Bad Texas, Drop it. Drop it…

I think we should start treating Texas like I treat my sister’s dog. Clear, direct, and with treats. I know you’ve missed me and all my awesomeness. I’m sure you’ve pulled through.

Texas, sometimes I think Texas is everything that is wrong with the US, but then I remember if gave us Jeff…and Jeff is fabulous. We all know about how Texas state legislatures have no respect or regard for women with their anti-choice, faux-pro-life policies, which are at the expense of women, particularly, low-income women of color, but Texas has officially disregarded the wishes of a woman and her family after her death by forcing her body to be an incubator for a fetus.

Jezebel had a post written by Doug Berry on this situation. According to The Dallas Morning News, Jacquielyn Floyd says Marlise Munoz died tragically by pulmonary embolism the week after Thanksgiving. Her death is a tragedy, but Texas law automatically invalidates Munoz’s legal prerogatives about her end-of-life preferences if she is pregnant. Take a minute, and ask yourself, what the fuck does that mean? Well, it means if you’re a woman in Texas who dies, but are pregnant, the state will revive your body so you can incubate a fetus even after being without oxygen for a prolonged period of time.  Anyone see the Blade movies? Don’t judge. There is one scene in one of the movies where people are kept alive in a sort of blood farm…that is the image that is invoked when I read this post. No brain activity, no hope of a full life, just a body being consumed for the purposes of another without any regard for the original life.

Munoz was found by her husband, Erick, without a pulse and not breathing. He performed CPR and called an ambulance. Marlise was taken to John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth. Marlise’s body was subjected to electric shocks and drugs until her heart started, and it continued to beat because with mechanical support. She is brain dead and was without air for too long to recover. When Marllise’s family was ready to disconnect Marlise from life support, they were told the hospital could not legally do that because at 14 weeks, the doctors could detect a fetal heartbeat. As a result, Marlise’s body is being maintained as an unwilling incubator.

Ok, so this sucks, but really how does this happen? Well Texas values a possible non-viable fetus (remember it was without oxygen too) over the wishes of Marlise and her family. So Erick and their family had to continue their grief through the holidays, and they were subject to the anti-choice zealots who believe and I quote “accused Erick Munoz of simply wanting to ‘pull the plug’ so he could ‘get rid’ of his wife and baby.”

But I have a few logistical questions:

Who is paying for this unnecessary medical care?

Who is responsible for the child, who should have died with its mother?

See where I’m going with this? Someone has to pay for this, and I can’t imagine that Erick and his family would be forced to pay to keep his wife needlessly alive. But will Erick have to care for a child that should have died with his wife? Or will this child become a ward of the state?

Bro-Choice? WTF is that? Dear Lord, give me strength.

So, no, no I’m not “bro-choice”. And at first glance I’m not in favor of this conscious raising either. Hear me out.

I saw a write up by Kate Sheppard on “Bro-Choice” a new campaign by Choice USA this morning, and went well, this can’t be good. Not because reproductive rights is a “woman’s issue” and thus men shouldn’t be apart, but because I’m concerned about the removal of women from the discussion through an attempt to re-frame the issue and make it more friendly to the menfolk.

Legitimately, the Choice USA website assuages some of my concerns by noting the complexities between reproductive justice, masculinity, queerness, etc. However, Sheppard’s write up doesn’t put my mind at ease. There is nothing wrong with an issue being a “woman’s issue” and then having partners and showing solidarity. My concern is that framing repro rights particularly choice as something that doesn’t require women, looks an awful lot like the national discussion we’re already having.

The primary program’s goal is “disrupting the dominant narrative that reproductive justice is a “women’s issue.” Maybe the primary goal should be including men in the conversation instead of removing or downplaying women? *awkward silence*

Let me just ask the question that sends me into a rage when I read things like this: are men incapable of showing solidarity when they are not at the center of an issue?

