Quick Update

Hello dear readers! I just wanted to drop a quick post to let you know that I haven’t disappeared for good. I’ve just been dealing with some health problems and a heavier than expected work load for a couple of classes I’m taking. I have several posts in the works. For a brief preview, I’ll tell you that my next post will be an ode to birth control!

Rape: there is no "gray area"

Over at RH Reality Check and Scarleteen, Heather Corinna has a really great advice column up about understanding consent and sexual violence. Suze writes to Corinna about a friend who was raped, but Suze doesn't entirely believe her and thinks that the rape falls into a "gray area." An excerpt from Corinna's response:

People disbelieve victims of sexual violence for every reason under the sun: based on how we were dressed, the way we walk, the way we talk, what our color is, what our social class is, what our gender is (this is a biggie with male survivors), what our sexual orientation is, if we've been sexually active before or not, if we wear our hair this way, if we have this size of hips, breasts, thighs, penises, if we're disabled, if we've enjoyed consensual sex before or not...you name it, it's been used as a way to rationalize sexual violence. But there's not a one of those things which justifies it or ever has. The fact that your friend flirts or is sometimes seductive when she's feeling that -- if she is at all, since often reputations aren't even based in truths or reality -- doesn't make her victimization any less valid than it would for someone who isn't flirty. Flirting is not consent, nor is a person being flirted with somehow being given permission or the right to so anything or everything sexual they want to do to that person.

[. . .]

Too, a person not protesting -- even though in this case your friend did protest -- still isn't consent. Consent to sex isn't just the absence of a "no." Consent is an enthusiastic, strong yes: an expressed wish, physically and verbally, to share a mutually felt desire. The desire for sex is not passive or weak, so it doesn't make a lot of sense for anyone to suggest that the expression of that desire would or should be. In fact, if you want one way to spot someone who is a potential rapist or a rape enabler, pay attention when you hear a person say that not saying no to sex is the same as saying yes. And know that were the shoe on the other foot, and were some man forcing himself on them, they certainly would not say their lack of protest was equivalent to consent.

[. . .]

You can make clear that there isn't any grey area here. She said no, this guy raped her, purposefully dismissing her no to get what he wanted against her will. She was violated and abused by this person. That's not murky: it's incredibly clear-cut. It can be helpful to try and let go of terms like "taking advantage," too. He didn't take advantage. He raped. Using phrases and words that make something violent, terrifying, abusive and harmful seem less so or benign not only can feed into enabling those things, it can make it a lot tougher for victims of abuses to turn into survivors, and put the blame where it belongs, calling a spade a spade. A lot of those phrases we hear -- like "taking advtantage," "grey rape," or calling any kind of rape sex -- come from a cultural desire to deny or dismiss abuses; from the desire of those who abuse or enable abuse to shirk responsibility.

Absolutely: despite the advent of terms like "gray rape" popping up in mainstream publications and gaining social currency, the term is an oxymoron. By definition, rape cannot be gray -- either consent was obtained or it was not. Because of the dangerous myths that the term perpetuates, it's imperative that we remove "gray rape" from our vocabularies, and call out other people when they use it.

Corinna's entire response is a long one but it's definitely worth your time. You'll be doing yourself a favor to read it all and pass it along.

Proposed Regulation Would Endanger Women's Health

Last week, the New York Times reported that the Bush Administration is considering a new regulation which would require any health care provider that receives funding from the Department from Health and Human Services to not engage in "discrimination." In this case "discrimination" means refusing to hire people who oppose abortion or hormonal birth control. Planned Parenthood is an organization who would be affected by such a rule. See the problem yet? In short, the regulation would allow anti-choice individuals sabatoge women's health care, whether purposely or not -- and refusing to do one's job could not be grounds for firing that person.

As discussed previously on this blog, it's very dangerous to allow individuals to decide for women which health care they should and should not be able to obtain. It places women at risk -- particularly those who are low-income or from rural areas, and/or who lack the time and resources to go to more than one provider. Putting an individual provider's personal beliefs above the right of a woman to access medical care is irresponsible and unacceptable.

