Setting the World Aright for Reproductive Rights

My new post in On the Issues is up today. They call it “A Do Over for Reproductive Rights”. I had named it “Turning the World Upside Down to See Reproductive Justice”. I liked their alliteration, so I came up with “Turning the World Aright for for Reproductive Rights.” Anyway, I don’t believe in do overs. Here’s the commentary:

Lars Larson is a conservative radio talk show host with a following of four million listeners. His producer assured me, when asking me to appear for Roe v Wade’s 36th anniversary, that Lars is respectful, though he would take views opposite to mine. No problem, I said, as long as I can speak my piece.

My “piece” led me to talk about where I think the debate should be: squarely on women’s human rights to make their own childbearing decisions, access to preventive family planning services, and economic justice, as well as abortion. It flipped Lars out. When he couldn’t keep the conversation on pitting the innocent baby against the murderous woman who stupidly didn’t use birth control, he started spinning. He lectured me during the commercial break—in stern-father tones—that I was speaking my piece a little too much for his comfort. Perhaps I wasn’t being the desired foil.
.
Though he began by challenging me with the focus on the fetus, within seconds he shifted to peppering me with denigrating statements about women. What clearer example could there be of the sexism that puts all responsibility and blame for unintended pregnancy on women?

Lars is entitled to his view. But what so vexed him, I realized, was that we were looking at the world from diametrically different vantage points. Everything I said disturbed his very sense of who he was and where he fit into the universe. He was used to a world, for his entire life, where people who look like him have been in charge. What seems like simple justice to me was cognitive dissonance to him.

So I wondered: what if the world were turned upside down? What if women held the majority of power and leadership positions?

INTENTIONING

Sex, Power, Pandemics, and How Women
Will Take The Lead for (Everyone’s) Good

The new book from Gloria Feldt about the future, taking the leadership lessons learned from this disruption and creating a better world for all through the power of intention.

Would peacemaking be the primary subject of the evening news rather than wars? Would, as Florynce Kennedy said, abortion become a sacrament if men could get pregnant?

I wouldn’t go that far. But as Roe hangs on by a thread and with the political world turned upside down by Barack Obama’s election to the presidency, it is clearly time to examine the underpinnings of American laws and cultural norms concerning women’s rights, health care access and justice related to childbearing decisions from a different vantage point than the Supreme Court did in 1973.

And it is way past time for pro-choice political leaders to elevate the debate to a higher, human rights and justice-based value set. We could start with the anti-choice usurping of the term “pro-life,” a complete misnomer.

Jeffrey Toobin, author of The Nine, says that in 1965 when the Supreme Court decided the case of Griswold v Connecticut (which legalized birth control), the justices had no gender-based civil rights precedents on which to base their ruling. So they used the analysis that there is an unwritten but implied right of privacy in the Constitution. The concept of marital privacy does not effectively challenge the intellectual framework of those whose mission is to advance the patriarchal regulation of motherhood by stripping women of the right to make childbearing decisions.

That right of privacy then logically formed the basis of the Roe v Wade decision. The 14th Amendment’s clause on equal protection, which forms the framework for other civil rights decisions, was given a nod, but it wasn’t the central rationale. Justice Ruth Ginsburg has long held that was a big mistake, and she has been proven correct. Roe has been repeatedly subjected to successful attacks since the moment it was decided. At this point, it is a mere shell, de facto overturned. Any restriction that doesn’t cause an “undue burden” is upheld by the court, which finds almost no burdens undue.

I believe we need to start over. In thinking Beyond Roe, I argued that we have to create a new movement for women’s human and civil rights to make their own childbearing decisions.

Roe was a meaningful and necessary advance, but its grounding in privacy rights portended that it could not stand forever. There must be something more than privacy. And there is. A woman’s right to her own life and body has to be elevated to the moral position that supports a human rights framework.

This framework must be translatable into civil rights-based legislation that gives access to relevant healthcare, education, supportive counseling and economic justice. It must be articulated in policies that will be upheld by courts, and those courts must be reshaped by presidents to speak without apology about the legitimacy of women’s reproductive self-determination.

That’s my challenge to the next generation of feminists.

President Obama said in his inaugural address: “The world has changed, and we must change with it.” Nowhere is this more true than in the arena of women’s rights, including reproductive justice.

Some, like Lars Larson, will think we’re turning the world upside down. What we’re really doing is setting the world aright.

4 Comments

  1. Shannon on January 27, 2009 at 1:25 pm

    I think some it is fine for pro-life or anti-choice people to decide they will never have an abortion but I think it’s criminal to blame girls who aren’t educated about sex and birth control and receive abstinence-only education, when they run into the problem of an unwanted pregnancy. It hardly seems fair. I’m glad to hear that Obama plans to shift away from this futile strategy.

    • Gloria Feldt on January 28, 2009 at 1:26 pm

      Shannon, you point out one of the most egregious hypocrisies of our time. It has always been a mystery to me how they can on the one hand deny information and access to preventive services and on the other hand blame women for unintended pregnancy and punish them by enforced childbearing. Care to probe more deeply what that’s about?

  2. Stacy on January 29, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    Unfortunatley, our politicians- even pro-choice ones, seem afraid to come out and say in black and white, that you can’t prohibit reproductive services like abortion while also denying people basic public health information about sexuality, pregnancy prevention etc. To do so is punitive and ends up resulting in MORE unwanted pregnancies, MORE sexually transmitted diseases and ultimately, more abortions.

    But the big unspoken taboo is that the far-right have a narrow religious agenda which really isn’t all that “pro-life” and which sees planned parenting as helping to ensure something they are terrified of, namely women’s equal rights in the family/marriage, the workplace, etc. If women can’t control their reproductive lives (or any other aspect of their sexuality) how can they/we plan professional lives, among other things. It’s a huge health issue too- pregnancy is not a totally benign experience and can endanger women’s lives and thus they need information to prevent pregnancy and even in some situations, pregnancy termination. Not to get too personal, but I am someone who for cardiac reasons, has been told by multiple cardiologists it is not in my best interest to get pregnant and carry a child to term, even after having cardiac surgery in my 20’s) because of the potential for serious health risks and even death- for me- not the child, and I don’t think it’s selfish to believe that my life is important enough to protect if God forbid, something happened.

    • Gloria Feldt on January 29, 2009 at 1:26 pm

      Wow, what a story, Stacy. But then every situation and every person is unique. Apparently this is something the just say no to everything people haven’t yet come to understand. But oh, if I could talk about all of them who, when confronted by such a situation as yours, would come to the clinic and say, “Oh but my situation is different.”

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.