This weekend I attended the 28th annual conference "From Abortion Right's to Social Justice Building the Movement for Reproductive Freedom." The event is hosted by the Civil Liberties and Public Policy program at Hampshire college.
The experience is described well in the introduction and welcome statement in the conference program. "CLPP is a national reproductive rights and justice organization dedicated to educating, mentoring and inspiring new generations of advocates, leaders and supporters. Combining activism, organizing, leadership training and reproductive rights movement building, CLPP promotes an all inclusive agenda that advances reproductive rights and health and social and economic justice."
A lofty goal no doubt, and one that may have even seemed impossible to me had I not gone and experienced it myself. As challenging as creating an environment of acceptance and education is, the CLPP conference comes the closest I have ever been to experiencing an "all inclusive" agenda.
This annual Spring conference is held at Hampshire College and is put on by Civil Liberties and Public Policy (CLPP). The three day conference starts on Friday night and goes through Sunday afternoon. The conference features an Abortion Speak out as well as workshops on a wide variety of topics. Some examples from this years conference include Creative Solutions to Abortion Restrictions, Queering Reproductive Justice, Invisible: Women in America's Prisons and Jails, Birth Justice, Showing up in Solidarity When Racism and Privileges are the Co-Hosts, Organizing for Reproductive Justice in Religious Communities, The Intersection of Immigrant Rights and Reproductive Justice and MANY MANY MORE...in fact, if I had to criticize the conference structure for anything it would be that their are just too many workshops on the Saturday schedule (three sessions) and not enough on Friday and Sunday (One session each), I would love it if the conference were spread out another day or two just to give participants the opportunity to attend more workshops. I would have loved to have been able to go to another few workshops on topics that weren't my first choice issues but t
Conferences like these are important for both the Reproductive Justice (RJ) field as well as all individuals who want to work towards social justice in any form. There is an incredible amount of topics and resources available at CLPP and it is crucial for discussions to take place around these vital topics. Without the opportunity to be exposed to the experiences and opinions of those unlike ourselves we are unable to grow and thrive as individuals. I appreciated the vast intersectionality that CLPP demonstrated by grouping class, race, gender and gender identity under the large umbrella of Reproductive Rights and Social Justice as a whole.
For me personally, my most memorable experience was having Dr. Susan Robinson (one of only four late term abortion providers in the country) sit next to me during a workshop and chat with her about Crisis Pregnancy Centers. She later gifted me with a necklace made by her husband featuring a tiny copper wire hanger on a black string; reminding us of how far we've come and how much further we have to go in the field of Reproductive Rights.
CLPP 2015 will be held on the Hampshire College campus on April 10-12th. More information can be found here.
Monday, April 14, 2014
Friday, March 28, 2014
Hobby Lobby wants out of Religious Freedoms...Yours
Are corporations guaranteed the same rights as individuals? The core of the lawsuit brought before the Supreme Court this past Tuesday is whether any corporation (in this case Hobby Lobby) is protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. The RFRA requires that the government prove "compelling interest" when someone's religious rights are "substantially burdened" by what the government wants it to do. Individuals and religious groups (like churches) are indeed covered by the RFRA, however, it hasn't been decided with certainty whether the RFRA's protections also extend to businesses or corporations.
Hobby Lobby is one of the 40 plus businesses that don't want to provide health insurance to their employees under the Affordable Care Act. Sure, they say they want to provide coverage but they don't want to provide the type of coverage mandated by the ACA. The ACA mandates that employers offer health insurance to employees that provide birth control without a co-pay. Birth control without insurance can cost up to $60 a month for the pill and even more for other methods such as the Nuva Ring. Longer term forms of contraceptives such as intrauterine devices (or IUD's), Implanons and Plan B are required to be offered without a co-pay as well.
Hobby Lobby claims that contraceptives, or more specifically IUD's and Plan B are against their religion. They want the Supreme Court to allow them to deny their employee's health insurance which covers these contraceptives because of their "freedom of religion." Hobby Lobby does not legally, have to offer their employees this coverage, instead they could pay a fine for not offering insurance at all or a fine for offering coverage without the contraceptive coverage. Hobby Lobby wants out of that too. Hobby Lobby wants to offer their employees insurance that does not cover anything that the religion of Hobby Lobby does not support. There are a couple things wrong with this picture. One, Hobby Lobby is a for profit corporation, the corporation has no religion- the family that owns Hobby Lobby has a religion. So if the Supreme Court rules on this case in favor of Hobby Lobby they will in fact be setting a precedent that corporations can have religions. This opens the door for any number of corporations to claim that the beliefs held by the owners (or board) should have the same protection as individuals.
First of all, the companies are not the ones that pay for the birth control; they pay for an insurance plan. The employees then use their insurance plan to cover their health care, which is none of the companies business. Furthermore, the companies argue that their own right to have their own beliefs are being violating when they are running a for profit business that cannot exist as its own entity. The owners of companies that make money off of customers are not allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices, sales procedures or other legal matters. Companies have to follow the law. This law requiring health insurance should be no different.
Even though Hobby Lobby and others contest that their freedom of religion is being violated, the freedom of the employees who want health insurance that covers all of their health care are being violated if they aren't given it. If contraceptives aren't against my religion- why does the employer get to deny me these prescriptions because of theirs? No one is being forced to take contraceptives and if Hobby Lobby doesn't want employees using contraceptives they really have no recourse because an employees health decisions are again, none of their business. You can't tell your employees what they can and can't do with their health care. The AFA gives women the status of full human beings that are not penalized simply for having a uterus.
But here is something that not everyone is aware of. Hobby Lobby is only contesting specific forms of contraceptives because they believe that they are actually abortion inducing drugs and not contraceptives.
Yup, the most mind boggling part of this entire situation is that the Obama administration has taken the "belief" held by Hobby Lobby and others seriously that Plan B and IUD's are abortifacients, even though scientifically, that is not correct. No one can bring up the fact that this is wrong. In deciding this case the very contraceptives that Hobby Lobby and others are fighting to be exempted from covering are misrepresented. Their beliefs, though entirely inaccurate are still to be considered beliefs, even though we know they are not correct.
Even the National Catholic Reporter states that "The reality is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the IUD and Plan B work only as contraceptives." Also: "The most important point that emerges from all of this research is that, so far, there is no scientific evidence that any FDA-approved contraception is capable of destroying an embryo. To say that any of these drugs are abortifacient is not only misleading, it does a profound disservice to women who find themselves in a situation where they might have to use one of these drugs or devices (Article foundHERE)."