But the proposed regulation is insidious in other ways -- it in fact attempts to redefine abortion to include some of the most commonly used birth control methods. This the definition of abortion from the proposed rule:

Abortion: An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. There are two commonly held views on the question of when a pregnancy begins. Some consider a pregnancy to begin at conception (that is, the fertilization of the egg by the sperm), while others consider it to begin with implantation (when the embryo implants in the lining of the uterus). A 2001 Zogby International American Values poll revealed that 49 percent of Americans believe that human life begins at conception. Presumably many who hold this belief think that any action that destroys human life after conception is the termination of a pregnancy, and so would be included in their definition of the term "abortion." Those who believe pregnancy begins at implantation believe the term "abortion" only includes the destruction of a human being after it has implanted in the lining of the uterus.

In other words, the proposal would use polls -- which were probably not designed for participants to have the potential impact of their answer in mind -- to decide rules for the health care establishment, rather than science. The rule goes even farther in rejecting medical facts by ignoring the lack of evidence that contraception even prevents implantation:

There is no scientific evidence that hormonal methods of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. This argument is the basis upon which the religious right hopes to include the 40 percent of the birth control methods Americans use, such as the pill, the patch, the shot, the ring, the IUD, and emergency contraception, under the classification "abortion." Even the "pro-life" movement's most respected physicians cautioned the movement about making these claims.

Senators Hillary Clinton and Patty Murray have already joined Planned Parenthood and other family planning organizations in speaking out against the proposed rule. You can join them by signing a petition on Clinton's website. Additionally, you can write President Bush a letter through Planned Parenthood Federation of America's website, asking him to abandon this dangerous affront to women's health.

Someone's Feelin' Ranty

That someone is me. As a follow-up to Cara’s recent post about the ruling in South Dakota, I offer this:

Open letter to the Legislature of South Dakota;

Women are not stupid. Women are not petulant, confused innocents. Women are not biologically programmed to desire, nurture and rear children. Women are capable of making their own choices. I will agree that women need information to make good decisions. When making decisions about healthcare, that information should be based on medical, provable facts, not sentimental musings about a woman’s “existing relationship with [an] unborn human being”.

It’s glaringly obvious that you don’t have women’s health and safety in mind when passing, and attempting to pass laws like these. Your singular goal, to outlaw abortion, consistently fails to recognize women as full human beings with the rights to personal agency and self-determination. This is not even to mention the potential fallout from such restrictions as well as the failure to address reducing the need for abortion. You are willing to lie, force doctors to lie and encode restrictions that can and will endanger women – physically, psychologically and emotionally.

There is no question that any outcome of pregnancy has physical and emotional downsides and risks. But when you sit in judgment of one of those outcomes, and use that personal judgment to guide your lawmaking, you have failed. You have failed to acknowledge that your personal feelings have no bearing on health provision. You have failed to acknowledge your constituents who do not share your personal judgments. You have failed to address this issue as one of healthcare and privacy, choosing instead to use your position to legislate personal ideology.

It can not be said enough – ideology and personal feelings have little to no place in the legislative process, especially when it comes to matters of medical procedure. By ignoring this, the legislature of South Dakota has failed women, families and doctors. The legislature has failed.

A World Without Abortion

A couple of weeks ago, Ali wrote a post about how outlawing abortion doesn't make abortion go away. In fact, women still seek out abortions, but often put their lives in danger by undergoing illegal procedures in conditions that are not sterile and performed by those who are untrained.

This video, ironically titled A World Without Abortion, really hits the point home. Diane Munday, a woman who was there in the time before legal abortion, saw many women die, and who fought for abortion rights, tells her story.


A WORLD WITHOUT ABORTION

Happiness

I’m childfree and plan on staying that way. I suppose I could rattle off a list of reasons why I don’t want children, but what it all boils down to is the fact that parenting doesn’t interest me at all. I feel no draw to children, no desire to nurture. I’ve actually tried, but just can’t envision myself happy as a parent. Having and raising children is such an important and all-consuming endeavor, that I can’t begin to imagine going through it when I have no interest in it. So I’m very happily childfree.

Most of the “childed” folks I know are very happy with their decisions as well. But every now and then I run into someone who seems less than happy as a parent. Of course, there are also unhappily-childless people. All this leads to the question: “Do children make you happy?” That very question is the topic of a “True or False” piece in this week’s Newsweek. Author Lorraine Ali comes to the conclusion that the statement “children make you happy” is false. I like to think, and believe the article shows, that a better conclusion is “maybe true, maybe false.” It would absolutely be false for me. But I know plenty of people for whom it is true.