Oh, they are capable. They why for the love of all things holy are we still having these sorts of discussion. Grab a sign gents, become a clinic escort, but don’t make this conversation about you. Because they [politicians and religious leaders, largely men] aren’t making laws restricting access to your body. So while, I’m all about dudes coming to the inner circle and having a voice, not at the expense of everyone else.

Now, Sheppard discusses rape culture briefly noting that men need to be part of the dialogue because of connections and relationships between victim blaming, rape, and masculinity. This campaign is supposed to help men (college age men) recognize sexism and rape culture thus making them vocal stakeholders in the fight against sexual assault.

So I’ll ask again, why aren’t they already? I get it, you need a new campaign to engage new people, but I’m still not loving the focus being shifted over to the bros. Specifically because I think we need to have a conversation about empathy and solidarity. This all feels very MRA to me. Women can’t be at the center or it is about women and men are slighted in some way.

Last year one of the plain states tried to pass a law that would require woman to get the signature of her husband for an abortion because women are infantilized. But let’s get a little more into it, a woman being abused if pregnant would have to obtain the permission of her husband. I’m not sold choice needs to be re framed to put men at the center. I think they’ve been at the center long enough.

Denying Repro Rights is Discrimination

A new UN Report classifies lack of access to abortion as “torture.” According to Lily Bolourian, the report, written by Juan E. Mendez, “focuses on certain forms of abuses in health-care settings that may cross a threshold of mistreatment that is tantamount to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of punishment.” Mendez noted access to abortion specifically.

Mendez writes that compulsory detention for drug users is tantamount to torture as well: “Persons who use, or are suspected of using, drugs, and who do not voluntarily opt for drug treatment and rehabilitation are confined [and are then] compelled to undergo diverse interventions.”

Mendez points out that the withdraw process can be “painful withdrawal from drug dependence without medical assistance administration of unknown or experimental medications. State-sanctioned beatings, caning or whipping, forced labor, sexual abuse, and intentional humiliation.”

Last year, the UN’s Special Report on Reproductive Rights, Anand Grover, demanded the removal of all barriers in regards to reproductive access globally, as well as granted access to contraception. Grover declared the denial of abortion access is discriminatory. So now, we happy dance.

Mendez noted that denying reproductive justice is discrimination on the basis of gender (preach) and can result in “tremendous and lasting physical and emotional suffering” to women. According to the report violations include: “Abusive treatment and humiliation in institutional settings; involuntary sterilization; denial of legally available health services such as abortion and post-abortion care; forced abortions and sterilizations; female genital mutilation; violations of medical secrecy and confidentiality in health-care settings, such as denunciations of women by medical personnel when evidence  of illegal abortion is found; and the practice of attempting to obtain confessions as a condition of potentially life-saving medical treatment after abortion.”

So the report is referencing Nicaragua here, where women and doctors are punished severely for abortion services. The penal code doesn’t get real specific on the differences between spontaneous abortion and miscarriages.

The report also notes the importance of removing government bureaucracy in women’s health care, particularly in the cases of rape survivors seeking abortion. Nothing about legitimate rape though. The report notes that the only reason to make health care difficult for rape survivors is to humiliate and shame them. This strains the government’s resources and more importantly inconveniences women seeking a simple medical procedure.

The report goes further to demand legal abortion worldwide, and ensuring safe and available access to abortion. Of course, without access to abortion then there is no such thing as choice.

Republicans have a gay friend or son or well, they know one! Apparently, they know no women.

The feminists are owning twitter this week. Between Steubenville, hearings on sexual assault in the military, and CPAC, we are all over the place. Irin Carmon, writer for Salon, wrote a piece “What about Rob Portman’s daughter? Why Republicans’ new empathy on gays and immigration won’t extend to reproductive rights.”

Oh, I’m taking it further: Conservatives will never be empathic to women because they don’t see women as autonomous human beings. I said it. *drops mic walks off*

Don’t get me wrong, a lot of people on our teams don’t see women as autonomous human beings either, for real look no further than the atheist community, which of course isn’t a monolith, but the majority of people who use facts to make decisions tend to be on my team politically. Challenge the almighty Richard Dawkin’s views on reproductive choice on twitter and wait for his believers. It doesn’t take long.

