teenagers. Our kids deserve better – and so do taxpayers.

Honest, realistic sex education is the best way to reduce the spread of STDs and prevent teen pregnancy. The Responsible Education About Life (REAL) Act would set up the first-ever federal sex education program. Click here to take action to support the REAL Act.

Many federally funded “abstinence-only” programs actually censor lifesaving information that would help teens protect themselves. Many of these programs include blatantly false and inaccurate information, and some programs have been shown to actually increase the likelihood that young people will have unprotected sex and get pregnant. That’s why we need the REAL Act.

(NARAL/Pro Choice action)

Coupland’s Life After God (up to God?)

Posted on by
5

I’m out of books to read. I’ve read everything I have, some things two or three times. Today I reread Douglas Coupland’s Life After God. These are the two passages that struck me, compellingly, again.

Our conversations are never easy, but as I — we — get older, we are all finding that our conversations must be spoken. A need burns inside us to share with others what we are feeling. Beyond a certain age, sincerity ceases to feel pornographic. It is as though the coolness that marked our youth is itself a type of retrovirus that can only leave you feeling empty. Full of holes.

–Douglas Coupland, Life After God (1994), p. 280

You know what people will probably think of when they think of these days a thousand years from now? They’ll look back upon them with awe and wonder. They’ll think of Stacey — or someone like Stacey — driving her convertible down the freeway, her hair flowing back in the wind. She’ll be wearing a bikini and she’ll be eating a birth control pill — and she’ll be on her way to buy real estate. That’s what I think people will remember about these times. The freedom. That there was a beautiful dream of freedom that propelled the life we lived.

–Douglas Coupland, Life After God (1994), p. 340

Life After God

Woman as “Pre-pregnant” Incubators

Posted on by
Reply

We can’t give you that cancer-fighting chemotherapy. It would endanger the pre-fetus. You’ll just have to die and make room for more efficient femfactory production units.

The pre-pregnant. The pre-pregnant?

Well, if all women of reproductive age should consider themselves pre-pregnant, then I guess there will have to be a resurrection of real sex education and easily available birth control. Prenatal services and care for women will take top priority, and corporations will immediately address exposure to environmental toxins in the workplace. Mercury in fish, overuse of antibiotics in beef and chicken, the pesticides on our fruit and vegetables – all of this will be addressed to protect the “pre-pregnant.” Right? Right?

From the Bush administration? Dream on. If you haven’t caught the similarity to the new word “pre-born,” you haven’t been paying attention. This is a working example of the inscription of rhetorical, cultural, and even legal precedents for the prioritizing of a potential (not even actual) pregnancy over the life of the mother. We are allowing a woman to be defined solely as a baby-making machine, valued only in the capacity of being a potential mother.

It’s one thing to encourage all women of child-bearing age to take folic acid, have checkups, etc etc. But there are many other implications (one of which will clearly _not_ be holding men responsible for anything). It’s one of the many building blocks in the anti-choice and anti-woman agenda (these are two different agendas, but they get more and more overlap).

Once these are fully in place, I can see scenarios in which, for example, a woman could be held criminally liable for drinking or smoking, just in case she might become pregnant. I can see women becoming property again, with husbands or fathers as the “stewards” of the breeding stock.

Where is the parallel term for men? It would only be fair, would it not, to discuss the “pre-paternal” guidelines? Last time I checked, male genetic material was included in the process.

The example of health guidelines is relatively benign (I take folic acid every day), but I think women are right to object to the inherent implications of the term.

There is, first of all, an aesthetic objection to be made. “Pre-pregnant” is silly and it sounds stupid. Ick.

This is so ripe for a George Carlin or Lewis Black or Chris Rock routine. It’s next in line for Carlin’s sketches on “pre-boarding” a plane and the historical vocabulary series from “shell-shock” to “post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Think of what it actually means to categorize women (and girls) as “pre-pregnant” for some 30-45 years of their lives, which is the reproductive span of women from first menstruation to the end of menopause.

A little satire can point to some of the problems with using this kind of vocabulary. Imagine some other words:

  • pre-baptised
  • pre-raped
  • pre-inseminated
  • pre-productive
  • pre-taxed
  • pre-educated
  • pre-civilized
  • pre-terrorist
  • pre-wounded
  • pre-bombed
  • pre-radiated
  • pre-dead

You don’t have to be a linguist or a political junkie or a discourse analyst to see some of the implications of using words like these.