Whether or not Hobby Lobby should be allowed to have a religion and have protection from having to follow laws that "violate" that religion is not really what the Supreme Court is deciding. The Supreme Court is deciding if your business, which makes money, can in turn be an exception to laws. Yes, churches and other religious institutions are often afforded benefits not granted to the rest of us. Churches are exempt from taxes, churches have even been allowed exemptions for the birth control mandate (though that is an entirely different story). Hobby Lobby is not a church. Hobby Lobby may be a company founded on principles taken from religion but that does not mean Hobby Lobby can be categorized as a non-profit, religious organization that is granted those exemptions. No one is saying that Hobby Lobby cannot be founded on religious principles or that the owners cannot freely practice their own religion separate from their company. I've only briefly mentioned that a ruling from the Supreme Court allowing corporations to have the same religious freedoms as individuals would set a terrible precedent allowing all corporations to avoid following the law based on their "beliefs," considering the fact that the beliefs held by Hobby Lobby and others are not even true. That direction is the most dangerous for individuals who are employed by these corporations, not to mention society as a whole.
I am not against freedom of religion as long as practicing that religion doesn't involve preventing others from exercising their own religious or non-religious beliefs. Employees at every corporation should be allowed to make their own decisions based on their own beliefs, not the beliefs of those signing their pay checks or a board of trustees profiting from the corporation. Given that IUD's and Plan B are not even abortifacents to begin with, the fact that Hobby Lobby may be granted an exemption from following the law based on false "beliefs" rather than truth is frightening and an abomination to justice. So, Hobby Lobby and all the other corporations begging to be let off the hook based on religion- I have to quote one of the smartest women I know, my mother, who when asked about the requirement of businesses providing health insurance that covers all forms of contraceptives stated: "Obviously, it's just part of the cost of doing business."
Hobby Lobby is one of the 40 plus businesses that don't want to provide health insurance to their employees under the Affordable Care Act. Sure, they say they want to provide coverage but they don't want to provide the type of coverage mandated by the ACA. The ACA mandates that employers offer health insurance to employees that provide birth control without a co-pay. Birth control without insurance can cost up to $60 a month for the pill and even more for other methods such as the Nuva Ring. Longer term forms of contraceptives such as intrauterine devices (or IUD's), Implanons and Plan B are required to be offered without a co-pay as well.
Hobby Lobby claims that contraceptives, or more specifically IUD's and Plan B are against their religion. They want the Supreme Court to allow them to deny their employee's health insurance which covers these contraceptives because of their "freedom of religion." Hobby Lobby does not legally, have to offer their employees this coverage, instead they could pay a fine for not offering insurance at all or a fine for offering coverage without the contraceptive coverage. Hobby Lobby wants out of that too. Hobby Lobby wants to offer their employees insurance that does not cover anything that the religion of Hobby Lobby does not support. There are a couple things wrong with this picture. One, Hobby Lobby is a for profit corporation, the corporation has no religion- the family that owns Hobby Lobby has a religion. So if the Supreme Court rules on this case in favor of Hobby Lobby they will in fact be setting a precedent that corporations can have religions. This opens the door for any number of corporations to claim that the beliefs held by the owners (or board) should have the same protection as individuals.
First of all, the companies are not the ones that pay for the birth control; they pay for an insurance plan. The employees then use their insurance plan to cover their health care, which is none of the companies business. Furthermore, the companies argue that their own right to have their own beliefs are being violating when they are running a for profit business that cannot exist as its own entity. The owners of companies that make money off of customers are not allowed to discriminate in their hiring practices, sales procedures or other legal matters. Companies have to follow the law. This law requiring health insurance should be no different.
Even though Hobby Lobby and others contest that their freedom of religion is being violated, the freedom of the employees who want health insurance that covers all of their health care are being violated if they aren't given it. If contraceptives aren't against my religion- why does the employer get to deny me these prescriptions because of theirs? No one is being forced to take contraceptives and if Hobby Lobby doesn't want employees using contraceptives they really have no recourse because an employees health decisions are again, none of their business. You can't tell your employees what they can and can't do with their health care. The AFA gives women the status of full human beings that are not penalized simply for having a uterus.
But here is something that not everyone is aware of. Hobby Lobby is only contesting specific forms of contraceptives because they believe that they are actually abortion inducing drugs and not contraceptives.
Yup, the most mind boggling part of this entire situation is that the Obama administration has taken the "belief" held by Hobby Lobby and others seriously that Plan B and IUD's are abortifacients, even though scientifically, that is not correct. No one can bring up the fact that this is wrong. In deciding this case the very contraceptives that Hobby Lobby and others are fighting to be exempted from covering are misrepresented. Their beliefs, though entirely inaccurate are still to be considered beliefs, even though we know they are not correct.
Even the National Catholic Reporter states that "The reality is that there is overwhelming scientific evidence that the IUD and Plan B work only as contraceptives." Also: "The most important point that emerges from all of this research is that, so far, there is no scientific evidence that any FDA-approved contraception is capable of destroying an embryo. To say that any of these drugs are abortifacient is not only misleading, it does a profound disservice to women who find themselves in a situation where they might have to use one of these drugs or devices (Article foundHERE)."
Whether or not Hobby Lobby should be allowed to have a religion and have protection from having to follow laws that "violate" that religion is not really what the Supreme Court is deciding. The Supreme Court is deciding if your business, which makes money, can in turn be an exception to laws. Yes, churches and other religious institutions are often afforded benefits not granted to the rest of us. Churches are exempt from taxes, churches have even been allowed exemptions for the birth control mandate (though that is an entirely different story). Hobby Lobby is not a church. Hobby Lobby may be a company founded on principles taken from religion but that does not mean Hobby Lobby can be categorized as a non-profit, religious organization that is granted those exemptions. No one is saying that Hobby Lobby cannot be founded on religious principles or that the owners cannot freely practice their own religion separate from their company. I've only briefly mentioned that a ruling from the Supreme Court allowing corporations to have the same religious freedoms as individuals would set a terrible precedent allowing all corporations to avoid following the law based on their "beliefs," considering the fact that the beliefs held by Hobby Lobby and others are not even true. That direction is the most dangerous for individuals who are employed by these corporations, not to mention society as a whole.
I am not against freedom of religion as long as practicing that religion doesn't involve preventing others from exercising their own religious or non-religious beliefs. Employees at every corporation should be allowed to make their own decisions based on their own beliefs, not the beliefs of those signing their pay checks or a board of trustees profiting from the corporation. Given that IUD's and Plan B are not even abortifacents to begin with, the fact that Hobby Lobby may be granted an exemption from following the law based on false "beliefs" rather than truth is frightening and an abomination to justice. So, Hobby Lobby and all the other corporations begging to be let off the hook based on religion- I have to quote one of the smartest women I know, my mother, who when asked about the requirement of businesses providing health insurance that covers all forms of contraceptives stated: "Obviously, it's just part of the cost of doing business."
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Why Men don't have Abortion Rights
Unplanned pregnancies are not rare in the United States. In fact, unplanned pregnancies account for about half of all pregnancies. Though sometimes this can be a welcome surprise for couples it is just as often not. In these cases ideally the women and man are on the same page about moving forward and continuing pregnancy or choosing to terminate. Unfortunately, that is not always the case. When women choose to continue their pregnancies the father has no say and is legally responsible in most instances (at least financially) for the child. If a women decides to terminate her pregnancy the father not only has no say, but he can also claim no right to have his wishes supersede hers. I understand that this may not seem fair to all men, I mean after all is said and done women have the option of terminating or continuing their pregnancies without even informing the biological father if she so chooses. That is reality.
