Advertisement
“A dream you dream alone is only a dream; a dream you dream together is reality.” — Yoko Ono
Feb
26
If Anti-Choicers Want Women to Know Their Rights, I’ve Got an Offer They Can’t Refuse
Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, assholes, legislation, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, pregnancy, religious fanaticism, reproductive justice, slut-shaming, women’s health | Posted by Cara |
Following in the great misogynist leader South Dakota’s footsteps, anti-choice havens Kansas and Missouri are working on new legislation to restrict abortion, burden providers, condescend to patients, and all around cause more hardship and pain to any woman unfortunate enough to be pregnant and not jumping for joy over it.
Of course, they’re not going phrase it like that. (Would you be so delusional that you’d accuse an anti-choice legislator of intellectual honesty?) No, the Republicans are going to ride in on their white horses to protect women from being coerced and forced into abortions.
The stated aim of the proposed requirements is to ensure that women are not coerced into undergoing abortions. In Kansas, the new restrictions would apply only to abortions after the 22nd week of development, while most of the Missouri proposals would apply to all abortions performed in the state.
In both states, legislation would require doctors to provide the woman with the opportunity to view a sonogram of the embryo or fetus or listen to the heartbeat before performing the surgery. Abortion offices would be required to have a prominent sign stating that no one can force a woman to have an abortion.
In Missouri, two bills would require women seeking abortions to be shown brochures or a video developed by the state Health Department providing a description of the developing embryo or fetus. The materials would include “color photographs or images of the developing unborn child at two-week gestational increments” from conception to full term.
The woman would be given a list of adoption agencies and maternity homes that could assist her in maintaining her pregnancy. She also would be given a statement that she would be eligible for child-support payments if she carried the child to term.
The doctor would have to provide a list of potential medical complications from abortion and discuss theories about whether a fetus can feel pain.
Planned Parenthood, in its weekly newsletter, criticized the bills, calling them a “convoluted checklist of bills (that) demonstrates a lack of understanding of how professional abortion care is provided.” It said the bills’ requirements were burdensome and interfered with a woman’s rights to determine when an abortion is appropriate.
Supporters said the legislation was intended to ensure women are fully informed about the risks and consequences of abortion — something already required, but with less detail, by Missouri law.
Let me just say first of all that I get a lot news from the Kansas City Star about anti-choice activities. And believe me, they are far from perfect. I do, however, think that they have a higher degree of integrity on reproductive rights issues than most newspapers, and they actually tend to do a decent job of clarifying the facts against the rhetoric. Like here: anti-choice legislators claim that they are concerned about women and want them to know the risk, but the fact of the matter is that this is already required.
Of course, there’s also the fact that, despite what the fundamentalists will tell you, any ethical abortion provider — most of them — does all of this without any legislation. As Planned Parenthood stated, legislators supporting this bill either haven’t got the vaguest concept about what actually goes on inside of an abortion clinic (orgies! baby butchering! ahhh!!!), or they do and are being purposely misleading. I’d say that their description of a “lack of understanding” is quite generous, in fact, even if there are probably a handful of legislators who really haven’t got the slightest clue what they’re talking about but feel compelled and eligible to make this kind of call, anyway.
Here’s the shit they’re trying to pull in Kansas:
Legislation in Kansas would require physicians to report to the state why a late-term abortion is justified. Under current law, an abortion at the 22nd week or later requires two unaffiliated doctors to conclude that if the pregnancy continues, the mother could die or face “substantial and irreversible” harm to “a major bodily function.”
Under the proposals, doctors would have to provide to the patient in writing, at least 30 minutes before the procedure, the reason the abortion was approved. The legislation also would give the patient, her relatives or the county prosecutor authority to sue an abortion provider if they thought the late-term abortion broke the law.
[. . .]
[Julie Burkhart, the chief executive officer for ProKanDo] said women are unlikely to cancel a late-term abortion just because they saw a sonogram or heard a heartbeat.
“Women know that when they become pregnant that they are going to, in nine months, if they continue the pregnancy, have a baby,” she said. (emphasis mine)
When I read this quote from Burkhart, I honestly laughed pretty hard at the simple honesty of her statement. I usually argue against sonogram laws out of compassion, an understanding of personal rights and justice, and the fact that I feel it to be incredibly condescending. But Burkhart pokes through the largest hole in this anti-choice concept, that the little women just don’t know what they’re doing (because of hormones, and of course the tiny girl brains). If a woman didn’t understand the nature of pregnancy and didn’t understand what an abortion does, she wouldn’t be in the clinic. That’s pretty simple. A woman who didn’t understand a pregnancy would feel no reason to go and would get a likely to be nasty surprise in nine months. The reason that women have abortions is precisely because they know what the abortion does.