It’s that basic dichotomy (so simple, yet so complex!) that forms the need for reproductive justice. I hope we can all agree that the right to pursue happiness is an integral aspect of human rights. I hope we can also agree that a family of one’s choosing is an integral part of happiness. If we can agree with those statements, it is easy to draw the conclusion that reproductive justice is integral to human rights and human happiness.

All humans deserve the opportunity to build the family of their dreams. Granted, there are sometimes limiting factors to having children: biological, financial, social. I suppose it might be easier for the average person to remain childfree than it would for the average person to have their dream family of 10 children. None the less, with greater social support such as universal health and child care and educational opportunities, more people might find it easier to create their dream families. And for those who choose to limit their family size – one child, two, none - access to and education about contraception and reproductive choices is integral to their family building.

The right to parent, or not. The right to create the family of your choosing. The right to give birth and the right to terminate or prevent a pregnancy. The right to raise children in a healthy environment and the right to remain childfree without judgment. These are the reasons why the pursuit of happiness and reproductive justice go hand-in-hand.

Thanks to Bobby Tsunami for passing along the Newsweek article that inspired this post!

SD Courts: Abortion Providers Must Lie to Patients

Last week, a South Dakota court of appeals decided that the state can enforce a law regarding abortion until courts determine whether or not the legislation infringes on the rights to free speech and privacy. The law in question is an anti-choice measure which would require doctors to provide incorrect, misleading or unproven information to their patients seeking abortions.

A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit had agreed with Schreier, but the full court threw out her order. It said Friday that Planned Parenthood, which operates South Dakota's only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls, has not provided enough evidence that it is likely to prevail.

"The bottom line is if the state Legislature orders a professional to tell the truth, that's not a violation of the First Amendment," said South Dakota Attorney General Larry Long, who is defending the law in court.

Mimi Liu, a lawyer for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said such rulings generally take about three weeks to take effect. Long said it could take less time.

The 2005 law would make doctors tell women "that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being." Women also would have to be told they have a right to continue a pregnancy and that abortion may cause women psychological harm, including thoughts of suicide.

Planned Parenthood has failed to show that the information to be given to women seeking abortions is untruthful, misleading or irrelevant to the woman's decision, the appeals court majority said. Taking into account definitions in the law, the information required to be given is biological in nature, so Planned Parenthood has not shown the information is ideological, the decision said.

In other words, the courts are taking the same stance as legislators in SD -- deciding that they know better than doctors. Unfortunately, they're wrong. The information is not in fact biological in nature, and the requirements do not force doctors to tell the truth but to lie. In addition to the above, the ACLU Blog notes further requirements in the law:

The law also forces a doctor to tell his or her patient that she “has an existing relationship with that unborn human being” and if she has an abortion, “her existing relationship and her existing constitutional rights with regards to that relationship will be terminated.”

It seems almost unimaginable that one could not see this as ideological and politically motivated. Contrary to the ruling, there is not a biological fact in the entire above statement-- but there is a lot of negative judgment directed towards women who have abortions. And the New Jersey courts agreed; a very similar law written by the same anti-choice activist who wrote the South Dakota law was unanimously thrown out by the New Jersey Supreme Court, who noted that the language implies a moral judgment not shared by all citizens.

These are the facts: the abortion and suicide link is unproven at best, and believed to be false by reputable sources including the American Psychiatric Association. Instead, up to 98% of women who have abortions do not regret the procedure and the most common response is relief. Additionally, as a group ,women who have had an abortion actually tend to report higher levels of self-esteem, and the rates of short-term depressive symptoms after first-trimester abortions are much lower than the rate of short-term depressive symptoms after giving birth. Serious psychological problems follow a similar trend.

Not all women feel an emotional attachment to their pregnancy, and certainly not all feel that they have an "existing relationship" with the embryo or fetus they're carrying. This is a very personal part of pregnancy and the decision to have an abortion, and is in absolutely no way universal. And while it is true that the fetus or embryo is biologically human, most people do not believe that this grants it "personhood," or same rights as born human beings, particularly at the very early stages when most abortions are conducted. These claims -- which abortion providers will now be forced to give to women in writing for them to read and sign -- are not medical or biological facts, but are designed to establish a state opinion about abortion and to shame women who make this choice.

