feminist blogs

Regina McKnight at her post conviction hearing

Great news: Regina McKnight, a South Carolina woman who was sentenced to 12 years in prison for homicide by child abuse after she gave birth to a still-born baby, has had her conviction overturned.

McKnight is one of about 200 women who have been arrested for the crime of using drugs while pregnant. The women who are brought to trial are usually charged with either child abuse or drug trafficking — the “trafficking” act happening in utero. This is an issue of particular interest to me, and I’m tempted to write a long post about it, but a final paper calls. So, check out these old posts for background:

Help Pregnant Drug Addicts, Don’t Jail Them
Prosecuting Neo-Natal Drug Use: A Public Health Issue
Prosecuting Pregnant Drug-Addicted Mothers

And I would be remiss not to mention the fantastic work of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, who have worked tirelessly to put this issue in the spotlight. Check out this piece in particular about Ms. McKnight’s ordeal.

Good news:

Disability rights advocates and medical ethicists praised a precedent-setting ruling Friday by the Illinois Appellate Court denying a bid to sterilize a mentally disabled woman against her will.

The woman, identified only as K.E.J. in court records, isn’t capable of raising a child on her own, but her guardian failed to prove that sterilization would be in her best interests, a three-judge panel in Chicago ruled unanimously.

[ . . . ]

The ruling was the first appellate opinion on the issue in Illinois.

 

“It’s extraordinarily significant” because it guarantees the disabled a court hearing, said Katie Watson, a Northwestern University professor who wrote a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of about two dozen medical ethicists.

[ . . . ]

K.E.J., 29, suffered a brain injury as a child when she was struck by a car. As a result, she cannot be left alone to operate a stove or perform most household chores.

The woman lives with her aunt, who was appointed as her guardian in the mid-1990s. In 2003, the aunt filed a “petition for tubal ligation” in Cook County Probate Court, arguing that her niece had a bad medical reaction to other birth-control methods.

At a bench trial in 2005, K.E.J. testified that she hoped one day to have children. “I will love taking care of them,” she said. “I will love, you know, to see how they grow.”

Seeing our atrocious history on forced sterilization in this country, I’d say that this ruling is oh, several decades overdue. I personally found both Pregnancy and Power and Killing the Black Body to be excellent primers on this subject as well as great books (but I’m sure that there are other great books I haven’t read that focus primarily on this issue — if you know them, leave the titles in the comments). But the simple version of the facts is that for many decades, America participated in and promoted forced sterilization of those who were deemed unfit to pass on their genes. That included women of color, the poor and those who were referred to as “feeble-minded” — disabled women (the phrase was also used to justify sterilization of other socially-scorned women, like those who were promiscuous or sex workers). Many people believe that this is still happening, like with the Norplant situation several years back (also covered in Killing the Black body), and there is more or less undeniable evidence that it is still happening to non-English-speaking women and the disabled.

We often treat disabled people as though they are undeserving of certain things in life, and sexuality and parenthood are pretty high up on that list. I do not think that being unable to raise your children on your own makes you unworthy of giving birth to and raising children. And I certainly don’t see any justification for a forced-sterilization of a woman who has made it clear that her wishes are otherwise; we need to see it as equally heinous to forced-birth and forced-abortion. By it’s very nature, a fundamental right is not conditional, and believing in reproductive justice means believing in it for all. And so I applaud the court and congratulate disability activists on this win; I can only hope that the success continues.

via FRIDA

Woah.

For once, I am at a loss for words.

Who remembers the 2005 and 2006 California propositions that tried to instate parental notification rules for minors seeking abortions? You know, the ones that failed? Well, not so fast. Looks like it’s probably going to be on the ballot this year, too. Meet the man you can thank:

Jim Holman, owner of the San Diego Reader, has spent millions trying to persuade Californians to pass a law requiring parents to be notified before their underage daughter has an abortion.

After two failed ballot measure campaigns, Holman said last year that he didn’t want to try again.

But when other anti-abortion advocates, including winemaker Don Sebastiani, launched a third campaign, Holman couldn’t resist opening up his checkbook once again.

“Sebastiani was not deterred. He said, ‘We have to go back again and again,’ ” Holman said. “He led with big donations and I sort of followed.”

The result could make California political history.

The $1.8 million donated by Holman and Sebastiani so far is likely to put a parental-notification initiative before voters for the third time in four years. The measure would require a physician to notify a parent or guardian 48 hours before performing an abortion for a girl under the age of 18.

If the measure qualifies, it would be the first time since the California initiative process was established in 1914 that the state’s voters will consider the same measure so many times in a four-year period.