As is usually the case, the bills are a mix of ridiculous and terrifying. The idea of having to report the reason for a medical procedure to the government is rather scary. But the concept that a doctor should be required to give a patient, in writing, the reason for her abortion before having it performed? Well, I can only assume that they’ve discussed this kind of thing already. What with the requirement that a woman has to be facing severe health risks and all. Yes, shoving additional papers in a woman’s face that say “we are going to abort the pregnancy you almost certainly wanted to prevent your death” is probably cruel and unnecessary. What the legislators think could possibly be gained from that kind of provision — other than what I’ve just outlined — I do not know.
The scariest thing in the Kansas bill is, of course, the ability for a patient, her relatives or a prosecutor to take a provider to court over an abortion. There are always going to be some women who regret their abortions. That’s the way it works — part of giving people a choice is acknowledging that sometimes, they’re going to make a bad one. The idea that one can sue based on “thinking” that the provider did something illegal doesn’t sound like the best one to me. The other two options are a lot more chilling, though. First of all, we’ve already got the over-zealous, misogynist renegade district attorney Phil Kline in Kansas, and he hardly needs the encouragement. And how many religious mothers and abusive husbands might take up the option to sue on behalf of their female property as a method of revenge?
As for the Missouri bill, we’ve got a similar mix of scary and head-scratching. The informed consent stuff is completely over the top and frightening, but it’s also pretty standard. Just your basic run of the mill “let’s make women feel bad about being a whore who got pregnant when she didn’t want to be, because I’m a big bad legislator who likes to stick my nose in other people’s business and feel very uncomfortable with the idea of women making autonomous decisions.” It’s been covered. What I’m interested in is this sign business.
The signs that say no one can force a woman to have an abortion. Well, no, they legally cannot. And this is a good thing. Of course, providers already probe and ask questions to ensure as best they can that the decision to have an abortion is the woman’s own. But is a sign, in addition to that counseling, really going to do any harm to the patients? Probably not.
That’s not the point, though. The point is to do damage to future patients. It’s not even about trying to shame women, this time. No, this is about public perception. Forcing providers to hang up big signs saying that no one can force a woman to have an abortion further cements in the public conscious the lie that huge numbers of women who have abortions didn’t arrive at the decision on they’re own. In fact, it’s so bad that they need a big sign to warn the women! What a problem. We really ought to do more than just hang up a sign to fix that, don’t you think?
But you know what? This morning, I’m feeling generous. Gather around Missouri lawmakers, because I’m prepared to make you an offer you can’t confuse. Yup, that’s right: I’m willing to make a compromise.
If you want to hang up a sign that says no one can legally force a woman to have an abortion, that’s fine with me. Go ahead. You’re absolutely correct; women do deserve to know their rights. But on one condition. You also have to hang up signs in every OB/GYN’s office saying that no one can legally force a woman to give birth if she wants to terminate a pregnancy.
I’m pretty positive that in the U.S. today, it’s more common for a woman to be forced into a pregnancy than forced into an abortion. There are more people adamantly against abortion than there are people who think abortion is so fun they’d push women into one when they didn’t want it. There are a lot fewer abortion clinics than total OB/GYNs. People on public assistance are helped with the cost of prenatal care but not the cost of an abortion. Also, think about it: while the counselors at abortion clinics go over pregnancy options with a woman, give her an information she would like and help her through the pros and cons of each decision, I have to imagine that there are few doctors who do the same thing every time a woman comes to them for prenatal care. Somehow, I think that only a tiny number of OB/GYNs who do prenatal care act like legislators believe OB/GYNs who provide abortions should be forced to behave.
Do they give each newly pregnant woman a pamphlet on abortion and a pamphlet on adoption? Are the patients forced to answer questions like: are you sure you want to go through with it? Do you know what you’re doing? Is someone trying to make you? You could regret it for the rest of your life, you know. Also, there are a lot of medical risks. Something could go wrong, and it could make you infertile. And there’s a very small but extremely serious risk that it could kill you! Do you want to die? Really, is it worth it? Why don’t you go home and sleep on it. Don’t you care about your poor baby? Surely, you don’t want it born to a dead mother! How selfish of you. Do you think of anyone but yourself?
It doesn’t seem right to me to ask prenatal care providers to act in that way, but fair is fair. And as good people looking out for the well-being of women, Missouri legislators, I know that you’ll agree that forced pregnancy is very, very wrong. Really, I can’t see a downside. I mean, the goal is to keep women informed, right? To let them know their options and what’s really going to happen to them? I absolutely agree that a woman should know her legal reproductive rights. But that does mean that she should know all of them, doesn’t it? It doesn’t make much sense for only some women to know their rights. That would be discrimination. Why should we treat a woman badly just because she’s planning on carrying a pregnancy to term? Clearly, if we don’t want women forced into abortion, we can’t want them forced into birth, either. That would be mighty hypocritical of you. And this is why I’m happy that you’re in it to protect women.