Why am I picking on the Republicans? Because Rob Portman of Ohio has now changed his view on gay marriage because of his gay son. Portman said this:

“We conservatives believe in personal liberty and minimal government interference in people’s lives. We also consider the family unit to be the fundamental building block of society. We should encourage people to make long-term commitments to each other and build families, so as to foster strong, stable communities and promote personal responsibility.”

This has started a great twitter discussion about how to introduce Portman to poor people and people of color. But you know what? He already knows women. He has a daughter, a wife, and presumably a mother, but even the way I’ve listed these, right? The women always seem to have a relationship to the men folk. President Obama is bad for it, too. “Our mothers, wives, and daughters” is a trope we hear from the right and left. Even a friend of mine asks, “How are your wives, mothers, and daughters?” as a greeting, and I get what she is trying to do. But what about asking about boss, professors, etc. because you know, the womenfolk can have jobs independent of the mens.

Carmon discusses Portman’s change of heart, but notes that he knows women, and he isn’t changing his mind on reproductive issues. Lots of Republicans who know women (some even are women) opposed reproductive rights, but also VAWA, fair pay, and general equality. But really, just look back to see how they talk about rape. The womenfolk are liars (even though only a small percent of rape allegations are false), and slutty women have it coming. That’s what we learned from the GOP about rape in the last year. Well, fuck you.

Honestly, I don’t know why the GOP thinks gays and people of color are stupid enough to fall for the bait and switch. But as the Republicans come around on these issues they pull out the anti-women arguments as to not scare their base. For example, Marco Rubio has changed his tune on immigration and immediately says this, “Just because we believe that life-all human life- is worthy of protections at every state of its development does not make you a chauvinist.” He added, “In fact, the people who are actually close-minded in American politics are people that love to preach about the certainty of science with regards to out climate but ignore the absolute fact that science has proven life begins at conception.” We can’t pinpoint conception; doctors and pregnant women guesstimate. *science* I feel I need to provide some context for good old Rubio.

There are several prominent figures in the GOP who are singing different tunes on gays and immigrants, because of personal situations (I have a gay friend, black friend, I know someone different than me I swear), but also may just a little bit they’ve realized white men will not win an election alone. The data exists; more people are ok with gay marriage now, so the GOP is reluctantly shifting their positions. Reproductive rights, specifically abortion because most people think that is the only one, aren’t shifting (we’re in the lead), but things are pretty static as far as support. Republicans like Mike Huckabee and Bob Vander Plaats threatened to leave their party if they give any room on reproductive rights.

Carmon is right, reproductive rights are thrown in with social issues, but they don’t play out the same way. Carmon points to Portman’s statement on gay marriage, essentially, the gays are trying to fall in line, and we like that so welcome to marriage and military service. Just don’t complain. Carmon continues to argue that, “there is still something more radical and terrifying about a woman not wanting to be a mother, or wanting to be a mother on her own terms…There is still far more empathy for an embryo or fetus than for the living woman.”

Carmon concludes her piece by talking about how reproductive justice is an economic issue. I argue that poor people (mostly women) are viewed by conservatives like women through their relationship to the men around or if the menfolk are absent than their relationship to the government. You can see this in the infantilizing TANF policies we have that focus on marriage as a way to raise women out of poverty, and the presumptive guilt and drug addiction of all welfare recipients as the reasoning behind mandatory drug testing. Both of these groups are not seen as autonomous human beings.

So in summary, it is great the GOP is starting to see people of color (though in a very hierarchical way resulting in “good immigrants” vs. “Black people”) and gays as individuals who have rights, as people who are entitled to the same rights as the GOP. All that said there is no indication that the GOP sees women as equal or entitled to the same rights the GOP possess.