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

Crime, Pregnancy and Civil Rights

Jessica sends on this link: A Missouri judge requires a woman to not have any more children as a condition of her parole. This isn’t the first time that a judge has seen it as his right to strip a woman of her reproductive rights. It underlines our social views of women as not-quite-human vessels who may have their fundamental and civil rights taken away because of their reproductive capacities.

The judge claims that his decision isn’t a moral one, and that he’s trying to “help” her because the fathers of her three children aren’t paying child support, which is causing her financial strain. His idea of “help” is to limit her basic human rights, and coerce her into abortion should she become pregnant (pregnancy doesn’t violate her parole conditions, but childbirth does).

In this country, a woman loses many of her civil rights as soon as she becomes pregnant. A non-pregnant woman can use drugs without facing jail time (buying, selling, possessing, etc is illegal, but being an addict is not); pregnant women who use drugs have been charged with child abuse or with being drug dealers to the unborn (no, I am not making this up). A non-pregnant woman can have her medical wishes carried out through her living will; in many states, living wills don’t apply if a woman is pregnant.

All these issues came up in a phone conference with Lynn Paltrow that I took part in a few weeks ago. Lynn (who I think is just about one of the coolest feminists out there) founded National Advocates for Pregnant Women after working for the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project. Her work at the ACLU demonstrated that pregnant women are often ignored in the reproductive rights debate, where resources are disproportionally dedicated to abortion rights (because, of course, abortion rights are disproportionately attacked). But the anti-choice view of abortion — that it’s bad because the woman should not have any say about what happens to her own body and the fetus inside of it, and that the fetus should have greater rights than the pregnant woman — have shifted onto the bodies of pregnant women who intend to give birth. And women who want to prevent pregnancy. And women who want to use science and technology to increase their chances of getting pregnant. And women who want to have sex. In other words, reproductive rights are about almost all of us, and anti-choice politics affect every woman.

Check out more of the work that Lynn and NAPW are doing. They’re also holding a summit in Atlanta to, as it’s titled, “Ensure the Health and Humanity of Pregnant and Birthing Women.” Register now!


23 thoughts on Crime, Pregnancy and Civil Rights

  1. Well, it is really kind of awkward that they are making her abort any children that may come along, but if she already has three that she can’t take care of, I mean, to me it just seems kind of smart that she shouldn’t have any more children. I’m not saying that it’s right to tell her she can’t have anymore, but I’m just saying that she doesn’t really need to have any more, especially if financially those kids aren’t going to get what they need. My mother had to give up all hope of having more kids after I was born because the doctors had even told her that she shouldn’t have me because of health issues, and she had me, but they immediately after told her that she should have a hysterectomy (spelling). I mean, she didn’t really have a choice about it, but it would have maybe killed her if she got pregnant again. I dunno, I think that they are maybe just looking out for her best interests as well as the interests of any children she could have.

  2. Well, it is really kind of awkward that they are making her abort any children that may come along, but if she already has three that she can’t take care of, I mean, to me it just seems kind of smart that she shouldn’t have any more children.

    If you read the article, you’ll see that she is taking care of them. She’s just poor. She’s also had her tubes tied because she doesn’t want to get pregnant again. The point, though, is that should she get pregnant, the choice to carry to term should be hers to make — not something that, should she decide to give birth, could land her in prison.

  3. What I see in this story is similar to what I faced as a woman on welfare with three kids. I was the Whore of the World in the eyes of most people and constantly reminded that I had too many children.

    But of course, when I had their father strutting around, then suddenly the chicken house wasn’t big enough and all the chillun’s was just wunnerful.

    When you are the Whore of the World you are a dirty, filthy bitch with too many kids (dirty filthy bitches always have too many kids, or cats, or whatever) and that’s all. Nothing else matters and whatever you say, whatever you think, is not important, not worthy of consideration, because of course its all a lie anyway. Dirty, filthy bitches lie to get what they want, didn’t you know?

    Oh and I’m sure she’s poor because she’s stupid, selfish and lazy as well (how could I have forgotten?). Its all her fault, she needs a judge, a nice upstanding man to tell her how to live her life. He was only concerned. How charitable.

    And if she’s a woman of color, well then its all said right there, no need to dig deeper.

  4. I posted about this at blogher a while back. The original post I got if from was from a blog outa Canada called A womb of her own The article that I linked to said that this judge actually made this a condition of other womens parole. I thought, how can that be? Is any other judge in this country doing this? What kind of a crazy country are we living in where you can actually pass judgement in a court of law on a woman’s reproductive rights? And think it is ok b.c. the woman is poor!