Isn’t it great that we could get this worked out? I’m so glad that we could find some common ground, and we did it working directly off of your own reasoning — women should be informed about and never forced into a medical decision. I’ll anxiously await your call — and I’m sure that I’ll hear from you soon.
Comments
22 Comments so far
Subscribe to The Curvature
“Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” — Susan B. Anthony
seriously, why aren’t they concerned about all the women that are coerced into pregnancy?
i bet that is a much bigger number.
What, you mean the real answer? The real answer is that their goal is to outlaw abortion, which would force women to continue a pregnancy — they agree with those who coerce women into pregnancy.
And they don’t actually give a shit about the women who are coerced into abortions. They care about the fact that so many uppity bitches are running around thinking that they should be able to have sex for purposes other than procreation without extreme torturous punishment and getting down on their knees in front of society and begging for forgiveness over the horrible sin of being born with a vagina. They care about the fact that for a very long time, the threat of pregnancy has been used to control women, trap them into marriages, prevent them from getting jobs and deny them the right to sexual pleasure. And now that abortion is legal, this is a hell of a lot more difficult. That’s why they oppose birth control, too. Birth control also helps women to have sex outside of marriage and without the goal of procreation without having the word “slut” branded on their pregnant stomachs. Very threatening to your average misogynist.
I love how the MO bill would require doctors to “discuss theories about whether a fetus can feel pain”.
Evolution is “just a theory”, not worthy of mention in high school science classes. Theories about fetal sentience, on the other hand, are totally awesome and should be shouted from the rooftop, since they can be used to further shame and control women.
Oh, and I just moved from KS to MO. From the way things are going, I think Canada will be my next stop. Grrrrr….
If you want to hang up a sign that says no one can legally force a woman to have an abortion, that’s fine with me. Go ahead. You’re absolutely correct; women do deserve to know their rights. But on one condition. You also have to hang up signs in every OB/GYN’s office saying that no one can legally force a woman to give birth if she wants to terminate a pregnancy.
THANK. YOU. My thoughts exactly.
I also think part of the thinking (or lack thereof) behind this kind of legislation is the idea that every woman would carry every pregnancy if the circumstances were right. It denies that some women choose not to be pregnant because they don’t want to be pregnant, not because of wider social pressures or circumstances.
I’m not sure how serious you’re being, but personally I think it would be great if prenatal-care OB/GYNs standardly included in their literature a brochure about adoption and abortion options, with information about how the systems work and what a woman/couple’s rights are, and with some phone numbers and URLs. (I’m not saying they have to make a big deal of it — just hand it over with a one-sentence explanation of what’s in it, for the woman/couple to do with as she/they choose. I’ve never been to an OB/GYN, but if they’re anything like other doctors, I assume there are lots of brochures they hand out this way?)
A big sign out front might be a bit much, though. :-P
I think that all OB/GYNs should have information on hand and provide referrals for abortion (and adoption), regardless of their personal views on the matter. In fact, I think this ought to be law. I also think it would be a great thing if all OB/GYNs, including those who don’t do abortions, were trained to look for cues that a pregnant woman is unhappy or uncertain about a pregnancy and to ask open ended questions that would provide insight into her state of mind, give her someone to talk to about worries and feelings, etc.
I do think it would be a bit much to have every woman who walks into an OB/GYN’s office looking for prenatal care handed a brochure about abortion. I similarly think that it’s a bit much to say to a woman who goes into an abortion clinic confidently and assertively “have you thought about your parenting options?” (Though yes, I do understand why this is often done.)
This is my problem, that pregnancy care and expectations of care are so radically different depending on the path a woman chooses. Obviously there is necessity to talk differently to a woman who is carrying to term than a woman who is having an abortion, but I feel like they should be equally informed, be given equal emotional support (or at least the offer of it) and equally considered to be capable of making an autonomous decision. I hate that everyone expects a woman who chooses parenting to be fully capable of making that choice and yet feels comfortable interrogating the woman who is having an abortion. I also hate that everyone wants to check in on a woman who has/or is having an abortion and yet assumes that every pregnant woman carrying to term is happy happy happy and dismisses any distress as “hormones.”
Is there a easily digestible FAQ on this whole situation available – I’ve tried looking but no luck so far.
One question is what does “panty/panties sniffing states” mean – I’ve seen it used on some feminist sites like Marcotte’s
Cara rocks! Very well said!
One question is what does “panty/panties sniffing states” mean – I’ve seen it used on some feminist sites like Marcotte’s
Heh. It’s not a phrase that I use often, though I find it to be an amusing one. It refers to states with legislators and governments who waste a great deal of time injecting their morals in other people’s sex lives, but in more than just a pontificating way — Phil Kline is often referred to as a panty-sniffer because of how he has repeatedly tried to open up large numbers of abortion records. Part of it I think is “sticking your nose where it doesn’t belong.” The “panty” implies that those who engage in this type of behavior get some sort of perverse pleasure and titillation out of the prospect that they can control women what women do with their genitals and all related organs.
