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.
Showing posts with label reproductive freedom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reproductive freedom. Show all posts
Friday, July 1, 2011
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Liberation as Privilege
Access to family planning. The ability to hire a nanny. Enough money for a second car. These are all things that are pretty much necessary for a woman to become fully liberated and able to work and live as she pleases - and they are also things that are only within reach of middle and upper class women.
While all women have access to condoms - though some may be more subject to shame than others when they go to buy them - the ability to get birth control, Plan B, and abortion if necessary means a woman is completely free from forced pregnancy. She can get an education and work without having to drop out or quit because she's knocked up. However, reproductive healthcare is a class privilege. Not all women can afford birth control - if their condoms break, they're SOL. Some women live in religious areas where few pharmacists are willing to dispense birth control, and getting their pills can be next to impossible unless they have the time and means to travel to the pharmacies that will give it to her. Same goes for Plan B. Some women live in places where there is no "local" clinic, and getting an abortion means taking a few days off work - which may take a chunk out of her paycheck that she can't afford to lose - and traveling across the state, or to another state entirely, which may be too costly, not to mention she needs to find someone to take care of the kids if she's already given birth. Some women may live near clinics but still can't afford the procedure.
If a woman wants to full-time, she has a few options: she can have no kids, or she can have kids and take them to daycare or hire a babysitter. Women with school-aged children and who don't require sitters during the day are still held back by always being the one to leave work and stay home with the kids when they're sick, and they're usually the ones who are expected to be home when the kids come home, or face the judgment women face when they leave the children to "fend for themselves" after school. Of course, this is more of a worry in neighborhoods of low income than in suburban neighborhoods.
Ironically enough, single mothers and lower class women had been doing this juggling act long before second wave feminists began their struggle for work equity. They had to, they needed the income to either support their families or support themselves - which was rare, since before second wave feminism women lived with their parents until they got married, but there were circumstances that led to women living on their own - out-of-wedlock pregnancy, divorce, widowhood, loss of parents, etc. These women typically held "feminine" jobs; they were waitresses, nannies, seamstresses, maids, and in worst-case scenarios, prostitutes - and in such jobs there is no need to demand equality with one's male coworkers because they simply didn't exist. There is a need for adequate pay and working conditions, and an inherent level of oppression in such jobs, and despite workers' movements, such problems still have not seen resolution.
When a woman has to work the "second shift," or the domestic workload waiting for a woman when she gets home from work, she is robbed of energy and less able to perform in full force at work. The other option is to hire domestic help, which is only an option for upper class women. When the cooking, cleaning, and childcare is solely a woman's job, her job prospects are limited and she only has so much energy for when she does work, meaning she's less likely to be promoted or given a raise than her male coworkers, who for the most part have fewer responsibilities outside work and have more time and energy to put into their work performance.
Not to mention, technological innovations that have made housework easier, and thus have freed up time and energy for women, are in themselves only accessible by those with enough money. Housework is easier for women in the upper and middle classes than those in with lower socioeconomic statuses.
Notice how in all this, the work of men is largely absent. They don't need to worry about an unplanned pregnancy getting in their way, only the threat of having to pay child support or a nagging "baby mama" demanding he be more involved. A man doesn't have to worry about taking care of the kids, or working the second shift, that's all "women's work." If women can expect liberation and equality, their oppressors - men - need to give up some of their power and take up some of the burden that weighs women down. This may in turn make men somewhat less liberated, but at least it will level the playing field.
Full liberation achieved alongside gender equality requires that childcare and reproductive healthcare be available to all people, regardless of socioeconomic status, so that no person ends up shackled to an unplanned pregnancy, to a person they did not intend to marry but did so out of obligation and responsibility, and no one is kept from a job because they cannot get anyone else to take care of their children. Finally, these childcare professionals, along with seamstresses and anyone else who takes up outsourced women's work, must be paid well and treated with dignity.
While all women have access to condoms - though some may be more subject to shame than others when they go to buy them - the ability to get birth control, Plan B, and abortion if necessary means a woman is completely free from forced pregnancy. She can get an education and work without having to drop out or quit because she's knocked up. However, reproductive healthcare is a class privilege. Not all women can afford birth control - if their condoms break, they're SOL. Some women live in religious areas where few pharmacists are willing to dispense birth control, and getting their pills can be next to impossible unless they have the time and means to travel to the pharmacies that will give it to her. Same goes for Plan B. Some women live in places where there is no "local" clinic, and getting an abortion means taking a few days off work - which may take a chunk out of her paycheck that she can't afford to lose - and traveling across the state, or to another state entirely, which may be too costly, not to mention she needs to find someone to take care of the kids if she's already given birth. Some women may live near clinics but still can't afford the procedure.