Planned Parenthood is arguing that Holman, while not doing anything illegal, is abusing the electoral process, and I agree. No, money alone does not get an initiative on a ballot, but if you spend $1.8 on an issue that inspires the kind of passion abortion does and don’t manage to get the just-under 700,000 signatures needed in a very large state, you’d have to be pretty damn inept. Holman is, of course, perfectly within his rights — that doesn’t mean there’s nothing unethical about it.

(more…)

A pregnant trans man tells his story of discrimination, mockery, hope and family. It’s a short piece, but well worth a read.

This kind of out-of-control globalization, wherein wealthier women are able to rent the wombs of poorer ones, makes me extremely uncomfortable.

I’m certainly sympathetic to the plight of couples who can’t conceive for whatever reason. And it certainly makes sense for women to voluntarily carry someone else’s pregnancy if it means making a lot of money. But I think it’s possible to be skeptical of this situation without passing judgment on the people involved in it, most of whom are doing the best that they can in tough circumstances.

An article published in The Times of India in February questioned how such a law would be enforced: “In a country crippled by abject poverty,” it asked, “how will the government body guarantee that women will not agree to surrogacy just to be able to eat two square meals a day?”

One could argue that surrogates are simply providing a service like any other. But I’m not sure that we want to turn reproduction into a service industry. The inequalities here are so stark — and the carrot of thousands of dollars so tempting for women in a country with astounding poverty rates — that writing if off as purely business is inadequate.

“Surrogates do it to give their children a better education, to buy a home, to start up a small business, a shop,” Dr. Kadam said. “This is as much money as they could earn in maybe three years. I really don’t think that this is exploiting the women. I feel it is two people who are helping out each other.”

Mr. Gher agreed. “You cannot ignore the discrepancies between Indian poverty and Western wealth,” he said. “We try our best not to abuse this power. Part of our choice to come here was the idea that there was an opportunity to help someone in India.”

In the Mumbai clinic, it is clear that an exchange between rich and poor is under way. On some contracts, the thumbprint of an illiterate surrogate stands out against the clients’ signatures.

Thoughts?

Apparently I should be having babies right now.

Women who want to have children should make it a priority in their twenties to find a partner. That’s because one of the most dramatic issues facing Generation X is infertility. No generation of women has had more trouble with fertility than this generation, who received the terrible baby boomer advice, “Wait. You have time. Focus on your career first.”

But in fact, you have your whole life to get a career. Obviously, that’s not true of having a baby. If you are past your early twenties, and you’re single and want to have children, you need to find a partner now. Take that career drive and direct it toward mating - your ovaries will not last longer than your career.

In case you’re waiting for “the right time,” there is no evidence to show when is best to interrupt a career to have a child. No matter when it happens, a women’s career is thrown off track. Phyllis Moen, professor of sociology at the University of Minnesota, says, “Don’t wait until the right time in your career to have a child or it will never come.”

I’m getting really, really tired of hearing these messages. Men have never had to worry about balancing career with family. Women are inundated with “helpful information” about how we simply cannot possibly “have it all,” and then we’re berated when we internalize the message and work part-time, or stay home, or worry about how we’re going to do it all, or set our sights lower than men do. Then the same nay-sayers who had been telling women we can’t do it use women’s insecurities and lower achievements to “prove” their self-fulfilling prophecy.

I call bullshit. Yes, everyone has to make choices, but plenty of women are able to balance their professional goals with their personal ones. Some of them have babies in their 20s. Some of them don’t. And the author of this article is out of her damn mind if she thinks that fear of not having babies in the future is a good reason to get married and/or pregnant right now.

This is satire, right?

Fay Weldon is a long-time feminist activist, and I have to hope that this op/ed is simply a satirical response to the suggestion of a British politician that all teenage girls should be sterilized. But it reads awfully seriously. And whether or not she meant it, the commenters at the Daily Mail sure seem to be taking her seriously — and agreeing with her proposal. Plus there’s the fact that Weldon “found God” a few years back and has been spouting some seriously anti-feminist rhetoric ever since. I want to believe it’s a joke, but I’m not so sure.

Last week, an intriguing proposition was mooted by Government minister Dawn Primarolo.

Teenage girls, she said, could be steered towards what is described as “long-term contraception”.

This is now possible thanks to the development of contraceptive jabs and implants which can last up to five years.

In other words, there is a way of effectively sterilising girls for a lengthy period of time.

At what age? Well, doesn’t 12 until 17 sound rather sensible?

This would have the advantage of bringing down the teenage pregnancy rate, so high in this country it makes us a disgrace among the nations - the worst offenders in Europe.

The abortion rate would fall sharply. And silly young girls could get on with the education that is meant to produce serious, responsible taxpayers, not benefit recipients.