Are there actually women who accept being envisoned as valuable only in terms of being a walking uterus/incubator? Pop one out for Bush und Gott? There are real effects on women’s lives already. Here is an example:

“I have been unable to obtain adequate medical care for my epilepsy because I am what they’d call pre-pregnant. As my neurologist puts it, I am a woman of child-bearing age. As such, they flat-out refuse to try me on any medicines other than the ones proven least likely to affect a fetus (read: the ones that are paying off my neurologist). Despite the fact that I have declared my belly a no-fetus zone. My neurologist does not trust me to not get pregnant. My neurologist puts a potential fetus’s potential health over my health. And now the government wants to officially sanction that.”

Once we get used to thinking of women as “pre-pregnant,” it opens the doors to wider acceptance of even more anti-female legislation than is already on the table with attempted definitions of the “personhood” of the fetus and abortion bans (even in cases of rape, incest, and danger to the life of the woman). The disappearance of family planning clinics, incitement to hate and violence against doctors who perform abortions, and the proliferation and funding of fake clinics across the country should already have shown us what is happening here.

The CDC guidelines seem to be aimed at health education (at least primarily), but the slant in the Washington Post article is chilling. Is there anyone here who can really doubt that the very vocabulary here is indicative of the political and cultural influence of the pseudo-religious, dominionist right-wing?

The Handmaid's Tale : A Novel Eternal Hostility : The Struggle Between Theocracy and Democracy Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism

The kind of men who need to dominate and control women (as these folk seem to want to do) are pathological – and boring – and make terrible husbands, fathers, brothers or friends. Just my personal opinion.

Wherever you are in terms of your beliefs about pregnancy planning, education, abortion – I do hope that the women and men of this country are not really quite willing to turn back the clock on women’s “personhood.”

Aren’t we claiming to “spread democracy and freedom”? Ask the women of Afghanistan and Iraq, or for that matter, across much of the world, how we’re doing on that.

I do hope you’ll be voting and supporting more progressive candidates (or even running for office yourself).

“To my knowledge, there has never been an administration that has been more hostile to women’s equality, to reproductive freedom as a fundamental human right, and has acted on that hostility. They certainly have pursued abstinence-only sex education programs and gutted and gotten rid of comprehensive sex education. They’ve pursued the gag rule that uses U.S. foreign aid to suppress reproductive information, and that has literally endangered and damaged the lives of millions of women in poor countries. And they’ve suppressed AIDS information and emergency contraception. In addition to their clear drive to criminalize abortion, there has been no opportunity of which I’m aware that they have not taken to restrict women’s rights and to oppose reproductive freedom.”

— Gloria Steinem, 2004

Napoli: Sodomy of religious virgins might justify abortion

Posted on by
2

I don’t think I had ever seen South Dakota’s State Senator Bill Napoli speak before tonight. He was commenting on the abortion ban there that would close down – gulp – the only operating clinic that’s left in the entire state (this one clinic has to fly in medical volunteers from out-of-state). Guess there wasn’t really much left to do.

Online NewsHour: South Dakota Bans Most Types Of Abortion — March 3, 2006

BILL NAPOLI: When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn’t allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again.

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: You really do?

BILL NAPOLI: Yes, I do. I don’t think we’re so far beyond that, that we can’t go back to that.

Sounds almost sweet, huh? Like the "wild west" reference, which frames the whole thing. In the actual "wild west," women didn’t do very well… Of course, the west wasn’t "wild" when this guy was growing up.

Under what circumstances would Mr. Napoli concede that a woman (or her community) might be allowed to consider abortion? Rape or incest? um… well…. actually….even those cases would have to come under "danger to life of the mother."

A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

The case he allowed that might actually "endanger the woman’s life" would be if she were a religious virgin saving herself for marriage" and she was not only brutally raped but also sodomized (because she was sodomized? Does he need some basic sex ed on how pregnancy occurs?). Note that just being a virgin isn’t enough, and that he assumes virginity isn’t actually a choice made in full knowledge and self-value, but only in "religious" conviction (or more likely, quasi-religious pressure).

Note also that the ideal situation is where the community makes the decision for the people involved – both that the woman will carry to term and that the two will marry. What a great basis for commitment – an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy. Maybe we should hear some autobiographies from people who had marriages with that auspicious beginning. I can’t think of many men who would welcome a return of the shotgun wedding either. Oh, and should uncle or brother daddy marry the one they "savage"?

His delivery was shocking. It was almost as if the thought of the brutalization of the woman – oh wait, he said "girl" – was a turn-on for him. The last sentence was a bit of an afterthought. Here is a man who clearly views women as property to be controlled and dominated (and even protected – as property). How is he that much different than the rapist he cites?

In any case, "danger to the life of the mother" is usually interpreted in quite narrow terms – that carrying to term might well result in the literal death of the mother – such as with an ectopic pregnancy or other medical conditions.

