Advertisement
“A dream you dream alone is only a dream; a dream you dream together is reality.” — Yoko Ono
Jul
20
The Stickier Aspects of Abortion Politics
Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, feminism, legislation, parenthood, politics, pregnancy, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | Posted by Cara |
The American Prospect has a great article up about the politics of stillbirth. Several campaigns have begun that would grant the right for women who give birth to stillborn fetuses to receive legal recognition of the birth of those fetuses– and the issue is far from simple.
Thirteen years ago, Joanne Cacciatore delivered a stillborn fetus, a trauma that was compounded by the fact that she received a death certificate in the mail but no birth certificate — a tangible memento she said would have helped her grieve.
Motivated by her loss, she mounted a grassroots campaign in her home state of Arizona to get the government to give parents who deliver stillborn fetuses the option of receiving a “certificate for stillborn birth” — and in so doing unintentionally waded into the turbulent waters of abortion politics.
Although reproductive rights advocates say they sympathize with Cacciatore, they also fear her effort — which has since ballooned into a nationwide campaign — could aid anti-choice groups as they attempt to chip away at or eliminate abortion rights. “There’s no question in my mind that the anti-abortion crowd will look for some way to use this,” Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women, has said. At issue is the question of “personhood,” or when human life begins; the answer lies at the heart of the debate over abortion.
Again, this is a highly complex issue. And I understand where reproductive rights activists are coming from here– it’s imperative to always be on the lookout for any law that social conservatives could use and/or twist so support their anti-choice agenda. It’s natural to be wary and cautious.
But I also can’t help but believe that the reproductive rights movement, a movement of which I consider myself a member, is on the wrong side of this issue.
Don’t get me wrong– I’m also terrified of seeing fetuses being granted personhood. But isn’t presenting women who give birth to stillborn fetuses a death certificate already doing that? From a legal standpoint, it’s a nonsensical arrangement. And from a humanitarian standpoint, it seems to be just downright cruel to these women.
The reproductive rights movement is consistently characterized as being hateful of children and unsupportive of women who do choose to become mothers. This is a perfect example of the types of policies that fuel this perception. Look, we’re the ones who are supposed to be so fucking progressive, here– why can’t we acknowledge the need for legal and safe abortions and the often un-maternal feelings of the women who have them towards their embryos/fetuses, while simultaneously acknowledging the very real and legitimate feelings of loss by women who have chosen to carry their pregnancies to term and grown attached to their fetuses? I don’t think there’s any contradiction in recognizing that the most common emotion that women who have abortions feel is relief, and that women who have chosen to carry their pregnancies to term only to miscarry or have a stillbirth generally feel grief similar to that of losing a child. All women are different. All women make different choices. And all of those choices are valid.
I think that there is a middle-ground on this issue, and it seems that NOW is trying to find its way towards it:
NOW has not taken an official stand on the issue. But Gandy said the organization has urged local women’s rights activists to oppose legislation that doesn’t include language guaranteeing that certificates of stillborn birth will only be issued to fetuses that die as a result of a naturally occurring intrauterine death after the 20th week of pregnancy. NOW also stipulates that certificates must only be issued only to parents who request them.
Otherwise, aborted fetuses could be eligible for the certificates — a sign that would confer greater status, she said. And if outside parties could request the certificates, anti-choice groups might inundate states with requests for aborted fetuses, she said.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with granting these certificates to women who request them. It’s perfectly possible to acknowledge stillbirth without granting personhood to intrauterine fetuses or embryos.
On this issue, I think that it’s time to cross the aisle. Doing so would not be ceding ground– it would be supporting women and supporting their reproductive choices. It would be acknowledging that pro-choice people equally respect the choices of pregnancy and abortion. It would allow closer monitoring and the chance to help draft the bills– a way to ensure that the language does not grant personhood that is far more effective than screaming from the sidelines. It grants closure to women who have suffered this tragedy. And least important, but still worth mentioning, it’s good press for us. It would show that we practice what we preach– that we actually trust women to make these choices.
What are other people’s thoughts on this issue?
Comments
2 Comments so far
Subscribe to The Curvature
“Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” — Susan B. Anthony
I think that is the biggest issue within the issue here – that we as feminist, reproductive rights activists need to show that we TRUST each other to make the decisions that are right for us and not only will we trust one another, we will SUPPORT one another in those decisions. It is not fair for us to look at a situations and say that we cannot support it b/c it might hurt the pro-choice movement down the line. We have to be strong enough to continue our fight for our rights while still supporting and being a collective backbone for ALL WOMEN and ALL their choices.
Beautifully written. Thank you.