If a woman wants to full-time, she has a few options: she can have no kids, or she can have kids and take them to daycare or hire a babysitter. Women with school-aged children and who don't require sitters during the day are still held back by always being the one to leave work and stay home with the kids when they're sick, and they're usually the ones who are expected to be home when the kids come home, or face the judgment women face when they leave the children to "fend for themselves" after school. Of course, this is more of a worry in neighborhoods of low income than in suburban neighborhoods.
Ironically enough, single mothers and lower class women had been doing this juggling act long before second wave feminists began their struggle for work equity. They had to, they needed the income to either support their families or support themselves - which was rare, since before second wave feminism women lived with their parents until they got married, but there were circumstances that led to women living on their own - out-of-wedlock pregnancy, divorce, widowhood, loss of parents, etc. These women typically held "feminine" jobs; they were waitresses, nannies, seamstresses, maids, and in worst-case scenarios, prostitutes - and in such jobs there is no need to demand equality with one's male coworkers because they simply didn't exist. There is a need for adequate pay and working conditions, and an inherent level of oppression in such jobs, and despite workers' movements, such problems still have not seen resolution.
When a woman has to work the "second shift," or the domestic workload waiting for a woman when she gets home from work, she is robbed of energy and less able to perform in full force at work. The other option is to hire domestic help, which is only an option for upper class women. When the cooking, cleaning, and childcare is solely a woman's job, her job prospects are limited and she only has so much energy for when she does work, meaning she's less likely to be promoted or given a raise than her male coworkers, who for the most part have fewer responsibilities outside work and have more time and energy to put into their work performance.
Not to mention, technological innovations that have made housework easier, and thus have freed up time and energy for women, are in themselves only accessible by those with enough money. Housework is easier for women in the upper and middle classes than those in with lower socioeconomic statuses.
Notice how in all this, the work of men is largely absent. They don't need to worry about an unplanned pregnancy getting in their way, only the threat of having to pay child support or a nagging "baby mama" demanding he be more involved. A man doesn't have to worry about taking care of the kids, or working the second shift, that's all "women's work." If women can expect liberation and equality, their oppressors - men - need to give up some of their power and take up some of the burden that weighs women down. This may in turn make men somewhat less liberated, but at least it will level the playing field.
Full liberation achieved alongside gender equality requires that childcare and reproductive healthcare be available to all people, regardless of socioeconomic status, so that no person ends up shackled to an unplanned pregnancy, to a person they did not intend to marry but did so out of obligation and responsibility, and no one is kept from a job because they cannot get anyone else to take care of their children. Finally, these childcare professionals, along with seamstresses and anyone else who takes up outsourced women's work, must be paid well and treated with dignity.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Planned Parenthood and Human Trafficking
A little background: A man went into Planned Parenthood, posing as a pimp and saying he wanted his underage prostitutes to get abortions and birth control. The idea was to expose the organization, so they can point a finger and say "hey look, everyone, this abortion mill aids in human sex trafficking!!!!"
And it pissed me off.
The clinic wasn't supporting the pimp, they were supporting women. The truth is, most teenage prostitutes don't choose "the life," they're conned into it and are forced to stay by their abusive pimps. Their lives are bad enough, why can't they have birth control? Why can't they terminate their unwanted pregnancies? Especially since those pregnancies weren't from boyfriends, or even consensual one-night stands, but basically arose from rape that someone else benefited from. I'm just shocked they didn't recommend the girls get HIV testing as well. Yes, they were technically aiding and abetting, and they should have reported the man, but in that position, I would have been more than willing to make sure those girls got birth control.
And it pissed me off.
The clinic wasn't supporting the pimp, they were supporting women. The truth is, most teenage prostitutes don't choose "the life," they're conned into it and are forced to stay by their abusive pimps. Their lives are bad enough, why can't they have birth control? Why can't they terminate their unwanted pregnancies? Especially since those pregnancies weren't from boyfriends, or even consensual one-night stands, but basically arose from rape that someone else benefited from. I'm just shocked they didn't recommend the girls get HIV testing as well. Yes, they were technically aiding and abetting, and they should have reported the man, but in that position, I would have been more than willing to make sure those girls got birth control.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)