Men do not bear children, not in this society and not in any other human society that I am aware of. We would live in a very different world if that they did.
There is a HUGE difference between fathers of existing children and potential fathers of potential children. If you are a father of an existing child then your rights are different from potential fathers who have no physically existing children. If you don't believe women should have abortion rights period, than we are at odds from the starting point. I'm moving on to the point of this post which is when all is said and done if a women is pregnant it is her decision alone that decides whether or not she continues or terminates her pregnancy.
Realistically the relationship between men and women are not always a simple one. Everyone is different and what works for some sexual partners may not work for others. Do you have the "what happens if pregnancy results from this instance of intercourse" conversation with each and every person you have ever slept with? Perhaps you do and in that case you are less likely to find yourselves at odds if an unplanned pregnancy occurs and that is a good thing. But I think the reality is that few of us have those conversations in advance and even if we do the circumstances can always change. Actually being pregnant is different than potentially being pregnant and women can't always know in advance what that will mean to her. So I admit that the only way to ensure that you never end up at odds with your sexual partner in terms of pregnancy is to abstain from having sex or practice the safest sex possible.
Women get to decide whether or not to continue or terminate a pregnancy because women are the ones who are physiologically affected by pregnancy. Making the vast assumption that men and women are created equal, women alone can be the only ones who choose whether or not to bear children. First of all, continuing a pregnancy has much higher risks on a woman's body than terminating that pregnancy. Before modern medicine and even with it women die in child birth, it can be very dangerous to have a baby. Men do not face that risk when having contributed biologically to the creation of a potential child. There are no physical side effects or dangers for men who have impregnated a women.
As explained in a recent article by Marcus Lee, men having abortion right's comes from the notion that fetuses are property jointly owned by men and women. This argument insinuates that if fetuses are physical property, it is unfair for a woman to have complete control over whether or not a potential piece of property can exist if she shares ownership with a man. There has been legislation aimed at making this way of thinking the law, for example the “Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act” (PRENDA), would authorize civil actions for verifiable money damages for injuries and punitive damages by fathers and maternal grandmothers. This dangerous rhetoric aims to link the women and her uterus as property in which men exert rights over that of the actual woman.
Men's Rights Activists suggest that like the institution of slavery- men are powerless with the regard to impregnating women and therefore need state intervention in order to restore the power imbalance (Reality Check. No one can own a human being and certainly no one can own something that exists solely INSIDE of another human being. The very core idea behind justifying slavery was that black bodies could be owned, sold and traded like economic commodities. This notion in its entirety has to be discarded if human rights are to remain intact.
Men have overwhelmingly written and enacted the laws that effect women's bodies. Men have overwhelmingly caused abortion stigma to be perpetuated in society and it is men that can never claim that they will ever be pregnant. Just as biological reasoning exists for men to claim inherent physical and mental superiority over women, we can take that same biological reasoning and say that until a child is BORN, the fact that men provided one part of the equation that can bring about a child is not reason enough for them to claim ownership over the women who's body is housing that potential child. There can be no such thing as father's rights until there is a child born. Their part in human reproduction ends long before any physical entity exists and if women are to be equal autonomous human beings that is the way it must stay. That is reality.
Men do not bear children, not in this society and not in any other human society that I am aware of. We would live in a very different world if that they did.
There is a HUGE difference between fathers of existing children and potential fathers of potential children. If you are a father of an existing child then your rights are different from potential fathers who have no physically existing children. If you don't believe women should have abortion rights period, than we are at odds from the starting point. I'm moving on to the point of this post which is when all is said and done if a women is pregnant it is her decision alone that decides whether or not she continues or terminates her pregnancy.
Realistically the relationship between men and women are not always a simple one. Everyone is different and what works for some sexual partners may not work for others. Do you have the "what happens if pregnancy results from this instance of intercourse" conversation with each and every person you have ever slept with? Perhaps you do and in that case you are less likely to find yourselves at odds if an unplanned pregnancy occurs and that is a good thing. But I think the reality is that few of us have those conversations in advance and even if we do the circumstances can always change. Actually being pregnant is different than potentially being pregnant and women can't always know in advance what that will mean to her. So I admit that the only way to ensure that you never end up at odds with your sexual partner in terms of pregnancy is to abstain from having sex or practice the safest sex possible.
Women get to decide whether or not to continue or terminate a pregnancy because women are the ones who are physiologically affected by pregnancy. Making the vast assumption that men and women are created equal, women alone can be the only ones who choose whether or not to bear children. First of all, continuing a pregnancy has much higher risks on a woman's body than terminating that pregnancy. Before modern medicine and even with it women die in child birth, it can be very dangerous to have a baby. Men do not face that risk when having contributed biologically to the creation of a potential child. There are no physical side effects or dangers for men who have impregnated a women.
As explained in a recent article by Marcus Lee, men having abortion right's comes from the notion that fetuses are property jointly owned by men and women. This argument insinuates that if fetuses are physical property, it is unfair for a woman to have complete control over whether or not a potential piece of property can exist if she shares ownership with a man. There has been legislation aimed at making this way of thinking the law, for example the “Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act” (PRENDA), would authorize civil actions for verifiable money damages for injuries and punitive damages by fathers and maternal grandmothers. This dangerous rhetoric aims to link the women and her uterus as property in which men exert rights over that of the actual woman.
Men's Rights Activists suggest that like the institution of slavery- men are powerless with the regard to impregnating women and therefore need state intervention in order to restore the power imbalance (Reality Check. No one can own a human being and certainly no one can own something that exists solely INSIDE of another human being. The very core idea behind justifying slavery was that black bodies could be owned, sold and traded like economic commodities. This notion in its entirety has to be discarded if human rights are to remain intact.
Men have overwhelmingly written and enacted the laws that effect women's bodies. Men have overwhelmingly caused abortion stigma to be perpetuated in society and it is men that can never claim that they will ever be pregnant. Just as biological reasoning exists for men to claim inherent physical and mental superiority over women, we can take that same biological reasoning and say that until a child is BORN, the fact that men provided one part of the equation that can bring about a child is not reason enough for them to claim ownership over the women who's body is housing that potential child. There can be no such thing as father's rights until there is a child born. Their part in human reproduction ends long before any physical entity exists and if women are to be equal autonomous human beings that is the way it must stay. That is reality.
Monday, March 10, 2014
National Appreciation Day for Abortion Providers
It's true. Today is National Appreciation Day for Abortion Providers.
It's impossible to ignore the rhetoric from the anti-choice today on why having this appreciation day offends their value of "life", however; this particular day, March 10th, was chosen because in 1993 a "pro-life" activist gunned down and killed abortion provider David Gunn.
As long as there are providers there will be safe abortions.
Thank you to every abortion provider who holds the life of the patient in the highest regard.
Our lives first. Always.
It's impossible to ignore the rhetoric from the anti-choice today on why having this appreciation day offends their value of "life", however; this particular day, March 10th, was chosen because in 1993 a "pro-life" activist gunned down and killed abortion provider David Gunn.
As long as there are providers there will be safe abortions.
Thank you to every abortion provider who holds the life of the patient in the highest regard.
Our lives first. Always.
Pre-emptive Striking (The Law on Abortions in America)
Abortion is still legal in the United States. For now.
It's become more and more popular for legislation to be passed by states "banning" abortions after 20 weeks. The root of these bills are largely due to the question of when a fetus begins to feel pain. I recently read a terrible story about a women who began miscarrying a very much wanted pregnancy at 22-weeks in 2010 in Nebraska. A 20-week ban on abortions had recently passed in the state and when the women found out that there was not enough amniotic fluid to ensure that her fetus could live outside of the womb, her and her husband decided they wanted to induce the labor and put an end to the tragedy. Unfortunately, the doctors along with their legal counsel could not comply with the families wishes because of the potential prosecution that could be brought by the state of Nebraska. The women sat there for 10-days (not being deemed "ill enough" to meet any abortion ban exceptions for saving her life) before natural labor began. Upon physically entering the world, after several "gasps for air," their child died. Click here for the entire story.
Bans may be the extreme and abortions after 20-weeks make up less than 2% of procedures performed but that does not mean that they are not to be taken as a warning to us all that any attack on a women's right to choose the fate of her own body can lead to re-criminalizing abortion. As it stands now there are hospitals that have had to risk women's lives in order to protect themselves from prosecution. In the case of Savita Halappanavar, the women who died after Irish Hospital Doctors refused to remove the dying fetus within her while it had a heartbeat- paid with her life.
When talking about abortion legislation there can be some disconnect between laws that push for out right bans and laws that effect access to abortion services on a more subtle level. For instance, mandatory waiting periods (24-72 hour periods after initial appointments that force women to wait for their procedure to be done) are not directly aimed at banning women from services however, they make the process much more difficult. Also, mandatory ultrasound viewing or description laws (when the women is forced to either view or listen to the description of her ultrasound before being allowed to proceed)do not ban abortion but they make the process that much more oppressive and intrusive. Often you hear anti choice lawmakers and activist claim that these laws "protect" women or make abortions "safer" but in truth the goal behind these types of bills and laws are to erode the abortion rights on American women. The federal law states that States may not pass laws causing undue burdens on women who seek legal termination but what constitutes as an "undue burden" is subjective at best.
The point I'm trying to make goes back to the way that Roe v. Wade was decided and subsequent Judgements made by the Supreme Court since. Initially, Roe was decided on the:
"right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
The ruling allows for legal abortions during the entire pregnancy, but set up conditions to allow states to regulate abortion during the second and third trimesters.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) a Pennsylvania law that required spousal awareness prior to obtaining an abortion was ruled invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because it created an undue burden on married women seeking an abortion. Other requirements for parental consent, informed consent, and 24-hour waiting period were constitutionally valid regulations ruled that certain restrictions on abortion access, like waiting periods, were constitutional.
So when anti-choice activists couldn't overturn outright Roe or ban legal abortions the strategy shifted to make obtaining an abortion so difficult that in effect there would be women who sought but could not obtain a legal abortion. Therefore the clause of "undue" burden becomes a week defense against attacks on how far restrictions can be taken.
So called Partial Birth abortions were banned in the early 2000's but that is far too complicated to explain in this post. The Wikipedia Article can give you a better idea about the laws regarding second and third trimester procedures and what they mean for abortion patients and providers.
Restrictions lead to bans. Too often do women find themselves speaking out after the fact. So on one level the detachment of individuals in the political process can provide us with powerful wake up call if and when we become effected directly by the lack of abortion rights but on a deeper level we need to raise the alarm earlier and for everyone.
The level of involvement needs to be severe at the front gate. Any attack on any aspects of the legality of abortion must be met with opposition. The decision to have an abortion needs to be in the hands of each individual women, each and every instance of pregnancy and once that decision is made no one has the right to delay, demoralize or discriminate against that women or that choice. Period.
It's become more and more popular for legislation to be passed by states "banning" abortions after 20 weeks. The root of these bills are largely due to the question of when a fetus begins to feel pain. I recently read a terrible story about a women who began miscarrying a very much wanted pregnancy at 22-weeks in 2010 in Nebraska. A 20-week ban on abortions had recently passed in the state and when the women found out that there was not enough amniotic fluid to ensure that her fetus could live outside of the womb, her and her husband decided they wanted to induce the labor and put an end to the tragedy. Unfortunately, the doctors along with their legal counsel could not comply with the families wishes because of the potential prosecution that could be brought by the state of Nebraska. The women sat there for 10-days (not being deemed "ill enough" to meet any abortion ban exceptions for saving her life) before natural labor began. Upon physically entering the world, after several "gasps for air," their child died. Click here for the entire story.
Bans may be the extreme and abortions after 20-weeks make up less than 2% of procedures performed but that does not mean that they are not to be taken as a warning to us all that any attack on a women's right to choose the fate of her own body can lead to re-criminalizing abortion. As it stands now there are hospitals that have had to risk women's lives in order to protect themselves from prosecution. In the case of Savita Halappanavar, the women who died after Irish Hospital Doctors refused to remove the dying fetus within her while it had a heartbeat- paid with her life.
When talking about abortion legislation there can be some disconnect between laws that push for out right bans and laws that effect access to abortion services on a more subtle level. For instance, mandatory waiting periods (24-72 hour periods after initial appointments that force women to wait for their procedure to be done) are not directly aimed at banning women from services however, they make the process much more difficult. Also, mandatory ultrasound viewing or description laws (when the women is forced to either view or listen to the description of her ultrasound before being allowed to proceed)do not ban abortion but they make the process that much more oppressive and intrusive. Often you hear anti choice lawmakers and activist claim that these laws "protect" women or make abortions "safer" but in truth the goal behind these types of bills and laws are to erode the abortion rights on American women. The federal law states that States may not pass laws causing undue burdens on women who seek legal termination but what constitutes as an "undue burden" is subjective at best.
The point I'm trying to make goes back to the way that Roe v. Wade was decided and subsequent Judgements made by the Supreme Court since. Initially, Roe was decided on the:
"right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.
The ruling allows for legal abortions during the entire pregnancy, but set up conditions to allow states to regulate abortion during the second and third trimesters.
In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) a Pennsylvania law that required spousal awareness prior to obtaining an abortion was ruled invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because it created an undue burden on married women seeking an abortion. Other requirements for parental consent, informed consent, and 24-hour waiting period were constitutionally valid regulations ruled that certain restrictions on abortion access, like waiting periods, were constitutional.
So when anti-choice activists couldn't overturn outright Roe or ban legal abortions the strategy shifted to make obtaining an abortion so difficult that in effect there would be women who sought but could not obtain a legal abortion. Therefore the clause of "undue" burden becomes a week defense against attacks on how far restrictions can be taken.
So called Partial Birth abortions were banned in the early 2000's but that is far too complicated to explain in this post. The Wikipedia Article can give you a better idea about the laws regarding second and third trimester procedures and what they mean for abortion patients and providers.
Restrictions lead to bans. Too often do women find themselves speaking out after the fact. So on one level the detachment of individuals in the political process can provide us with powerful wake up call if and when we become effected directly by the lack of abortion rights but on a deeper level we need to raise the alarm earlier and for everyone.
The level of involvement needs to be severe at the front gate. Any attack on any aspects of the legality of abortion must be met with opposition. The decision to have an abortion needs to be in the hands of each individual women, each and every instance of pregnancy and once that decision is made no one has the right to delay, demoralize or discriminate against that women or that choice. Period.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
TED Talks (but not about Abortion)
An article came out on Wednesday through THE NATION where writer Jessica Velanti shared part of a conversation she had with TED talk content director Kelly Stoetzel. Stoetzel stated to Velanti after she questioned the lack of talks on abortion that abortion did not apply to their focus on “wider issues of justice, inequality and human rights.” Supposedly TED does not take sides on issues. “Abortion is more of a topical issue we wouldn’t take a position on, any more than we’d take a position on a state tax bill" stated Stoetzel.
A quick run down on TED talks- TED stands for Technology, Education and Design. The group is a non-profit started in 1984 and their motto is "Ideas Worth Sharing." For more in depth information check out their website here. I personally only became aware of the organization after (sometimes musician) Amanda Palmer gave one on the music industry and saturated her social media sites with links to the talk. I didn't watch hers but I got the gist. Talk for 18 minutes about concepts and ideas and get lauded by the organization and the audience members who've spent $7000 a ticket to be there.
There is no denying that neither the famous TED talks nor TED women talks have ever featured a talk about abortion in the organizations 30 year history. Velanti asks the question why and Kelly Stoetzel answers. That fact did not stop the Twitter feed from TED to immediately start calling their no-abortion talk policy a "rumor." It's true that TED has featured talks on birth control and reproductive rights but they have not ever had a talk on abortion. The response from TED has been that the quote given was taken out of context. They state that there is no official policy against talks focusing on abortion and that the lack of abortion themed rhetoric is an oversight not a decisive ban. They have received multiple proposals for talks including abortion rights but none of them were accepted. TED may say that this is not because of a ban but they cannot say that it isn't true.
The theme of Jessica Velanti's article is at the core about the type of elitism that TED and especially TED women uses as it attempts to rebrand feminism in a more popular way. It is the writers attendance at the 2010 TED women talks that drives her to ask why no one at a women's conference is discussing abortion. Velanti admits that the audience is nearly all white well to do women who one attendee dubs "the empowerment elite." Here we see that TED has branched out to focus on women in their so-called feminist focused conference but does so only by including popular or non-controversial topics. It's a type of "safe" feminism, which is not to say that there is only one definition of feminism. Alas, a type of feminism that doesn't include abortion right's however, is just not a type of feminism at all. TED talks are at their core are idealistic, vague concepts put forth by one person to fit the organizations definition of what ideas they deem worth sharing. As of yet, TED has not included abortion right's in their "ideas worth sharing" category. Regardless of the response to criticism, whether or not TED will include the uncomfortable topic in future talks will be the deciding factor as to whether or not they truly consider abortions rights to be included in their focus on "wider issues of justice, inequality and human rights."
A quick run down on TED talks- TED stands for Technology, Education and Design. The group is a non-profit started in 1984 and their motto is "Ideas Worth Sharing." For more in depth information check out their website here. I personally only became aware of the organization after (sometimes musician) Amanda Palmer gave one on the music industry and saturated her social media sites with links to the talk. I didn't watch hers but I got the gist. Talk for 18 minutes about concepts and ideas and get lauded by the organization and the audience members who've spent $7000 a ticket to be there.
There is no denying that neither the famous TED talks nor TED women talks have ever featured a talk about abortion in the organizations 30 year history. Velanti asks the question why and Kelly Stoetzel answers. That fact did not stop the Twitter feed from TED to immediately start calling their no-abortion talk policy a "rumor." It's true that TED has featured talks on birth control and reproductive rights but they have not ever had a talk on abortion. The response from TED has been that the quote given was taken out of context. They state that there is no official policy against talks focusing on abortion and that the lack of abortion themed rhetoric is an oversight not a decisive ban. They have received multiple proposals for talks including abortion rights but none of them were accepted. TED may say that this is not because of a ban but they cannot say that it isn't true.
The theme of Jessica Velanti's article is at the core about the type of elitism that TED and especially TED women uses as it attempts to rebrand feminism in a more popular way. It is the writers attendance at the 2010 TED women talks that drives her to ask why no one at a women's conference is discussing abortion. Velanti admits that the audience is nearly all white well to do women who one attendee dubs "the empowerment elite." Here we see that TED has branched out to focus on women in their so-called feminist focused conference but does so only by including popular or non-controversial topics. It's a type of "safe" feminism, which is not to say that there is only one definition of feminism. Alas, a type of feminism that doesn't include abortion right's however, is just not a type of feminism at all. TED talks are at their core are idealistic, vague concepts put forth by one person to fit the organizations definition of what ideas they deem worth sharing. As of yet, TED has not included abortion right's in their "ideas worth sharing" category. Regardless of the response to criticism, whether or not TED will include the uncomfortable topic in future talks will be the deciding factor as to whether or not they truly consider abortions rights to be included in their focus on "wider issues of justice, inequality and human rights."
Tuesday, February 11, 2014
Meaning Day to Day
I work at a clinic that provides abortion. I've been doing it for 8 months now and while there are certainly moments that typical work place stress and office politics can certainly make me question my threshold for human services, I am happy doing what I do for now. I am very happy to get to interact with the women seeking gynecological and abortion services.
I have always been pro-choice. It's not something I suddenly realized one day, I just have always known how I feel about the matter. One of the driving forces behind my activism and desire to work in the field of abortion care comes from being raised in the Catholic Church. At the wise age of 14, I encountered a terrible women lawyer who was invited to speak to my catechism class about abortion. She showed up and began speaking about a video she was going to show us. I can't remember if I waited for her to finish talking or waited until she was about to play the movie but at some point I got up and stormed out. I sat in the hallway and spoke to one of the teaching assistants. I told her there was no way I was going to sit through and watch what I new she was going to be showing. I hadn't seen the exact videos but I knew what they would say and I knew that most if not all of it was untrue.