For example, someone who says “I think abortion is morally wrong” is not necessarily a panty-sniffer in this sense. Someone who says “women would need abortion if they would just keep their legs shut and stop acting like whores . . . and EC makes women act like whores, which is why I’m trying to make it harder to get” (first half of that more or less verbatim of dozens of comments I’ve actually read), they would be. Same thing with the type that claims women should have A REALLY GOOD REASON (defined differently by all) before they’ll give their apparently very important support for her right to have an abortion, and then seemingly get a lot of morally-superior pleasure out of condemning a women when she’s unable to provide one.
Thing is, though – scratch someone who proclaims the former, and you’ll always find someone who really believes the latter. Always.
Those who think abortion is “morally wrong”, but aren’t panty-sniffing scolds, keep their moral judgements to themselves. “I don’t want an abortion; therefore I won’t have one.” [Amazing how often the latter find themselves in abortion clinics, though. The exceptions suddenly become "Rape, incest, and me."]
I can’t even imagine what it would be like for some poor woman who was a victim of violence who ended up pregnant going to a clinic and having to sit through this paternalistic crap. Women who would just want it over with as quickly as possible would be forced to be further traumatized by these fuck wads who have NO IDEA what they’re talking about! This kind of crap just makes me completely enraged!
An if you all knew that a fetus could feel the pain would you still be pro-choice?
Women feel pain too. The avergae labour is signficantly longer than the average abortion.
I am personally pro-life. I know, you’ve probably stopped reading. But I respect your position. There is a tremendous amount of insensitivity on both sides of the issue. It ticks me off that the anti-choice crowd is happy to give their time to protests and hate speech, but completely unwilling to help a girl in crisis. I believe that it is this very attitude that may make some women choose abortion rather than go through the ridicule of becoming an unwed mother.
Abortion breaks my heart, but the legislation is going the wrong direction. If women had more birth control options and there was more done to stop rape, there would be far less need for abortions. Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t any woman seriously considering an abortion prefer that she had never gotten pregnant in the first place? And no, I am not spouting the old rhetoric about keeping your legs together.
Jennifer,
your position strikes me as far more principled than most I’ve ever come across from someone who calls themselves pro-life. So while I still strongly disagree with you on abortion (well, you didn’t say your position on whether or not it should be legal — if you don’t, I strongly disagree with you. If you do, you would be a pro-choice person who personally finds abortion to be morally troublesome but doesn’t feel they have the right to make that decision for others), I do at least respect that much. Yes, of course, I think any woman who has had an abortion would have preferred to avoid the pregnancy in the first place (or the health condition that led to the need for an abortion). And I’m all about preventing abortion, so long as it’s done through preventing unwanted pregnancy and giving women more options generally in our society (i.e. so that those who would not have an abortion except for financial problems don’t have to), and not restricting access.
“Correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn’t any woman seriously considering an abortion prefer that she had never gotten pregnant in the first place? ”
Yes, and it is something anti-choicers usually do not admit too.
You are honest about your position, which sets you apart from the vast majority of others who claim the pro-life label. You’re more in line with pro-choice in this respect.
You’re absolutely right. I am far more in line with pro-choice there. I honestly wish abortion did not exist, but I don’t think making it illegal is the way to get there. Restricting access isn’t the answer, options and education are. And certainly not in form of a high and mighty lecture in the physicians office. Of the women I have known that have sought abortions, most are in crisis. They need compassion not indoctrination.
That’s pretty similar to what I think as well. With one small exception. There is no set of circumstances under which abortion could be totally absent.
It has to exist. Even in a perfect world where BC was freely and readily available, there would still be a need for abortion in the case of failure or if a fetus is non-viable.
But, I do agree that more education and more access to contraceptives will do a hell of a lot more to reduce abortion numbers than what the typical pro-lifer is peddaling.
Aboriton providers would have to provide the government with documentation that a late-term abortion was mediaclly necessary? What the fuck are these people smoking?
I didn’t have to provide the government with documentation that having my gall bladder removed was medically necessary.
Or that having several toes amputated ws medically necessary.
And I’m fairly certain they don’t care whether or not my cousin’s breast implant’s were medically necesssary.
Why should the government be entitled to know the medical necessity of ANY mediacl procedure I choose to have performed on my body?
[...] successful I might add, and this is a clear expansion of that tactic. It’s not just what doctors can say to their patients anymore, or whether or not teachers are allowed to factually answer questions in sex ed classes, [...]
[...] for “evidence.” And then they still may be forced by law to undergo ultrasounds and diatribes about how having an abortion makes them a bad [...]