In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Requiring Women to See “The Truth”

“Informed consent” laws are all the rage in anti-choice circles these days. They started off with The Script — legally requiring abortion providers to read an often factually incorrect statement to women seeking abortions. The Script varies from state to state, but it generally includes the idea that the fetus is a “unique life,” that abortion can lead to breast cancer (completely proven false), and that abortion has a series of psychological and physical consequences (also totally unsubstantiated). In many states, the woman is required to go home and think about it for a day or two after hearing the script before they have an abortion.

These laws serve a few purposes — to try and scare women out of abortion by telling them that they’re killing their baby and their life will be forever ruined; to make it more difficult to get an abortion (in many states abortion clinics are few and far between, and women drive for hours to get there — making then wait 24 or 48 hours puts up serious roadblocks); and to enshrine paternalism into the law.

The latest “informed consent” move is the ultrasound. Women are apparently to dumb to know that they’re carrying a fetus, and so they must be shown a picture to “fully inform” them. When pro-choicers object on the grounds that required ultrasounds are coercive, medically unnecessary and condescending, we’re told that we’re hypocrites — after all, don’t women have a right to know?

Well, fine. If we’re going to treat women like stupid children when it comes to medical decisions about reproduction, then let’s go whole hog. Whenever a woman decides to give birth, we should legally require her doctor to give her the whole list of what could go wrong. We should tell her that her chances of dying in childbirth are about 10 times greater than her chances of dying because of an abortion (and because the “pro-lifers” leave out information about just how seldom death from abortion occurs, I see no reason why we should tell pregnant women that death in childbirth really isn’t all that common). We should tell her that she’s much more likely to experience depression and other mental illness after giving birth than she is after abortion. We should tell her that adoption also includes a significant risk of depression. We should tell her that motherhood will significantly decrease her wages. We should make sure that she’s really informed about what childbirth entails — since anti-choice activists like pretty pictures so much, we should make her watch a video of a woman giving birth. And a video of a C-section. And we should be sure to include the important details — like the fact that the little piece of skin between your vagina and your anus might very well rip through during birth, if the doctor doesn’t cut it to allow more room for the baby to exit. We should make sure that women know that kids are expensive — and raising kids is probably the most expensive thing you’ll ever do. We’re talking a quarter of a million dollars — and that’s only until the kid is 17. Better hope Junior doesn’t want to go to college.

Women have a right to know, right?

I have a feeling that if we proposed a law which would require doctors to read that script and show a birthing video to all pregnant women, anti- and pro-choicers alike would not be happy. So why the special treatment for abortion? People like William Saletan may argue that abortion is a Monumental Choice and it is Very Important that women know what they’re getting into beforehand (even if it’s a pack of lies). Fine. But since when is having a kid a walk in the damn park? If women are too dumb to know that they’re pregnant with a fetus, shouldn’t we assume that they’re too dumb to know what childbirth and childrearing (or adoption) entail? Child-rearing, unlike abortion, is generally a life-long commitment, and almost always has more substantial effects on women’s lives than terminating a pregnancy (physically, emotionally and financially). How are we talking about approving coercive laws for the Monumental Choice of abortion and not discussing the fact that pregnancy, childbirth and childrearing are a hell of a lot more Monumental?

Obviously I’m not in favor of treating pregnant women like idiots. But if we think that women are so intellectually inferior that we must be read a script and shown a picture before we can terminate a pregnancy, then we sure as hell should require women to be read a script and shown a picture before we can carry a pregnancy to term and have a child. I look forward to the “pro-family” groups — who are, you know, so pro-family — proposing this law, which will ensure that women know what they’re getting into when it comes to birth and motherhood. Because we value motherhood, right?

Don’t get mad at me — it’s just informed consent. Don’t women deserve to know?

