On Waiting Periods

In the wake of a judge overturning a law that would mandate a 72-hour waiting period for women seeking abortions in South Dakota, I thought I'd write a little something about my problem with these waiting periods in general.

The waiting periods are put in place so women have some time to think over their decision before going through with the procedure. Or so these lawmakers say. I don't disagree with the idea of wanting women to think things through, it's an important decision that shouldn't be taken lightly. However, what these rich white men in Congress and state legislatures fail to realize, is that women already DO think long and hard about that decision.

It's safe to say that most sexually active women do have a game plan, or an idea of what they would do if they ever got pregnant. Many of these women discuss that plan with their partners, to make sure there's no conflict, should the situation ever arise. I know that when my period is even an hour or two later than expected, I immediately start thinking about what I would do. It's fair to assume that when a woman goes in for her abortion consult, she has already thought a great deal about her situation and she's made up her mind.

Go to imnotsorry.net. Go on, I'll wait here. Notice how many of the stories mention how hard the decision was, that the women and their partners thought it over, going back and forth. They mention how scary it is go undergo the procedure, and how painful it is. That there were times when they weren't sure they were making the right decision. The sad thing is that many women who get abortions wouldn't do so if they had the means to become mothers, but they knew they couldn't in their situation.

Now, I do think women should make informed decisions as well. The problem is that when the state steps in to make sure they're informed, the information they are mandated to receive is biased, emotionally based propaganda aimed at making sure she "knows" she's about to do something "evil." Most women in the country are misinformed about the procedure, but not in the way the anti-choice movement says they are, claiming that women who get abortions don't know what they're doing. Rather, too many people think all abortions are the horrible, gory procedure associated with late term, emergency abortions; or that what's being aborted is a small infant that can think and feel pain (and talk, sing, and narrate, according to one propaganda video); or that abortion will cause breast cancer and infertility, or that it will lead to depression and suicidal thoughts. If anything, busting those anti-abortion myths and promoting unbiased, science-based information to all women will help women decide what to do with their pregnancies.

Some see waiting periods as a necessary roadblock, out of fear that abortion shouldn't be too easily accessible. This is also a condescending sentiment, thinking women will get abortions without thinking if there's nothing in their way. What waiting periods actually do is make women take a lot of time off work, and force many women in rural areas in middle America to stay in a hotel for 2-3 nights - so while she's losing a chunk of her paycheck, she also has to pay out the ass to put herself up in a hotel, because the nearest clinic still takes hours to reach by car.

If a woman does take getting an abortion lightly, she probably shouldn't be having kids anyway. However, most women who experience unexpected pregnancies do give their decisions a lot of thought without any government intervention. The waiting periods imposed on women in several states are unnecessary and paternalistic.

Now to get really political: it's ludicrous that Republicans claim to want less government, yet try to pass these laws that interfere with women's personal lives. I suppose "less government" only means fewer laws interfering in the lives of rich, white men, but women still need restrictions on their lives, because clearly they can't be trusted.

Men Only

This weekend I was taken to a trout club in Vermont, and while I was able to get a little hiking and kayaking in, there was one big damper on the whole getaway, and it wasn't the rain: the club, in 2011, will not let women join. Well, let me clarify, some women have been able to join, but women aren't allowed to become voting members. Why? Oh, well same reason they don't allow electronics, they just want to maintain tradition.

Now, I get that it's a private club, and they don't HAVE to change their rules. They have a right to bar whoever they want from joining or voting, be those people women, Jewish people, African Americans, gay people, or atheists. But let's not kid ourselves, just because a club has a right to do something doesn't mean it's an okay thing to do. Discrimination is NEVER okay.

It also bothers me that the members are allowing this to happen. Too many of the voting members are conservative, I get that, but I was under the impression that even Republicans supported women's suffrage in this day and age. It baffles me how okay people are with that rule. According to my host, some people didn't like the rule, but I don't really get the sense that anyone's putting up a fuss about it, they're silent in their dissent. Silence. Gets. Us. Nowhere. And the men don't seem to be speaking up. I'd like to think that some men would refuse to join, or even go, to a club that would withhold power from their wives and daughters, but that doesn't seem to be the case. In fact, the atmosphere seemed fairly anti-woman. Not only were most of the people there die-hard Republicans, a party that routinely votes against women's rights, but a few of the guys I was with kept cracking crude, sexist jokes.

Yes, one of the few female members has a lot of "sway" over the men who can vote, but that's only a real-life example of the maddening sitcom stereotype of women having no "real" power, but getting what they want through nagging and annoying the hell out of the men who actually make decisions. And yes, women are allowed to be at the club, but only as long as they're affiliated with a member - usually their father, husband, uncle, or in my case a male friend. This may lessen the impact the rule has on women, but it keeps women in a somewhat dependent role.

If I'd known about the rule ahead of time, I wouldn't have gone, solely on principle. I would have gone on my school's outdoors club's trip to Acadia instead - a club that I'm assuming does allow women to join, vote, and hold office despite the fact that women supposedly "aren't into that sort of thing." OR I would have stayed on campus and studied for tomorrow's exam like a good student. But I didn't learn the sexist rule until Saturday night dinner where, upon discovering the rule, I was surprised I wasn't required to wear a skirt and gloves to the meal. At that point I was furious that my host hadn't told me - he figured I wouldn't like the rule but didn't anticipate me to get pissed off. I know I should have been gracious and grateful that I was even there, but it's hard to be grateful for a club that practices institutional discrimination against anyone.

Finally, let me clarify that this is not the same as having a women's only club, school, self-defense class, etc. Institutions set up exclusively for groups that have been routinely discriminated against in mainstream society aren't discriminatory themselves, they are as redemptive spaces, or safe havens. Such spaces are still necessary for women, members of the LGBT communities, and various religious and ethnic groups. Men-only clubs, however, are not.