law

The political "debate" is really a bunch of moralistic posturing. As much as the so-called "pro-life" camp tries to deny it, the crux of the conflict is not about abortion itself, but about governmental control of women's bodies.

A governmental ban on abortion means that the government is deciding what happens inside of a woman's body.

It means the woman has no say.

And it means a lot of scary implications.

Birth control could end up being banned as a consequence, since some people seem to think that "life begins at conception" which would make even the birth control pill illegal. Some people, especially a certain patriarchal legacy from the Roman Empire, seem to think every sperm is sacred, which would make even condoms illegal.

But it goes beyond that. Doctors have determined that drinking during pregnancy can have detrimental affects on the fetus. So do we start arresting pregnant women when they have a drink?

What about smoking? Can a woman who miscarries after smoking a cigarette be jailed for manslaughter?

What is to be considered an unnecessary, even reckless, risk? Riding a bicycle, where you could fall and suffer miscarriage?

What if the woman just has "unhealthy" eating habits? Toss her into prison?

Does the government then establish breeding colonies where women's behavior and diet are strictly controlled, safely protected from the temptations and dangers of the outside world by razor wire and armed guards?

And what if the government decides that certain genetic lines are undesirable -- to many health risks, perhaps, or maybe just "the wrong kind of person"? It has happened before, even in our own country, and not all that long ago. If the government decides on what can happen in a woman's body, and controls the woman's body by force of law, then the government has the power and right to force abortions and sterilizations as well. Is that what we want? A kind of fascist breeding program?

It may sound silly or outrageous to you, but these are real implications of giving government control of the womb, the result of simply making abortion illegal.

Why do abortions happen? Because pregnancy entails real physical risk, real livelihood risk, real social risk, which makes an unwanted, unexpected or dangerous pregnancy a very real problem to the woman. How do we reduce the number of abortions to near zero? There are so many ways that have proven track records, but what doesn't work is government occupation of every fertile woman's body.

If you are really pro-life, then you will see through the false morality of righteous posing that defines the "pro-life" movement, and you will see the falsity of the claim that the pro-choice majority wants to abort babies just for kicks or to pursue some dark satanic agenda.

If you are really pro-life, then you would support:

• Easy availability of birth control
• Emergency contraception (which is not the abortion pill, by the way, which is another thing altogether)
• Real fact-based sex education for all children who are fertile
• The end of abstinence-only education, which is just wishful thinking (or do you really think that kids pumped full of raging adolescent hormones would not even notice their sex organs if adults did not tell them about it?)
• Stronger laws protecting women from date rape, marital rape and general violence against women
• Elimination of all laws that make rape the only felony where the victim's own testimony is not enough to convict the perpetrator (and here I'm speaking to you "tough on crime" folks)
• A cultural change to put responsibility for a woman's pregnancy on the man as well (because she sure didn't impregnate herself, did she?)
• Free sterilization for women who opt for it (for whatever reason)
• Free pre-natal healthcare for women who cannot afford to have a baby
• Free post-natal healthcare for children and women who cannot afford it
• Affordable healthcare for all
• Elimination of all pre-natal coverage exemptions that insurance companies are getting away with right now
• And many many other policies that empower women to more effectively control their own destinies, rather than empower the government to seize women's bodies.

Seems that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's government wants to remove public juries from some coroner inquests. I suppose some detainees' causes of death might threaten national security, right?

Provisions in its counter-terrorism bill, published last week, would also allow home secretaries to replace coroners with their own appointees.

Ministers insist the new powers would be used sparingly and the vast majority of inquests will still stay public.

But the move has triggered alarm among opposition MPs, human rights campaigners and lawyers.

Critics say the changes are dangerous and unnecessary meddling with a system that has worked well for 800 years.

A clause in the new bill would allow the home secretary to prevent a jury being called to an inquest and even to change the coroner for "reasons of national security".

You know, in case Winston Smith doesn't confess.

I saw this story yesterday and just thought it was truly creepy.

The bedridden 9-year-old girl had her uterus and breast tissue removed at a Seattle hospital and received large doses of hormones to halt her growth. She is now 4-foot-5; her parents say she would otherwise probably reach a normal 5-foot-6.

That is just totally messed up -- the foot binding of Western medicine.

Her condition has left her in an infant state, unable to sit up, roll over, hold a toy or walk or talk. Her parents say she will never get better. She is alert, startles easily, and smiles, but does not maintain eye contact, according to her parents, who call the brown-haired little girl their "pillow angel."

Doesn't that sound a bit fetishistic to you? Pillow angel? Sure, parents have pet names for their children, but here it refers to a condition created by their surgical intervention.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with Amanda. Messing with a kid's health and disabling growth, all for the convenience of the parents, strikes me as truly wrong.

In terms of disability rights activism, the compelling case for it is the idea that having a disability doesn’t mean that your life isn’t worth living and therefore you should be accomodated and given as many opportunities as anyone else for the joys of life that other people who are considered more able-bodied have. With that in mind, I think it’s quite possible the parents of this girl are living up to that standard, if in a way that’s startlingly out of the norm. They’ve identified their daughter’s needs and pleasures—basically, those of an infant—and are looking for ways to fight social structures and even biology that would erode their daughter’s ability to have those things. It’s weird, but it makes sense.

It doesn't make sense to me. If there were a compelling health-related reason for such surgical measures, it might make sense. That can be a gray area for those hard-to-diagnose cases, but here it truly sounds like they're doing this for their own convenience -- after all, it's probably much easier to manage a smaller mentally disabled child.

The BBC carries more details:

Ashley's parents said the decision to remove their daughter's uterus and breast buds was for the girl's comfort and safety.

"Ashley has no need for her uterus since she will not be bearing children," they said, adding that the decision means she will not experience the menstrual cycle and the bleeding and discomfort commonly associated with it.

The operation also removed the possibility of pregnancy if Ashley were ever the victim of sexual abuse, they said.

The removal of the girl's breast buds was also done in part to avoid sexual abuse, but was carried out primarily so she would not experience discomfort when lying down, the parents said.

I'm left wondering why they didn't throw in a clitoridectomy, you know, for her own good.

Melinda on BlogHer writes:

The first red flag, for me, is the repeated insistence that their child brings unlimited joy and is nothing less than a blessing. This seems over-the-top to me, given that she requires life-long care and attention.

--Not to mention radical surgery and medical treatment to stunt her growth.

Another red flag is this business about calling her a "pillow angel", which, again, strikes me as making the child overly-sacred, pure, and innocent. Why is this so bad? Because it makes the girl less human and complex, and more of a cutout cartoon figure. This removes her human-ness.

It seems like Ashley became less human when her growth was stunted in order to make her more manageable.

In the Guardian (hat tip to Koan in BlogHer comments, we can read how Ashley's father tries to justify their decision, revealing something else I found disturbing:

We scheduled time with Dr Daniel F Gunther, associate professor of paediatrics in endocrinology at Seattle's Children's Hospital, and discussed our options. We learned that attenuating growth is feasible through high-dose oestrogen therapy. This treatment was performed on teenage girls in the 60s and 70s, when it wasn't desirable for girls to be tall, with no negative or long-term side effects.

No negative or long-term side effects? Are we so sure? I'd like to see a survey of incidence of breast cancer, uterine cancer and ovarian cancer of those women. Sometimes the arrogance and hubris -- and paternalistic chauvinism -- of the medical profession truly shocks me.

The fact that there is experience with administering high-dose oestrogen to limit height in teenage girls gave us the peace of mind that it was safe - no surprise side effects. Furthermore, people found justification in applying this treatment for cosmetic reasons, while we were seeking a much more important purpose.

Convenience?

On Sour Duck, Melinda links to several other posts on this.