Will Saletan informs us that the sky is blue, water is wet, and those are fetuses that get aborted

I really wonder sometimes if Will Saletan is my father’s long-lost bastard child. Because he’s got the exact same talent Dad had for telling you what you already knew in a manner that made it clear that he thought he was a genius and you were benighted and in dire need of his instruction. Even where he is hopelessly, utterly wrong — or at the very least, just not getting it in the name of being “contrarian.”

I have noted this similarity once before, comparing Will’s stunning revelation that greater access to contraception will tend to decrease abortion (not to mention his belief that he just thought of this all by himself) to my father’s being full of advice about the use of the microwave that everyone else in the house had already been using for 10 years before he deigned to figure out how to turn it on.

Will’s latest offering from the “No shit, Sherlock” files reminds me very much of my father’s solemnly informing me that there are nine Justices on the Supreme Court. Mind you, I was in college at the time. Poli Sci. I kinda knew that. But Dad was a white guy, and that made him an Expert.

What’s the latest pearl of wisdom from Lord Saletan? Women just don’t know that they’re aborting fetuses, and we have to make sure they know this!

In its April 18 ruling, the court treated abortion like an obscenity—something that could be done, but not out in the open. Partial-birth abortions, the court reasoned, could be banned because they occur outside the woman’s body. Other abortions need not be outlawed, since the womb conceals them.

Ultrasound dissolves this distinction. It offers to make every fetus and every abortion visible. It forces the court to renounce either the partial-birth ban or the right to abortion.

Oh, my god! Who knew that these were human fetuses that were getting aborted??? Sweet gibbering Jesus, were it not for ultrasound technology, we would never, ever know what goes on within the black box of a woman’s body!

It’s hard to accept if you see abortion as a woman’s right. But it’s even harder to accept if you see abortion as the taking of a human life. That’s one reason why pro-lifers are turning their attention from partial-birth abortion to ultrasound, from the fetus outside the body to the fetus within. They’re trying to open, in their words, a “window to the womb.”

Pro-lifers are often caricatured as stupid creationists who just want to put women back in their place. Science and free inquiry are supposed to help them get over their “love affair with the fetus.” But science hasn’t cooperated. Ultrasound has exposed the life in the womb to those of us who didn’t want to see what abortion kills. The fetus is squirming, and so are we.

Around the country, ultrasound bills are all the rage. Most of them require clinics to offer each woman an ultrasound view of her fetus. Mississippi enacted a law on March 22. Idaho followed April 3. Georgia’s legislature passed a bill a week ago; South Carolina’s is about to do the same.

Quick! Better lobby your state legislature for an ultrasound bill! All the cool kids are doing it. It’s all techno.

Plus, you don’t want to be a pussy, do you?

Critics complain that these bills seek to “bias,” “coerce,” and “guilt-trip” women. Come on. Women aren’t too weak to face the truth. If you don’t want to look at the video, you don’t have to. But you should look at it, and so should the guy who got you pregnant, because the decision you’re about to make is as grave as it gets.

Are ultrasound pushers trying to bias your decision? Of course. But of all the things they do to “inform” your decision, this is the least twisted. Look at the Senate’s “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act.” It would order your doctor to deliver a 193-word script full of bogus congressional findings about your “pain-capable unborn child.” Ultrasound cuts through that kind of garbage. The image on the monitor may look like a blob, a baby, or neither. It certainly won’t follow some senator’s script. All it will show you is the truth.

Look at the pretty pictures!

You know, that little line about “the truth” reminds me of that scene in A Few Good Men where Tom Cruise has Jack Nicholson on the stand: “I want the truth!” demands Tom. “You can’t handle the truth,” sneers Jack.

Now, why would I think of a Tom Cruise movie when reading an article about ultrasounds?

I just love how Saletan decides that women don’t know “the truth” about abortion, and that ultrasounds are just the ticket for telling them that they have a human life in their wombs. That fetuses MOVE!