 

Is it virgin sodomy that makes all the difference for him? Is a woman who isn’t a virgin less traumatized by rape or incest? Is it all about the qualities of the rapist – the brutalizing, sodomizing defiler of religious virgins? Is it enough to be an anal virgin? (Actually, anal and oral intercourse are on the rise among the "no-sex" pledgers. Hope they don’t catch a disease while they’re trying not to get pregnant without birth control.)

Watch for other moves back to the "good old days" too. For people who are so against abortion, they are oddly and ferociously opposed to the proven factors of reducing the number of abortions: birth control, sex education, women’s education and training, equality, and freedom of opportunity. What next? Barring women from the vote or from owning property? Will American women be disallowed from wearing miniskirts, working outside the home, going to college, driving a car?

Fundamentalist sexism and domination of women looks very similar to me across religions. It’s about the same thing as rape – it’s about power, it’s about controlling and dominating women into a semi-subhuman status. Watch what happens to those women in those communities when they don’t have the abortion. See how friendly their neighbors are to a single woman with a child, or to a struggling family with five. Shall we bring back the good old witchcraft charges too?

In a way, I understand. Some people don’t want to have to face reality. There is so much change, and they don’t know where or how they will fit. It’s clear that many of us will be sacrificed to the Mammon, the "god of money." There is meth addiction, there is crime, there is disrespect to "elders" – surely it feels like apocalypse approacheth. It’s strange that they refuse to look at economic factors – but it’s clear that our children and grandchildren will live in a very different world. My generation is the first that has not (on the whole) done as well as our parents did. So some of us can’t actually face the world we live in – we’ve had it relatively easy and some have an irrational assumption that the world owes us something whether or not we’ve earned it or deserve it (shall we call it the W syndrome?). We pretend that there is no poverty while it’s actually increasing, that all parents must by definition be wonderful people, that kin don’t rape or otherwise hurt one another, that everyone who is the least bit different from our comfort group must be evil, that people who do their own thinking and make their own ethical choices are a threat to those who simply submit to authority (hoping they will be spared?). Some people can’t even really understand that there are other countries or people different than the "folks" on our street – most Americans only speak one language. Of course our own "group" has its problems as well, but if we are not directly affected we tend to ignore that as much as possible. We want to protect our kith and kin and we like to hide in the safe comfort of our folk mythologies.

But these are childish reactions, and they bring out very bad things in us. They bring out the very things that every prophet warns against. America is living in a very thin veil of self-induced hallucinations. Part of the "good old days" mythology has to do with dominating women – oh, and killing Indians in the "Wild West." Violence against immigrants, especially Mexicans, is on the rise.

A religious response would have to listen compassionately to narratives of actual, truthful experience (as you would have your God hear you) before proposing solutions or making judgments. These politicians don’t do that very much – and neither do many of their constituents. Listen to the stories of the women who are desperate enough to abort their pregnancies that they travel hundreds of miles to the only clinic in the state to get it done. Listen to the circumstances by which a woman decides to end a pregnancy – it is no easy thing to decide. The stories are often heartbreaking. There are women who have had abortions and regretted it deeply – this is true. There are women who have not, and paid dearly.

This issue is a handy tool to drive people apart because abortion is a very controversial and difficult topic. Ultimately, though, it is not the job of the government to mandate a woman’s reproductive life. Such decisions have to reside with the woman, with her God (if she is a believer) and in consultation with her doctor.

Maybe that’s the beef – that finally there is a matter in which a woman has the final say-so. How threatening to the fragile male ego.

Roe v. Wade was the compromise. If your daughter or your sister or your mother or your friend were in a position where abortion had to be contemplated, you might think differently. Or maybe not – maybe you’re in that group who wants to turn America into a theocracy – complete with stoning?

Added March 4th: Mark Morford’s reaction to all this is much more strident – and witty. Read "S. Dakota Slaps Up Its Women: Another state you should never visit passes an appalling abortion ban, because they hate you"

Independent Judiciary, Roe v Wade

Posted on by
Reply

So what does Sandra Day O’Connor say (in case you’ve forgotten, she is a Republican but not a neo-con) now that she has announced her retirement from the Supreme Court?

Speaking in Spokane WA to a group of lawyers and judges in late July, retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said she is worried about the future of the federal judiciary because of a “climate of antipathy” in Congress. “I’m pretty old, you know. In all the years of my life, I don’t think I have ever seen relations as strained as they are now” between the judiciary and Congress, O’Connor said. “It makes me sad. … The present climate is such that I worry about the federal judiciary.”

There is sentiment that courts are overreaching,” and in our country today, “we’re seeing efforts to prevent that: a desire not to have an independent judiciary, and that worries me,” she said. “A key concept of the rule of law is the concept of an independent judiciary.”

