If you are a woman, a significant part of your existence is
focused on your “ladyparts”. This is regardless of whether you plan to use your
uterus for its intended function or not, as a woman’s reproductive system is
set to the “on” position from roughly ages 12-45, if left on its own. Even if no sperm makes a visit, you
still have to, on a monthly basis, take care of things. So the idea of
essential reproductive rights—that is the ability to control one’s own
reproductive system—is never far away.
Nevertheless the predominance of these necessary rights
changes throughout one’s life-for myself, as I got older, out of college,
established in my career, an unintended pregnancy lost the scariness that it
had when I was in high school. In high school, even college, it was the worst
thing imaginable. When I got married and wanted to have kids I had very
different reproductive concerns.
“Reproductive freedom” encompasses much, a 12 year old
getting a papillomavirus vaccine, a 19 year old contemplating an abortion, a 25
year old gender-questioning woman, a 28 year Native American woman being
encouraged to undergo sterilization (probably by a white doctor) an 18 year old
African-American woman sterilized against her will for “lack of intelligence”
(again, decided by a white man), a 41 year old considering a hysterectomy and
breast removal to avoid cancer, a woman in her 50s contemplating her best
treatment for menopause. All of these can fall under the rubric “reproductive
rights”, and I would also add women’s childbirth choices and early
childhood/infant choices. All of these rights can be covered by one simple rule;
a person has right to make her/his health decisions about her/his own body. A person has the right to
research-based medical advice, essential reproductive health care-be it an
abortion, homebirth, surgery or no surgery.
This is inherently a women’s issue, or more specifically
anybody with a female reproductive system because frankly, the male system is
not much, and the only time it *does anything* is when it interacts with the
female reproductive system. And once it’s in the female reproductive system that is all. I know an embryo has half
male DNA but the ENTIRE birthing process, from prenatal through early infant
care, is completely female. It is the female who has to bear the pregnancy,
which can have real health consequences, the birth process-which has a higher
mortality rate than abortion, and really, the child-rearing process. We can
talk all we want about shared parenting, men have come a long way and that’s
great for everybody. But the
simple fact is by design the post-natal process, named the “fourth trimester”
by some is really about the mother.
To a large extent in most families mothers by choice, do the majority of child-rearing even after the
immediate post-natal period. Frankly, I think this is hard-wired to some
extent, part of nature’s way of continuing the human race. Women have to choose
this, not have it forced on them.
People who claim to be “pro-life” have a rather narrow view
of “life”. In their eyes “life” is most precious at the prenatal stage, when arguably,
it is not life really at all. “Life” does not extend to the pregnant
mother-whether her health is a concern, whether the process to create the thing
inside her was by her choice, or that her life with a new child might be
impossible if her financial situation is precarious. I heard little outcry
regarding the case of Reyna
Garcia, who miscarried while working under unsafe-for her
pregnancy-conditions. More than 3,700 pregnancy discrimination charges were
filed with the EEOC last year, in spite of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of
1978. Because of this continued discrimination, the Pregnant Workers Fairness
Act was recently reintroduced to address these issues. You’ll be shocked,
shocked, to know that the House Republicans, while having time to pass a bill
to restrict abortions after 20 weeks, do not have time to pass a bill aimed to protect
pregnant women.
Having a child is expensive,
and raising a child is expensive. Women who are denied abortions, because they
do not have the money or missed the magical 20-week point-of-no-return deadline
suffer
in terms of health and in terms of financial status. And by financial status I
am not talking about a car payment, I’m talking about food, housing. Do you
know who the poor people of the world are-they are women and children. Yet
“pro-life” politicians are generally the same politicians who want to cut food
stamps and limit health care access-either by restricting Medicaid funds and/or
limiting Medicaid expansion under the ACA. Again, it’s funny how important that
“life” is when it is inside a woman. Once it gets out, not so much.
“Pro-lifers” have no qualms about forcing a child on a
woman, and make no mistake when you make contraception education non-existent,
contraception, and early abortion alternatives such as plan B or RU486
difficult to get, and/or expensive YOU are forcing a child. This one of the
many reasons pro-choice woman simply cannot take “pro-life” people seriously. If
you really want to limit abortion it’s not difficult. You educate young people early; you provide safe, reliable, affordable
contraception. If you want women to have babies maybe you could strengthen the
“safety net” instead of constantly cutting it. Let’s be clear, these
restrictions will only hurt the most vulnerable women. White, wealthy women
will always have a doctor to help. They always do.
As somebody with no current reproductive worries I have
not been very emotionally invested in this issue until recently, when
apparently with no other pressing concerns, the collective legislatures of
Texas, Ohio, and North Carolina decided that restricting a woman’s right to her
body was necessary. With more than 100,000 people I watched the You Tube stream
of a huge crowd demanding to be heard on the right to choose. No matter what
happens in Texas, and odds are the anti-abortion bill will pass in some form or
another, that kind of organization is incredibly inspiring and will hopefully
lead to good things in some form or another.
Why these battles have to be constantly fought is a question
those of us pushing reproductive freedom have to ask. I think a part of it, as
I alluded to earlier, is broadening the coalition. Freedom of your reproductive
system includes many things, including forced sterilization, which has been a
larger issue affecting women of color. North Carolina, while seeing fit to punish
woman who desire to end pregnancy, have not done justice to the thousands of
women sterilized against their will. Addressing
health access broadly, and not allowing controversial issues to be isolated,
linking reproductive freedom with the many issues it crosses paths with, could
this help?
To those of you “pro-lifers” please JUST.STOP.ALREADY.
Please freedom-lovers, give us our freedom-nobody has ever explained to me why
liberty ends at my uterus. In West Texas where the fertilizer explosion was that
leveled the town, there was no fire code, hence no sprinkler system or firm
alarms (via @MikeElk). So while safety regulations are too much, apparently
there is no end to the restrictions to what a woman can do with her own body.
We can’t regulate corporations but uteruses? Yes, yes we can.
As for the “life” question. -I do not question what is
inside a pregnant woman is “life”. But yeast is “life”, so is a tree, a
mushroom, a cat. We do not treat all form of life the same, and the concept
that the mass of differentiated cells inside a woman’s body should preempt that
woman who is an independent, living breathing fully formed person . . . no. You can show me all the
dismembered fetuses you want, you can tell me all the Kermit Gosnell stories
you want-it does not matter. Because what I see is a women’s choice to protect
herself, to maybe even save herself. Every child a wanted child, and every
woman’s life is more important then what her body makes. Period.
No comments:
Post a Comment