Uh, they know that already, Will. That’s why they’re getting abortions. Because they know that if the embryo or fetus is left there, chances are it will be a baby after nine months, the responsibility of someone who doesn’t want to have a baby. They don’t need to look at an ultrasound to know that. Of course, anti-choicers remain convinced otherwise:

To pro-lifers, ultrasound is a test of pro-choice sincerity. “The same people who scream that women must always be told ‘all their options,’ including abortion, balk at allowing women to see whom it is whose life they are about to take,” says Mary Spaulding Balch, NRLC’s state legislative director. “They are petrified that women will change their minds after seeing their babies.”

So, uh, you gonna pay for this, Mary? Because requiring ultrasounds — which are not cheap — is going to raise the price of abortions and force even more late-term procedures as women have to get the money together. Which, of course, is the point here: throw up as many roadblocks as possible, raise the costs, make it as difficult as possible to obtain an abortion, and maybe a few of those sluts will change their minds. And if they don’t want to look at the video, they’re weak and can’t handle the truth.

Actually, given how many obstacles are put into womens’ paths, particularly in Bible-belt states, it’s a wonder anyone goes through with abortion at all. I’ve never had one, but if I ever needed one, I live in a state with incredibly liberal abortion laws. I can’t even imagine scraping together the money, traveling to a distant clinic, going through mandatory waiting periods, having to sit through bullshit disclosures about the procedure, running the gantlet of the protesters outside (not to mention all the security inside due to the terrorism directed at women’s clinics), and then having one more goddamn thing thrown at you: “Look! It’s your baby!”

That so many women do make it through this whole procedure is a real testament to the fact that they know the truth already and they will do what they need to do. Which is something that needs to be added to the list of things Saletan Just Doesn’t Get. Because this is how he closes his piece:

To trust the ultrasound, you have to trust the woman.

If you trusted the woman in the first place, you wouldn’t force her to view an ultrasound.

If you thought getting rapes prosecuted by the state was a difficult process…

You might want to thank your lucky stars you don’t live on a reservation.

Native American and Alaska Native women in the United States suffer disproportionately high levels of rape and sexual violence, yet the federal government has created substantial barriers to accessing justice, Amnesty International (AI) asserted in a 113-page report released today. Justice Department figures indicate that American Indian and Alaska Native women are 2.5 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women in the United States in general; more than one in three Native women will be raped in their lifetimes.

The United States government has created a complex maze of tribal, state and federal jurisdictions that often allows perpetrators to rape with impunity — and in some cases effectively creates jurisdictional vacuums that encourage assaults. It is necessary to establish the location of the crime and the identity of the perpetrator to determine which authorities have jurisdiction, during which critical time is lost. This leads to inadequate investigations or a failure to respond.

Further complications are the lack of trained Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners (SANEs) at Indian Health Service (IHS) facilities to provide forensic exams, and the potential for law enforcement to mishandle evidence when rape kits are used. The result is that Native women often:

Do not get timely – or any – response from police.
May not get forensic medical examinations.
May never see their cases prosecuted.

“Native women are brutalized at an alarming rate, and the United States government, a purported champion of women’s rights, is unfortunately contributing to the problem,” said Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA (AIUSA). “It is disgraceful that such abuse even exists today. Without immediate action, an already abysmal and outrageous situation for women could spiral even further out of control. It is time to halt these human rights abuses that have raged unfettered since this country was founded.”

The AI report, Maze of Injustice: The failure to protect Indigenous women from sexual violence in the USA, warned that government figures, as disturbing as they are, grossly underestimate the problem because many women are too fearful of inaction to report their cases. According to one Oklahoma support worker, of 77 active sexual assault/domestic violence cases involving Native American women, only three victims reported their cases to the police.

The U.S. Government has undermined the authority of tribal justice systems to respond to crimes of sexual violence by consistent under-funding. Federal law limits the criminal sentences that tribal courts can impose for any one offense to one year and prohibits tribal courts from trying non-Indian suspects — even though data collected by the Department of Justice shows that up to 86 percent of perpetrators are non-Indian.