Not surprisingly, John Roberts is expressing a firm view of an independent judiciary, but I’m not he means what she means by the phrase.

“Judicial activism” is another strangely loaded phrase, used primarily to accuse judges of “legislating from the bench” or being “out of (our) control” when they don’t get into lockstep with the President’s (or the religious right’s) agenda. It is used to generate antipathy toward the check and balance of the judicial branch as against the executive and legislative branches. Somehow, though, it’s never used to describe examples such as Justices Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist, who have explicitly said they want to overturn the legal precedent of Roe v. Wade. Bush has loaded up as much as he can with right-wing judges – but even a couple of his appointments have this distressing tendency to look at the case at hand and to make a real judgment, not just move with the ideological wave.

Roberts writes on the Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire:

“It is difficult to comment on either ‘judicial activism’ or ‘judicial restraint’ in the abstract, without reference to the particular facts and applicable law of a specific case. Precedent plays an important role in promoting the stability of the legal system. A sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath.”

Roberts said that “judges must be constantly aware that their role, while important, is limited. They do not have a commission to solve society’s problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law.”

I agree with what he says in a general way – it’s well-crafted, although I’m a little worried about the emphasis on the limited role of the judiciary. What he leaves out is that the cases often establish new precedents that further impact rulings in other cases, and that judges still interpret – that is, after all, their purpose. That is why the Supreme Court is a body of judges and not just one judge, or a computer, or the President.

Besides not “remembering” his involvement in the Federalists, Roberts spent some time assisting Florida Gov. Jeb Bush during the disputed presidential election count in 2000. He said he went to Florida at the request of GOP lawyers, assisting an attorney who was preparing arguments for the Florida Supreme Court and at one point meeting the governor, President Bush’s younger brother, to discuss the legal issues “in a general way.” Other political affiliations Roberts listed were the executive committee of the D.C. Lawyers for Bush-Quayle in 1988, Lawyers for Bush-Cheney and the Republican National Lawyers Association. Last month, a three-judge federal court ruled the Bush administration’s plan to convene military tribunals to try terrorist detainees at Guantanamo Bay was constitutional, overruling a lower court’s opinion that the tribunals violated the Geneva Convention. The opinion of the court in that decision was joined by none other than Judge John Roberts, who days later became President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court.

My only real hope, a long shot I know, is that once he is facing the actual position, a certain gravitas will let him use that great mind of his to good purpose, even occasionally against his entire history of contacts and networks. Who knows? Someone that smart might have hidden depths. What else can we hope for? It’s going to be difficult to challenge him. He’s got the credentials. Some of the papers that would show his lines of thought on different issues are not going to be released – for good reason, one has to think, or else they would be proud to do so.

Roberts wrote that he was interviewed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales as early as April 1. Besides Bush, Roberts reported having discussions with Vice President Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Andrew Card. To the question whether if any of them asked about his specific legal views or positions on cases, Roberts gave a one-word reply: “No.”

Of course, they really didn’t have to ask, did they – he is well-vetted. I wonder why they keep repeating this refrain as though we would believe that they had absolutely no idea about his opinions and viewpoint. The far right is celebrating for a reason.

The funny thing is, I don’t actually think Roe v Wade will be overturned. If it’s not about money and power, I don’t think it really truly interests this administration all that much. I think they will make some noises in that direction to manipulate the pseudochristians – but they won’t deliver it.

Why? Abortion is a very controversial issue – and along with birth control allowed the liberation of women. Roe v Wade was the compromise that honored both positions. Right now, the majority of American women are somewhat depolicitized. Feminisms have, for a host of reasons, lost ground. Many women are somewhat disenchanted with their options and careers, and feeling as though they might have given up more than they got – after all, the childcare options and equal pay and respect from men never entirely came through. Feminists got painted as feminazis and a lot of women, including many of my friends and on certain days even myself, entered a sort of post-feminist phase.

I don’t think they can go that far all at once. So what they do instead is start working against birth control and sex education… and they’re getting pretty good at that. A lot can be done there against women that is less noticable than overturning Roe v Wade. They even used the case of that poor Lacey woman. Do a little research.

It’s all about controlling women – it’s about power, it’s not about spirituality.

Well – overturn Roe v Wade and you are going to see a lot of angry women. A lot of angry women – we just aren’t willing to go back to the days of my mother, the days when your husband or father had to sign off his permission for a woman to get a loan, the days of backalley wire hanger abortions when only certain wealthy women had control over their reproductive options – those little trips to Europe. Not all women are ready to go back that far, to lose their hard-won rights.

I honestly don’t think they’ll risk the consequences of a fully-politicized female population.

Recent Posts: