More Than the Sum of My Parts

As I was doing research for my paper tonight (looks like it’s going to be hot off the press), I went to a dictionary website and typed in “reproductive self-determination” to make sure that I had a concise understanding of reproductive human rights issues.  There were no search results, but the several “related” links that popped up were all something to the effect of “How To: Perform your Own Coat Hanger Abortion.”

Okay, so no, that’s not an accurate representation of what reproductive self-determination really is, and the fact that that’s what the internet/many people’s minds jump to infuriates me. One specific aspect of reproductive self-determination does include the right to an individual’s choosing the number and spacing of children, but that is in no way the whole picture.  From my understanding, reproductive self-determination is centered on an individual’s right to educated decision-making regarding the control of one’s reproductive functions and reproductive healthcare, among many other basic rights. The link also made me angry because women continuously have to fight for reproductive self-determination and free themselves from male legislators’ policing of their bodies. However, this is obviously not solely a women’s issue; it also has huge implications in the trans community.  I don’t know of any trans legislators making rules surrounding their own bodies, let alone policing those of others.

Finally, assuming that reproductive self-determination only applies to heterosexual women in search of abortion resources reinforces the reduction of women down to their reproductive organs, rather than functioning as a tool of empowerment and giving them back (as the term intends) the right to their own bodies.

Read Full Post »

Abortions Based On Race

Arizona enacts ban on abortions based on gender, race | Reuters.

I came across this article in a news feed today and had to post about it.

A week ago, my comment on the news feed would have been focused on how the Christian right is trying to further reduce women’s reproductive choice with inane laws that are a lot more applicable in China than the United States.

Then I read Conquest: Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide by Andrea Smith.

So instead, this was my comment:

This country has a history of encouraging racial minorities to abort their pregnancies and then get sterilized, and a history of sterilizing women of color without their consent.

If this law were enforceable against doctors who really are performing abortions with a racist and anti-populationist or colonialist agenda, and not a right-wing scare tactic, I would support it.

However, this law is targeting “parents [who want to] select their offspring on the basis of gender or race” by going after their doctors (Reuters). This law is not in the business of protecting women of color from being pressured into having abortions based on the race of their children (Posted by me on slatest.slate.com).

What I learned from Andrea Smith is that the United States does have a history of abortion based on the race of the fetus. I also learned that the “pro-choice” movement leaves a lot of women of color out because it assumes that they have the opportunity to choose a safe, legal abortion if it is available in this country.

I think this new law as written will not help anyone, and may hurt the struggle to keep abortion legal in the United States. However, a national law that criminalizes the practice of encouraging women of color to get abortions based on the race of the fetus should be drafted and passed, so that those perpetrators, including state agencies, can be held accountable.

Read Full Post »

72 Hours

This past week, Gov. Dennis Daugaard signed a law that makes women who want an abortion wait for three days from the initial doctor’s visit to actually have the abortion.  During these 72 hours, the women must go to pregnancy crisis centers and undergo “counseling” sessions.  From what I have read,* there are only one or two locations in the entire state of South Dakota where abortions are even offered, making it even more difficult for women to get legal, safe abortions.

 

The part of the law that I am most interested in (and if anyone can find out specific information about it I would be very grateful) is what happens during the 72-hour waiting period.  Does this waiting period apply to mothers whose health is in danger?  What kinds of pregnancy crisis centers’ services is this law mandating?  Pregnancy crisis centers offer a wide variety of services, from the obvious- a pregnancy test, consultation with a physician, explanation of options, distribution of baby supplies- to others that seem less humane- showing women pictures of aborted fetuses without their consent or requiring ultrasounds (with the plan that women who see their fetuses will be less likely to have an abortion).  Some have heavy religious influences and advise women that their only options are to marry the father or to opt for an adoption.  Which pregnancy crisis centers are approved to offer counseling during this 72-hour waiting period?  How many hours does a pregnant woman have to be counseled before she can have an abortion?  Is it really effective and responsible to profoundly inconvenience someone who does not want to be pregnant and encourage her to carry a child against her will, knowing that she will likely have to care for this child for the next 18 years?

 

*I have looked into several news sources for more information, but this is the main idea: http://www.npr.org/2011/03/25/134855087/in-south-dakota-abortion-fight-goes-on

 

Read Full Post »

Second to (EVERY)nONE: Women’s Access to Healthcare

This past Tuesday, the Senate rejected the proposed amendment to the health care bill which intended to restrict federal funding for abortion. The proposed amendment would deny private insurance plans that receive taxpayer money from covering the cost of abortions and abortion related services except in the rape, incest, and threats to the mother’s life. The people who would be most affected by this legislation to restrict access to healthcare are women. But it is important to note that this amendment disproportionately affects the access poor women have to healthcare.

This bill amendment should serve as glaring reminder of women’s reproductive health is perpetually regulated in a way that’s men’s health is not. The Women’s Health Movement celebrated a tremendous victory in 1973 with the legalization of abortion. For the first time since the legalization of oral contraceptives, women were finally granted the agency make their own reproductive health choices…but were we? Roe v. Wade did not end the government’s attempt to control women’s bodies, and since 1973, women have faced the continual threat of the repealing the results Roe v. Wade.

The federal government denies women access to knowledge and education about women’s reproductive and sexual health. In the mid-1990s the federal government threw its support entirely behind abstinence-only sex education and allocated $250 million dollars towards this type of sex education. Abstinence-only education prevents girls (and boys) from receiving knowledge about all sex- and health care-related resources and options available to them. These programs specifically don’t provide any information about contraception or abortions.

Our government has not only tried to dictate how to manage women’s bodies in the United States with regard to healthcare access and education, but it has also set out to regulate the bodies of women from other countries. The Global Gag Rule, which was recently repealed by Obama, has been instated during all Republican presidencies since Regan originally installed it. This rule prohibits U.S. funding for any organization serving outside the United States that offers or even addresses abortion services to women seeking information about reproductive health and family planning.

By denying funding for reproductive health care options, and more atrociously, by denying funding to provide knowledge about reproductive health care options, the government is systematically discriminating against (poor) women by stifling their rights to health care and health-related education. As Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California, asked, “Why are women being singled out here? It’s so unfair”. She explained that there is not a single medical procedure that men are restricted from purchasing with private funds. Rep. Judy Chu, D-California, called the legislation, “the biggest rollback of reproductive rights in decades.”

Fortunately the amendment did not pass this past week. But the fact that a piece of legislation, which is inherently prejudice towards and controlling of women, was even proposed, and then only rejected by a 54-45 vote should serve as a huge wake-up call. The rights women have over their own bodies are constantly being stifled. Unless you believe that men deserve more access to healthcare than women solely because of their gender and biological sex, you should be up in arms about the way government has historically and continues currently to control women’s bodies, reproduction, and access to knowledge and healthcare. This is crucial moment in the history of women’s rights as the new healthcare plan gets negotiated. Women have the potential to gain tremendous progress or take huge steps back. If you feel strongly, remember to contact the officials who represent you!

Read Full Post »