  5. In January 1998, I ran down our road in my stocking feet, crying hysterically and throwing pinecones at the car that had just pulled up at our mailbox and stole our month’s food stamp allotment. I was 6 months’ pregnant and had lost my job (and health insurance). My husband was working a new job and volunteering at a food bank to be able to get free boxes of food. We pawned everything we had to be able to pay bills.

    A year later, we had saved UP enough to pay a lawyer and go through bankruptcy. We high-fived in the parking lot.

    When you’ve been THAT poor, a few things happen to you. First, you see the goodness in people and you try to “pay back” the kindness given to you. Second, you NEVER forget.

    Third (and this is what is applicable to this story, because Jill is right- the true gist is that this woman is being penalized for being POOR)- you NEVER judge another person.

    I don’t care if she’s had a DOZEN kids- this woman was treated utterly shabbily. Shame on the judge for attempting to legislate morality from his bench.

  6. I remember a case from awhile back about a man who refused to pay child support and was ordered by a judge to get a vasectomy. I’m not trying to provoke anyone or troll – I’m curious what you think about that case.

  7. See, I’m not calling her a whore, please don’t mistaken what I am saying as calling her a whore, and I didn’t see that she had had her tubes tied. But seriously I made no assumptions about her being poor because she is:

    Oh and I’m sure she’s poor because she’s stupid, selfish and lazy as well (how could I have forgotten?). Its all her fault, she needs a judge, a nice upstanding man to tell her how to live her life. He was only concerned. How charitable.

    and I don’t appreciate you attacking my viewpoint because I felt like this was a open place of discussion. Look, I’m a poor college student and I know I definitely wouldn’t want a baby right now because I’m just not financially ready for it. It doesn’t mean I’m dumb or lazy, but I think I am being intelligent here by not getting pregnant. If she’s taking care of the kiddos, that’s great, you know, be my guest. I just want to know why she’s in parole anyway. And I’m not saying that the judge has the right to be her look out man, but would it even be any different if it was a woman judge looking out for another woman?

    Look, don’t attack me and put words in my mouth. I am for women’s reproductive rights just as anyone else is, but I at least respect other people’s viewpoints.

    And I never once said she should be penalized for being poor, my god. If she wants 15 kids I really don’t care, but I do care that she can at least feed her kids.

  8. Jill, you left out a significant detail from the article:

    A St. Joseph woman who has three children says she was shocked when a judge ordered her not to have any more children out of wedlock while she is on probation for three years.

  9. On a last note, though, is that they need to go after these men who aren’t paying their child support, so it’s no wonder she is having trouble making it financially. Maybe if the law cracked down on these people not paying child support, people wouldn’t have to resort to such measures which land them in court where they have their reproductive rights screwed over.

  10. Hmm, what “creative” sentencing. If a judge wants to express himself creatively, can’t he join a watercolour painting class instead of using a woman’s reproductive rights to produce his magnum opus?

    CatatonicLindsay – I can see your point, but allowing the state to decide who should be allowed to have (more) children has a long and unfortunate history. The judge probably thinks he is looking after this woman’s best interests, but he is not treating her like an adult with her own agency. We don’t generally allow the legal system to decide what’s in the best interests of an adult who can be presumed to have her own decision-making capabilities.

    As an aside, how does child support work in the US in terms of how the money is recouped from the absent parent? It doesn’t work very well here across the pond – we have the Child Support Agency, which the whole country has pretty much admitted is a disaster. The CSA is supposed to track down absent parents and make them pay child support, but it’s shockingly inefficient and takes forever if it even manages to find the absentee parent. There’s been talk lately of the Inland Revenue taking money directly out of people’s salary along with income tax – it might mean the money actually gets to the parent bringing up the kids on their own *before* the kids go to college.

  11. David, I had started to add “out of wedlock”, as the judge had used that trite phrase (to my rant about not caring if she had a DOZEN kids), but decided against. I agree, the men should pay up the child support demands.

  12. he’s trying to “help” her because the fathers of her three children aren’t paying child support, which is causing her financial strain

    because the fathers will totally pay up as long as she doesn’t have any more children.

  13. I can agree that the woman probably should not decide to have any more kids at the moment, but I think there’s absolutely no reason the judge should be able to mandate that as part of sentencing.