When I got pregnant 4 years later, there was no question in my mind about what I was going to do. I never for a second considered carrying to term. I'm positive it is not in the cards for me to have children and it certainly wasn't then either. It is only in retrospect that I acknowledge that I did pretty well considering the situation. It didn't feel like it at the time but I managed to find out what I needed to do and how to go about it. A friend brought me to my appointment and home afterwards. My experience was wholly positive and non-traumatic. I was treated with respect, I had a female doctor and a very nice women holding my hand during the 5-7 minutes the procedure took and I told her I just wanted to go to school and finish community college and go on to get a degree. She was compassionate and kind and assured me that I would be back at school and feeling well again in no time. My recovery went well, I got on birth control pills with my primary care doctor and went back to school where I could finally stop throwing up in my car own the way and in my 8:00am math class. I was more relieved than I can ever express.
Now I get to be part of the experiences of other women. I get to treat women with respect and dignity and do what I can to give them a positive and non-judgmental experience. No one wants to have an abortion but once you need one the process can be harrowing. It's nothing to be taken lightly but it also isn't doesn't have to be the traumatic and or stigmatized life event that it is often portrayed. It's okay to need an abortion, it's okay to need multiple abortions. Women lives first, always.
I have always been pro-choice. It's not something I suddenly realized one day, I just have always known how I feel about the matter. One of the driving forces behind my activism and desire to work in the field of abortion care comes from being raised in the Catholic Church. At the wise age of 14, I encountered a terrible women lawyer who was invited to speak to my catechism class about abortion. She showed up and began speaking about a video she was going to show us. I can't remember if I waited for her to finish talking or waited until she was about to play the movie but at some point I got up and stormed out. I sat in the hallway and spoke to one of the teaching assistants. I told her there was no way I was going to sit through and watch what I new she was going to be showing. I hadn't seen the exact videos but I knew what they would say and I knew that most if not all of it was untrue.
When I got pregnant 4 years later, there was no question in my mind about what I was going to do. I never for a second considered carrying to term. I'm positive it is not in the cards for me to have children and it certainly wasn't then either. It is only in retrospect that I acknowledge that I did pretty well considering the situation. It didn't feel like it at the time but I managed to find out what I needed to do and how to go about it. A friend brought me to my appointment and home afterwards. My experience was wholly positive and non-traumatic. I was treated with respect, I had a female doctor and a very nice women holding my hand during the 5-7 minutes the procedure took and I told her I just wanted to go to school and finish community college and go on to get a degree. She was compassionate and kind and assured me that I would be back at school and feeling well again in no time. My recovery went well, I got on birth control pills with my primary care doctor and went back to school where I could finally stop throwing up in my car own the way and in my 8:00am math class. I was more relieved than I can ever express.
Now I get to be part of the experiences of other women. I get to treat women with respect and dignity and do what I can to give them a positive and non-judgmental experience. No one wants to have an abortion but once you need one the process can be harrowing. It's nothing to be taken lightly but it also isn't doesn't have to be the traumatic and or stigmatized life event that it is often portrayed. It's okay to need an abortion, it's okay to need multiple abortions. Women lives first, always.
Thursday, January 2, 2014
Live the Experience you Listen too.
We cannot speak for each other. We can only address the world through our own experiences. Empathize, Sympathize but don't Vocalize. Listen. Listen to those who live the experience and let them speak for themselves.
Monday, December 9, 2013
ACLU Sues Catholic Bishops over Hospitals Risking Mothers Lives
You wouldn't go to a Catholic hospital to have an abortion but what if you went to a Catholic hospital and one was needed in order to save your life?
A women in Michigan went to the only hospital within 30 miles of after her water broke while in the eighteenth week of her pregnancy. She was given Tylenol and sent home. She went in a second time and though she was in intense pain and bleeding the hospital sent her home again. It was not until the third visit, when she began a premature labor did the hospital step in and treat her. By that point the women had two acute infections and was in extreme pain. She delivered a premature baby in the breech position that lived for only two and a half hours.
Medical experts who have reviewed the case have determined that the fetus had virtually no chance of survival and that this would have been apparent on her initial visit to the hospital. They also said that in these such circumstances doctors usually induce labor or surgically remove the fetus to reduce the mother’s chances of infection.
This women is Tamesha Means and the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on her behalf. The suit alleges that the hospital did not tell Means that her fetus was doomed, nor that inducing labor and terminating the pregnancy was the only way to reduce the risk of a dangerous infection that could cost her her own life as well. Why is the ACLU suing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops instead of the hospital where the negligence occurred? It is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and their “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services requires Catholic hospitals to avoid abortion or referrals, “even when doing so places a woman’s health or life at risk.” Catholic hospitals that disobey can expect to at the very least be dropped from their religious affiliation.
One such recent example is St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. In 2010, the hospital was stripped of its affiliation with the church after doctors performed an abortion on a woman in her first tri-mester because it was necessary to save her life. She had pulmonary hypertension and nearly 100% chance of killing her had she continued her pregnancy.
The senior Nun who gave the final okay for the termination was excommunicated by the local bishop.Sister Margaret McBride believed that the termination was warranted given that there are some circumstances where procedures that endanger the fetus are allowed to save the mothers life. Apparently, pulmonary hypertension and near certain death for the mother doesn't fall into this category.
What is terrifying is that the position of the church in this life and death situation would have been to let both the mother and her 11 week old fetus die. Just as if Means had ended up losing her life to the infections that ravaged her body after being sent home from the hospital. From the article cited above: "They were in quite a dilemma," says Lisa Sowle Cahill, who teaches Catholic theology at Boston College. "There was no good way out of it. The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make."
In this regard, hospitals with religious affiliations are not institutions that are bound to the basic medical principles such as saving the patients life regardless of whether or not she is pregnant. Being a pregnant women is more than a liability in a Catholic Hospital and this isn't the first such case to bring that issue to the forefront of the "abortion" debate. In October 2012, Savita Halappanavar began miscarrying her 17 week old fetus in Ireland and was admitted to the hospital. Halappanavar repeatedly asked for an abortion but was informed that the Catholic hospital she was being treated in would not intervene in the miscarriage as long as the was a heartbeat. They would not perform a life saving abortion and Halappanavar died from sepsis a week after she was admitted to the hospital.
If hospitals cannot practice medicine because of their religious affiliation than they should not be allowed to exist. Medical treatment centers need to practice medicine regardless of the religious beliefs held by the bishops or board members. These patients turned to these institutions with the belief that their lives would be respected, their wounds would be treated, that doctors would be making decisions about their health. In the instance of Savita Halappanavar, I don't think it is a stretch to say that this women was killed by the very people who were supposed to treat her. She was forced to carry a dying, non-viable fetus while she laid in bed being poisoned by her own body. The women in Phoenix who had a near certain fatal diagnosis had the hospital not removed the fetus from her body- well,the women who gave the okay was excommunicated. Priests involved in sexual abuse scandals, priest who have been found GUILTY of sexual abuse of children have not been excommunicated but this Nun who allowed a life saving abortion was. Hypocritical and disgusting. The worth of women in the church is made clear over and over again. Women are dispensable, they should die if it means they need a fetus removed in order to live. They should suffer in order for a fetus to...what? Perish with "dignity?"
