Legislatable Sexism and Control

Happy day-after-International Women's Day. It seems that many men spent this day celebrating impressive gains in taking away women's control over their own bodies.

Recently Virginia governor Bob McDonnell signed a bill into law that will mandate the violation of women who might want an abortion, as I mentioned in an earlier post. I suppose the pro life movement believes it's beneficial to enforce the violation and pseudo-rape of women, since they apparently can't make good decisions for themselves; as Governor McDonnell says, the law "can help the mother make a fully informed decision." Violation for information - is this really the best plan pro-lifers have to educate the population about abortion? No, this effort is meant to cure a symptom, not a cause. The law will not prevent conditions that make the abortion choice occur, only making the choice more difficult to make.

There has to be an agenda other than preventing abortions. Perhaps pro life legislators are frustrated that they can't outlaw abortions outright, or perhaps they really do think these outrageous mandates will save a life or two.

In Arizona the pro life movement went farther and the goal should be clear as day. The state senate has passed a bill allowing doctors to withhold prenatal issues from patients, also sparing them from potential lawsuits when such issues arise. Senator Nancy Barto, the sponsor of the bill, claims that the "wrongful birth" bill is meant to prevent doctors from being held liable for birth defects that they have no control over. But the main issue, we see again, is abortion prevention. The lawsuits the bill aims to prevent are those that "can arise if physicians don’t inform pregnant women of prenatal problems that could lead to the decision to have an abortion." This time, it seems a lack of information is the pro life movement's answer.

Even more disturbing, this bill allows doctors to withhold information regarding potential "life threatening issues such as an ectopic pregnancy which often requires an abortion to save the life of the mother." Therefore women may be left in the dark about "a life threatening condition until they die on the emergency room table" completely legally, denied care that could have saved her life. In other words, women (and fetuses too) will die if this bill passes, all in the name of saving the unborn.

How has the pro life movement come to the point where it ranks one life (that of the fetus) above another (that of the mother)? Who are they to decide that a woman's life isn't as important as her baby-to-be's?

Again, I don't think the main aim here is to prevent abortions. The main aim is to prevent women from having any control over her own sexuality, reproductive process, and body. This Arizona bill is blatantly sexist, marginalizing the life of women and mothers to the point of declaring them expendable. It argues that our society would be better if women died from a lack of information than if they were able to make informed choices. On the Virginia side, society would improve if we violate, bully, and humiliate women towards making the choice legislators want them to make - Governor McDonnell didn't sign any legislation increasing funding for women's health education in his desire to help women "make a fully informed decision." It's as if he believes information is useful for women if it's used to intimidate them, but not if it's empowering. All in all, it seems that the pro life movement is partly after saving the lives of fetuses and partly after helping men to take ownership of every aspect of womanhood until women have nothing left for themselves.

Right now I am deeply ashamed to be a man.

Now I must mention the possibility that the Arizona bill is the product of ignorance - perhaps the far right doesn't know how dangerous it really is. I say this because I doubt Senator Nancy Barto, the female sponsor of the bill, is trying to pass legislation that is sexist towards women. However, the Arizona Senate is comprised of 12 women compared to 20 men (this link has all their email addresses if you want to write and complain!), so it's certainly possible (I think probable) that at least a few of its supporters voted for it because of its sexist agenda. Perhaps it's not so overt, but it's there.

Normally the Republican party has been much better about keeping its sexist (classist and racist, too) in code. That's part of the reason that Rush Limbaugh's latest rant has received so much attention compared with the many other inflammatory remarks he's made - the debate about birth control coverage in health care plans has revolved around its relationship to religious freedom rather than government-subsidized sex life. It's too easy to draw sexist implications from the latter argument because of how male size enhancers are also covered but not controversial. Either way, the decision to take birth control is seen as too important for a woman to make by herself, or, conversely, if birth control is made available then of course women might take it and possibly explore their sexuality. Ever since birth control first hit the market it was seen as a way for women to gain an excess of sexual freedom, while men felt uncomfortable that they no longer controlled women's sexuality. Obviously this sentiment is still playing out today. Did Limbaugh's epithets show the right's true colors? Maybe. Regardless, the right seems to effectively be using code language, such as pro life (better: pro some life) and religious freedom (better: freedom to discriminate), in order to marginalize women.

So I hope you all enjoyed International Women's Day yesterday. Hopefully next year it won't be at such a bleak moment for women's rights.

P.S. In lighthearted news: my camera lens is fixed! I'll be able to take zoomed out pictures again! Oh, the joy!