  14. The kicker for me was that the woman had already made the decision not to have any more children, and had taken it upon herself to get her tubes tied. So the judge, in ordering her not to have any more children, was going out of his way to forbid an act that was vanishingly unlikely in the first place, aside from being a ridiculously inappropriate response to the crime of forgery. To me, the most plausible explanation by far for his behavior is the venerable institution of slut-shaming.

    I got into a somewhat involved argument over this elsewhere with people commenting that she really shouldn’t be having more kids because they were the motive for her crime. (These people, like the judge, repeatedly ignored the existence of her voluntary tubal.) But the lack of child support from the kids’ deadbeat dads was a much more direct motive, and not one person advocated cracking down on them. And many repeatedly harped on the “multiple fathers” aspect, which hasn’t even the most tenuous connection to the motive for the crime, but does do a lot to congeal a specific stereotype to plug the forger into.

  15. I remember a case from awhile back about a man who refused to pay child support and was ordered by a judge to get a vasectomy. I’m not trying to provoke anyone or troll – I’m curious what you think about that case.

    I think it’s wrong. I don’t think that anyone should be legally ordered to give up their reproductive rights.

    Jill, you left out a significant detail from the article:

    A St. Joseph woman who has three children says she was shocked when a judge ordered her not to have any more children out of wedlock while she is on probation for three years

    .

    Not sure how that’s so significant, unless you’re trying to point out how fucked it is that her right to have children is contingent on getting married.

  16. Not sure how that’s so significant, unless you’re trying to point out how fucked it is that her right to have children is contingent on getting married.

    I think that is what David is saying. That is entirely fucked up. Not only does the judge think he can control her reproductive rights, he’s interfering in her relationship choices as well.

  17. I remember a case from awhile back about a man who refused to pay child support and was ordered by a judge to get a vasectomy. I’m not trying to provoke anyone or troll – I’m curious what you think about that case.

    I have to admit.. there’s a part of me that wants to high-five that judge… but it may have something to do with my daughter’s B.O’s inability to pay CS on a regular basis while he’s off impregnating more women… 1 man can impregnate a lot of women in a small amount of time whereas 1 woman can only have so many children in the same amount of time… That doesn’t make my feelings right or fair and I recognize that… but recognizing that doesn’t change how I feel either… sorry.

  18. Jill: “If you read the article, you’ll see that she is taking care of them. She’s just poor.”

    If by “taking care of them”, you mean, “stealing someone else’s money via check forgery”, then you do have a point.

  19. Oh, and I forgot the counterfeit cash part. I don’t see how you get your hands on $480 in counterfeit cash without being pretty involved in the criminal world. I mean, I’ve bought pot, acid, coke, meth, and crack from people, but I’ve never had anyone offer to sell me counterfeit money before. Which is a shame, because I could really have used some back then, especially to buy drugs.

    And even as a drug-addled teen, I was never stupid enough to take counterfeit money to the bank, for cryin’ out loud. I mean, that’s the one place they’re guaranteed to examine the cash! If you need to pay your bills, how hard is it to turn your fake cash into money orders at the local convenience store?

    This woman isn’t just a criminal. She’s a stupid criminal. Victim of an arrogant, patriarchal judge? Maybe. Stupid criminal? Definitely.

    Are you really comfortable that this stupid criminal has three kids to send out into your world? I have no problem with her freedom to HAVE kids. I just hate to think of her RAISING them.

  20. I’m a die-hard, left-wing, progressive liberal who thinks anyone with more than two kids is incredibly selfish. Considering the world population and its growth rate, giving birth to 3 or more children can not be considered a moral thing to do. I’m not smart enough to know how reduce the growth of the population, let alone the absolute numbers of people on this planet, quickly enough and compassionately enough to prevent future catastrophe, but we need to do it if future generations are going to have a shot at a decent way of life. I guess we need to keep pushing education and women’s rights as hard as possible, although I fear laws like China’s will become the ultimate and quite draconian answer.

  21. I see a lot of this new-fangled “creative sentencing” going on into today’s judicial system. You know. Forcing people to stand at busy intersections holding up signs that point out the flaws that led to their conviction: ‘I’m a drunk who loves to drive…I owe $20,000 in back child support…I smoked crack and look what happened to me.’

    One wonders if any or all of this falls under the classification of cruel and unusual punishment. But then again, the U.S. Constitution is an outmoded old rag anyway. Who pays attention to that thing anymore?

Comments are currently closed.