Whether the ACLU succeeds in suing the Catholic bishops or not, this case brings the issue into the ever raging abortion debate. Is it not the right of women to live first? How many more stories like this need to happen? How many more times do women have to put their lives on the line for the sake of an unborn and often doomed fetus? These women did not want abortions while the possibility of "life" existed. These women wanted to carry their pregnancies to term and what kind of society has medical facilities that will risk a patients life for the so-called "beliefs" of the ones who operate it?
A women in Michigan went to the only hospital within 30 miles of after her water broke while in the eighteenth week of her pregnancy. She was given Tylenol and sent home. She went in a second time and though she was in intense pain and bleeding the hospital sent her home again. It was not until the third visit, when she began a premature labor did the hospital step in and treat her. By that point the women had two acute infections and was in extreme pain. She delivered a premature baby in the breech position that lived for only two and a half hours.
Medical experts who have reviewed the case have determined that the fetus had virtually no chance of survival and that this would have been apparent on her initial visit to the hospital. They also said that in these such circumstances doctors usually induce labor or surgically remove the fetus to reduce the mother’s chances of infection.
This women is Tamesha Means and the American Civil Liberties Union is filing a lawsuit against the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops on her behalf. The suit alleges that the hospital did not tell Means that her fetus was doomed, nor that inducing labor and terminating the pregnancy was the only way to reduce the risk of a dangerous infection that could cost her her own life as well. Why is the ACLU suing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops instead of the hospital where the negligence occurred? It is the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and their “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services requires Catholic hospitals to avoid abortion or referrals, “even when doing so places a woman’s health or life at risk.” Catholic hospitals that disobey can expect to at the very least be dropped from their religious affiliation.
One such recent example is St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center in Phoenix. In 2010, the hospital was stripped of its affiliation with the church after doctors performed an abortion on a woman in her first tri-mester because it was necessary to save her life. She had pulmonary hypertension and nearly 100% chance of killing her had she continued her pregnancy.
The senior Nun who gave the final okay for the termination was excommunicated by the local bishop.Sister Margaret McBride believed that the termination was warranted given that there are some circumstances where procedures that endanger the fetus are allowed to save the mothers life. Apparently, pulmonary hypertension and near certain death for the mother doesn't fall into this category.
What is terrifying is that the position of the church in this life and death situation would have been to let both the mother and her 11 week old fetus die. Just as if Means had ended up losing her life to the infections that ravaged her body after being sent home from the hospital. From the article cited above: "They were in quite a dilemma," says Lisa Sowle Cahill, who teaches Catholic theology at Boston College. "There was no good way out of it. The official church position would mandate that the correct solution would be to let both the mother and the child die. I think in the practical situation that would be a very hard choice to make."
In this regard, hospitals with religious affiliations are not institutions that are bound to the basic medical principles such as saving the patients life regardless of whether or not she is pregnant. Being a pregnant women is more than a liability in a Catholic Hospital and this isn't the first such case to bring that issue to the forefront of the "abortion" debate. In October 2012, Savita Halappanavar began miscarrying her 17 week old fetus in Ireland and was admitted to the hospital. Halappanavar repeatedly asked for an abortion but was informed that the Catholic hospital she was being treated in would not intervene in the miscarriage as long as the was a heartbeat. They would not perform a life saving abortion and Halappanavar died from sepsis a week after she was admitted to the hospital.
If hospitals cannot practice medicine because of their religious affiliation than they should not be allowed to exist. Medical treatment centers need to practice medicine regardless of the religious beliefs held by the bishops or board members. These patients turned to these institutions with the belief that their lives would be respected, their wounds would be treated, that doctors would be making decisions about their health. In the instance of Savita Halappanavar, I don't think it is a stretch to say that this women was killed by the very people who were supposed to treat her. She was forced to carry a dying, non-viable fetus while she laid in bed being poisoned by her own body. The women in Phoenix who had a near certain fatal diagnosis had the hospital not removed the fetus from her body- well,the women who gave the okay was excommunicated. Priests involved in sexual abuse scandals, priest who have been found GUILTY of sexual abuse of children have not been excommunicated but this Nun who allowed a life saving abortion was. Hypocritical and disgusting. The worth of women in the church is made clear over and over again. Women are dispensable, they should die if it means they need a fetus removed in order to live. They should suffer in order for a fetus to...what? Perish with "dignity?"
Whether the ACLU succeeds in suing the Catholic bishops or not, this case brings the issue into the ever raging abortion debate. Is it not the right of women to live first? How many more stories like this need to happen? How many more times do women have to put their lives on the line for the sake of an unborn and often doomed fetus? These women did not want abortions while the possibility of "life" existed. These women wanted to carry their pregnancies to term and what kind of society has medical facilities that will risk a patients life for the so-called "beliefs" of the ones who operate it?
Sunday, December 1, 2013
British Social Services Forces C-Section on Italian Women and Takes Child into Custody
If you needed any more reason to be weary of your rights as a pregnant women the UK has given us a starling and horrifying example.
In August 2012, an Italian women was given a forced c-section and had her child removed by British social services after having a panic attack while in the country for a business trip. The women called the Police after suffering a panic attack, apparently because she could not find the passports for her other two children who were with her mother in Italy. The police came to the women's hotel and took her into custody after speaking with her mother on the phone who indicated she had bi-polar but was not currently taking medication.
The police told the mother that they were taking her to the hospital to “make sure that the baby was OK”. They brought her to a mental hospital and though she said she wanted to go back to her hotel, she was restrained by orderlies, sectioned under the Mental Health Act and told that she must stay in the hospital. After five weeks she was told that she couldn't eat breakfast that morning and then was forcibly sedated and put through a cesarean section. She later woke up in a different hospital and was informed that her child had been delivered by c-section. She later learned that a high court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, had given the social workers of Essex permission to arrange for the child to be delivered. Later on she was told that she would be escorted back to Italy without her baby.
The women, back in Italy, immediately resumed taking her medication and began the process of battling for the return of her daughter. She returned to the UK in February to regain custody of her daughter. The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery, the reason? The judge said that while she indeed seemed impressively "articulate" he could not risk a failure to maintain her medication in the future and therefore he ruled that the child must be placed for adoption.
Earlier in 2013, her American husband, who she is amicably separated from and who is the father of her eldest daughter- asked that the baby be sent to Los Angeles to live with his sister. The sister was described by her US lawyer as “a rock”. Because, however, the sister is not a blood relative of the Italian women she is not considered a relative of the baby.
When I first saw this story I figured it was a spoof. I thought, surely this is from the Onion or another parody website, right? Nope. I googled the case and many news outlets were running the story, it was indeed real life. This is an actual instance where the State forced a women to give birth while unconscious through an invasive procedure without her knowledge and or consent for the good of the BABY! The authorities then refused to give her her own child back. They are still refusing to give her her daughter back.