Now, many people will see this modest proposal as little short of horrific - nothing less than state interference in our reproductive lives.

But think about it: it might not be such a bad idea.

The rest of the op/ed just goes downhill from there.

I’m all for improving access to education and decreasing the teen pregnancy rate, but not at any cost. And forcing all girls to be sterilized is a pretty high price to pay. It’s simply wrong. It’s a violation of bodily autonomy and basic human rights, just like forced abortion and forced pregnancy. It is not something that any pro-choice person should ever consider reasonable.

It’s also something with deeply racist roots. Forced and coerced sterilizations are not neutral propositions, and have long been used as tools of control against women of color and others “unfit” for parenthood. These kinds of suggestions cannot be separated from that history. And, no matter who they’re directed at, suggestions that we should take away the reproductive rights of an entire group of people are inherently problematic and worthy of strong feminist opposition.

While state senators are pining for the good ol’ days of easy rape and conservative Texas communities are doing their darndest to shame and punish young women who “choose life,” a Colorado representative is letting teen moms know exactly how he feels about them:

“In my parents’ day and age, they were sent away. They were shunned. They were called what they are … There’s no sense of shame today. Society condones it … They’re sluts. And I don’t mean just the women. I mean the men, too.”

Ah yes, the good old days when women were socially shunned and sent away upon becoming pregnant (and, sorry, but the young slutty men were never shunned or sent away). I’m sure that never contributed to increased abortion rates among young women. I’m sure that young women who become pregnant today will “choose life” when “pro-life” politicians tell them they’re whores who should be ostracized and shipped off.

But this is the “pro-life” movement for you — they rail against abortion, but then take every step possible to (1) make preventing unwanted pregnancy more difficult, and (2) punish and harm women who have kids. They aren’t just hostile to abortion rights; they’re hostile to women, and to women being able to make their own decisions.

Oh, but he “apologized:”

“I certainly could have had a better choice of words,” said Liston. “That’s the word that inadvertently came to my mind.”

Funny, because reading this, “self-righteous asswipe” is the term that inadvertently came to my mind. All my most genuine apologies for that.

Title stolen from Doug, who basically says everything I would have.

It’s not an uncommon story: Teenage girl grows up in a conservative town; teenage girl gets pregnant; teenage girl has baby; town is scandalized. But here, the teenage girl got her life together — being a mother pushed her to be more responsible, and she got her grades up and stayed in school, despite having the odds stacked against her. Her fellow students took notice, and wanted to write a yearbook story on her — but the conservative, likely “pro-life” administration would have none of it.

Her classmates decided to write about Shipman’s story of choices and challenges in the yearbook.

But school administrators said the article would glamorize pre-marital sex and send the wrong message.
…
Mr. Crummel said that Ms. Estes and Ms. Shipman were well spoken and articulate at the board meeting. He believes principal Cash made his decision because the yearbook story was in conflict with the school’s position of abstinence-only education.

And therein lies the entire crux of the anti-choice movement: They are willing to actively deny reality in order to promote their ideals.

Ms. Shipman’s existence, and the existence of her child, are in conflict with the school’s position of abstinence-only education. The majority of Americans conflict with the school’s position. Reality conflicts with the school’s position. As Doug writes:

Ahh, now we see what this is really about: that “abstinence-based curriculum” failed dramatically in at least one instance, and now they want to make sure that instance is kept under wraps.

The Shipman case is a microcosm of everything that is head-slappingly screwed-up about the right wing’s attitudes toward sex and pregnancy. Basically, the way they think things should work is this: If you’re in high-school, you should only be exposed to an inaccuracy-laden form of sex education that is no more likely to keep you from having sex than other forms of sex ed. When you do go ahead and have sex anyway, chances are you get pregnant, because you never got any accurate information about birth control or contraceptives. Once you get pregnant, you have to carry the child to term, because abortion is wrong — but even if you do keep the baby, we’re still going to shun you and treat you as a leper because you never should’ve had sex in the first place. And God forbid you work hard, finish your schooling and make something of yourself, because then you’re “glamorizing” teen pregnancy and demonstrating to your peers that God doesn’t automatically make pregnant teens spontaneously combust in a fireball of shame. Here’s a question: How many pregnant teenage girls will see a story like this — in which another girl did everything she was “supposed” to do in handling her pregnancy, yet still got treated as damaged goods by the Powers That Be — and figure that, if that’s as good as things get when you actually “choose life,” they might as well get an abortion?

Of course, working to create circumstances that will actually increase the demand for abortion is nothing new to the right wing. But not only are they working against reducing abortions, they’re working against teenagers — particularly girls — at every single step of the process.

Indeed.