In addition, AI’s research suggests that there is a failure at the state and federal level to pursue cases of sexual violence against Native women involving non-Indian perpetrators. One former federal prosecutor told AI, “It is hard to prosecute cases where there is a Native American victim and a non-Native American perpetrator.” Once a case is denied at the state or federal level, there is no further recourse for survivors of rape under criminal law.

Read the whole thing.

Hat tip, Liberality.

South Carolina: A True Leader in Reminding Bitches That They Ain’t Shit

Well here’s something to be proud of.

South Carolina is one of the most difficult places in the United States to get an abortion, abortion rights advocates say.

Over the past two decades, a host of legislative restrictions — mandatory waiting periods, requiring “informed consent” information and regulations on abortion clinics — have jelled to limit access to abortions.

Those restrictions delight anti-abortion forces and dishearten those who advocate a woman’s right to choose.

The impact of the laws is evident in:

• The decline of S.C. abortion clinics to three from 14 in 1996

• The drop in S.C. doctors who perform abortions. South Carolina is the only state in the nation that has a law that defines a fetus as a person. Abortion rights advocates say that law could expose doctors who perform abortions to criminal prosecution.

• Two-thirds of the state’s reproductive-age women live in counties where no doctors perform abortions.

• A slight increase in the number of S.C. women going to other states to get abortions

As a result, abortions in South Carolina have dropped 53 percent since 1988.

Read More…Read More…

Endowed

You know my gynecologist felt compelled to console me over the fact that my clit is always gonna be as, ahem, easy to find as it is now? Somehow, being a little better-hung than the other ladies isn’t quite as uncomplicated a physical asset as, say, having large breasts. In fact, having a hazelnut instead of a pine nut is potentially repulsive. I’ll need to very carefully prepare my partners for the sight of my gargantuan hot button. (“It’s not a toomah!”) But no. No traditional conflict over the vag in this society, no sir!

Read More…Read More…

This is what Anti-Choice Looks Like

The anti-choice mentality is about more than just restricting abortion — it’s about a broader mentality that does not believe women should have a right to make their own reproductive decisions. It’s about thinking that the state should be permitted to exercise control over whether or not women give birth. And as that mentality continues to rear its ugly head here through the latest Supreme Court decision and strings of anti-abortion-rights and anti-contraception measures proposed in individual states, it’s in full force in China, where women are forcibly sterilized, put on long-term birth control, and forced or coerced into terminating pregnancies:

A 2003 document from the Guangdong Province reveals that officials there were told their salaries would be cut in half within about a month if they did not sterilize 1,369 women, fit an additional 818 with IUDs and ensure that 163 abortions were carried out. Like some U.S. politicians, the Chinese have made taking choice away from women a career objective.

What’s too often left out of the abortion debate is that choice goes both ways. A government that has the right to force you to give birth also has the right to force you to terminate your pregnancy, or to forcibly ensure that you never get pregnant in the first place. When anti-choicers promote forced pregnancy, they stand in solidarity with the anti-choice regime in China. All of them believe in restricting women’s most basic rights, and allowing the state to decide what women to with their wombs.

Forcing a woman who doesn’t want to have an abortion for whatever reason — be it that she really wants to have a child or that she doesn’t believe that doing so would be right based on religious reasons — is just another way to subvert her autonomy and rob her of her dignity.

All those who would stand against China’s cruel policy while supporting the U.S. Supreme Court’s upholding of an abortion ban should realize the inherent contradiction in their thinking.

Word.

Take Back the Blog TODAY!

take back the blog

The Take Back the Blog! Blogswarm supports the rights of women to participate fully in all aspects of our society, including specifically online in the world of blogging but indeed everywhere and at all times, day and night, without fear of harassment, intimidation, sexual harassment, online stalking and slander, predation or violence of any sort.

Just a reminder to post today, and email it to Bruce (TBTB2007@crablaw.com) before 7pm tonight. More details can be found on his site. I’ll have a post up in a few hours — right now, it’s brunch time.