Beyond the fact that the claims are false, there are additional concerns. The law clearly makes no provision for those women for whom abortion is an emotional decision. While there are definitely exceptions, most women come to see abortion providers because they have already made a decision to terminate a pregnancy. Imagine a woman for whom the decision was difficult having to read the above statements. And what about women who have been the victims of rape and/or incest? Or those who must have an abortion do to medical problems? For many women, the statements above are simply judgmental and inappropriate, but for others they are downright cruel.

Lastly, we need to look at this law as potentially setting a dangerous precedent. Doctors have been ordered to lie to their patients. It is a violation of free speech, privacy and doctor-patient relationships. Chillingly, politicians have imposed their ideologies on our health systems. And yet again, abortion is being treated differently from all other medical care. For example, women seeking pre-natal care are not required to be told about the real risk of post-partum depression, or informed by law that they have a right to end their pregnancies. Politicians respect and allow doctors to continue to respect a woman's right to give birth. Yet again, the right of a woman to not give birth is treated differently.

South Dakota has only one abortion provider in the state, and it is Planned Parenthood. South Dakota is often noted as the state with the most restrictive abortion laws, and anti-choice groups are trying this year for the second time to outlaw the procedure entirely. You can support the work of Planned Parenthood clinics in South Dakota by donating to Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota. For more on the ruling, including updates, check out the Planned Parenthood blog Stand UP South Dakota.

Ending the Silence, Ending the Stigma

I had an abortion. It’s not an easy thing to say, not an easy thing to admit, especially in a public forum such as this. But it’s important to say it. To say it out loud, without shame or embarrassment. I had an abortion and I don’t regret it. I’m not guilty and I’m not ashamed. Of course, I can only speak for myself and I don’t put my experience out there as representative of all women’s experiences.

When we look at statistics, we see that, by age 45, about one-third of American women will have had at least one abortion. That’s roughly 1 out of 3 women. That means that, no matter what your background, religious beliefs, social or economic status is, chances are very good that you know a woman who had an abortion. You probably know more than one. My personal, anecdotal evidence is this: when I tell someone I’ve had an abortion, the most common response I get is, “so did my sister/best friend/college roommate/mother, etc.” The second most common response is, “so did I”. If abortion is so common, why aren’t women talking about their experiences more?

Abortion is private; abortion is traumatic; abortion is difficult; abortion is a tragic decision. All or none of those statements can be true for any woman. But I find it interesting and telling that, in a society so enamored with public airing of personal information, abortion is still such a “private” topic. In this day and age of “TMI”, abortion is still shrouded in silence.

To be clear, I don’t begrudge any woman who chooses to keep her abortion private. The decision to share that information can be as difficult as the choice to abort sometimes is. However, I do begrudge a hypocritical and judgmental society that creates a hostile environment for open discussion. This environment serves to isolate and further shame women who made that choice. And it keeps abortion locked in a closet, where speculation, misinformation and fear run rampant.

I genuinely believe that the silence and stigma surrounding abortion is one of the main factors contributing to the rise in anti-choice sentiment and legislation in this country. If more women speak out about their experiences, positive and negative, I think we could move the public discourse to a place of respect and compassion, focusing on healthcare and prevention. If we speak out, maybe we can turn the tide away from the assumption that abortion is “always a tragic choice” and something that women do capriciously or without really understanding what it is. If we speak out, we can give voice to the fact that every choice and experience is different, that “women who abort” isn’t just some monolithic group to be tucked away and spoken about via statistics and political posturing.

I had an abortion. It wasn’t easy, but it was the right thing to do and I haven’t regretted it once. If you had an abortion you may find that telling someone is very helpful. Whether your experience was positive, negative or both, your truth is what matters. I hope that every woman can find a safe space to talk about her experience(s) with abortion, when and if she decides to.

For more information about women speaking out about abortion, check out these links:

Media:

The Abortion Diaries (To host a FREE screening with PPRSR, contact us at blog@pprsr.org)

Speak Out: I Had an Abortion

General Info:

Abortion Conversation Project

Post Abortion Counseling:

Exhale or call 1-866-4-EXHALE

Exhale's talkline offers "non-judgmental emotional support, resources and information to women and girls who have had abortions, and their partners, friends, allies and family members".

Thanks very much to Cara and KaeLyn for the support and the links.