There are a number of disturbing things in this case besides the actual unprecedented procedure. Primarily the fact that she was taken into custody in the first place and held hostage in a psychiatric facility for over a month. Everything I read stated that she received appointed legal counsel only after the forced c-section of her daughter and that was at a hearing where she was told that she would be escorted back to Italy without her daughter. The case has been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen. The Italian judge accepted, though, that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman, who was deemed to have had no “capacity” to instruct lawyers.
No capacity to instruct lawyers? A panic attack does not deem you incapable of having rights.
John Hemming, MP (Member of Parliament) who is advocating more openness in family court and raising this case in Parliament stated “I think this has a fair chance of being the worst case of human-rights abuse I’ve ever seen. She wasn’t treated as a human being.”
No, she was not treated as a human being and as more details from the case become public, I am weary to think of what other abuses may have taken place. Argue anyway you'd like- but pregnant women or mothers with mental health issues are not treated as human beings. Yes, the welfare of the children is important but it is truly inhumane to drug a women in order to extract the fetus from her womb and then then take custody of the child.
Obviously the entire story has not yet been told, but one thing is absolutely certain- any women with any mental illness has to be extremely cautious when having or considering having children. If you take medication you risk certain birth defects and or fetal abnormalities which could be interpreted as endangering your child and if you do not take medication you can be certain that your untreated mental illness will be held against you. Women with mental health issues face double discrimination when carrying a child. There are those that would advocate terminating pregnancies of women with bi-polar and other depressive disorders, regardless of the desires of the women.
This case is one of my worst nightmares. As a women with mental illness I consider the ramifications of child bearing often and I struggle with the knowledge that being a functional, well-adjusted member of society may very well equal never procreating. The medications that I take daily are not approved for pregnant women and there are VERY few that are. I can't imagine that every women on medication feels the same way, what if they want to have children, don't they have that right? That's why social services or government intervention in birthing is so frightening. This Italian women already has two children, she is already a mother and a handful of strangers in a foreign country decided to knock her unconscious, steal her baby and claim that it was in the best interest of this child who hadn't even been born yet.
Mental illness holds its own stigma and in a society where pregnant women are already stripped of their own personal rights I wonder sometimes why so many women take the risk. In this case the State literally took over a women's body and removed the child from her womb while she was unconscious. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: “At first blush this is dystopian science-fiction unworthy of a democracy like ours. Forced surgery and separation of mother and infant is the stuff of nightmares.” There is simply no justification for that.
In August 2012, an Italian women was given a forced c-section and had her child removed by British social services after having a panic attack while in the country for a business trip. The women called the Police after suffering a panic attack, apparently because she could not find the passports for her other two children who were with her mother in Italy. The police came to the women's hotel and took her into custody after speaking with her mother on the phone who indicated she had bi-polar but was not currently taking medication.
The police told the mother that they were taking her to the hospital to “make sure that the baby was OK”. They brought her to a mental hospital and though she said she wanted to go back to her hotel, she was restrained by orderlies, sectioned under the Mental Health Act and told that she must stay in the hospital. After five weeks she was told that she couldn't eat breakfast that morning and then was forcibly sedated and put through a cesarean section. She later woke up in a different hospital and was informed that her child had been delivered by c-section. She later learned that a high court judge, Mr Justice Mostyn, had given the social workers of Essex permission to arrange for the child to be delivered. Later on she was told that she would be escorted back to Italy without her baby.
The women, back in Italy, immediately resumed taking her medication and began the process of battling for the return of her daughter. She returned to the UK in February to regain custody of her daughter. The baby girl, now 15 months old, is still in the care of social services, who are refusing to give her back to the mother, even though she claims to have made a full recovery, the reason? The judge said that while she indeed seemed impressively "articulate" he could not risk a failure to maintain her medication in the future and therefore he ruled that the child must be placed for adoption.
Earlier in 2013, her American husband, who she is amicably separated from and who is the father of her eldest daughter- asked that the baby be sent to Los Angeles to live with his sister. The sister was described by her US lawyer as “a rock”. Because, however, the sister is not a blood relative of the Italian women she is not considered a relative of the baby.
When I first saw this story I figured it was a spoof. I thought, surely this is from the Onion or another parody website, right? Nope. I googled the case and many news outlets were running the story, it was indeed real life. This is an actual instance where the State forced a women to give birth while unconscious through an invasive procedure without her knowledge and or consent for the good of the BABY! The authorities then refused to give her her own child back. They are still refusing to give her her daughter back.
There are a number of disturbing things in this case besides the actual unprecedented procedure. Primarily the fact that she was taken into custody in the first place and held hostage in a psychiatric facility for over a month. Everything I read stated that she received appointed legal counsel only after the forced c-section of her daughter and that was at a hearing where she was told that she would be escorted back to Italy without her daughter. The case has been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen. The Italian judge accepted, though, that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman, who was deemed to have had no “capacity” to instruct lawyers.
No capacity to instruct lawyers? A panic attack does not deem you incapable of having rights.
John Hemming, MP (Member of Parliament) who is advocating more openness in family court and raising this case in Parliament stated “I think this has a fair chance of being the worst case of human-rights abuse I’ve ever seen. She wasn’t treated as a human being.”
No, she was not treated as a human being and as more details from the case become public, I am weary to think of what other abuses may have taken place. Argue anyway you'd like- but pregnant women or mothers with mental health issues are not treated as human beings. Yes, the welfare of the children is important but it is truly inhumane to drug a women in order to extract the fetus from her womb and then then take custody of the child.
Obviously the entire story has not yet been told, but one thing is absolutely certain- any women with any mental illness has to be extremely cautious when having or considering having children. If you take medication you risk certain birth defects and or fetal abnormalities which could be interpreted as endangering your child and if you do not take medication you can be certain that your untreated mental illness will be held against you. Women with mental health issues face double discrimination when carrying a child. There are those that would advocate terminating pregnancies of women with bi-polar and other depressive disorders, regardless of the desires of the women.
This case is one of my worst nightmares. As a women with mental illness I consider the ramifications of child bearing often and I struggle with the knowledge that being a functional, well-adjusted member of society may very well equal never procreating. The medications that I take daily are not approved for pregnant women and there are VERY few that are. I can't imagine that every women on medication feels the same way, what if they want to have children, don't they have that right? That's why social services or government intervention in birthing is so frightening. This Italian women already has two children, she is already a mother and a handful of strangers in a foreign country decided to knock her unconscious, steal her baby and claim that it was in the best interest of this child who hadn't even been born yet.
Mental illness holds its own stigma and in a society where pregnant women are already stripped of their own personal rights I wonder sometimes why so many women take the risk. In this case the State literally took over a women's body and removed the child from her womb while she was unconscious. Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: “At first blush this is dystopian science-fiction unworthy of a democracy like ours. Forced surgery and separation of mother and infant is the stuff of nightmares.” There is simply no justification for that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)