Saturday, June 25, 2022

Thoughts on the overturning of Roe:

 

Gains and Setbacks

“Social gains are never handed out. They must be seized.”

Sheryl Sandberg (Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead)

          I’ve been pondering the overturning of Roe vs Wade for 24hrs now. Yesterday, I just felt hollowed out; disappointed that the court, even members who said that Roe was “settled law” and would not be overturned, voted the way they did. I have not read the decision, and therefore do not know the details except what has been said on the news. Roe may have been flawed from the start, as Judge Alito said, but at least it protected a woman’s ability to decide whether she wanted another child or not and kept the procedure safe. Also, I have counseled women seeking abortions who were pregnant with non-viable babies, even babies that inexplicably died in utero. Of all the women I counseled, only one had gotten pregnant because of a drunken one-night stand. Mississippi’s governor said that perhaps the cancellation of Roe would cause women to make “more responsible decisions.” That’s possible, except in the case of rape, incest, or domestic abuse. What bothers me most is that I don’t understand why only women’s fertility and sexuality are “regulated” in our society.

          Everyone tells me that Roe fell because “they” want to control women, that women are too powerful and it’s a way to keep them in line, and other such notions. I’m not sure that is the case. I believe there are many people who genuinely find abortion abhorrent, who cannot get past the notion that a fertilized egg is a living human being. I understand their desire to preserve life—I’m the one, after all, who carries wasps out of the house rather than kill them. I believe their concern is genuine—it just doesn’t go far enough. If we supported poor women, especially women who do not have the capacity or skills to find gainful employment—and there are lots of women in Alabama and elsewhere who fit that description—they would likely want to keep their pregnancy. But the simple fact is, we don’t. Once born, there is a gauntlet the mother much hurdle to feed and clothe that child. We give the mothers $300.00 per month in food stamps (if they qualify), as though that is sufficient to cover their costs. We don’t provide affordable housing or childcare so the mother can work. We don’t help train women and clothe them for the workplace. We don’t teach them how to fill out an application for employment. It feels like we just insist that they carry a fetus to term, and then abandon them as soon as the child takes its first breath.

          When I was about 40, I didn’t want to have any more babies, so I had a tubal ligation. I could make that decision because I had a husband and insurance, and my doctor was willing to do the procedure. So many women do not have that option. Will the Supreme Court demand that states provide such surgeries free of charge? My state didn’t even expand Medicaid—which was a political decision, and not an ethical one in a state where almost 17% live below the poverty level.

          As much as we want to think the world is fair, and everyone is equal, and all of us have “the best healthcare in the world,” that is simply not reality. It is not true. We live in a culture that rewards the rich and punishes the poor. The perception of why a woman would want an abortion is also not just, and not true. It’s part of our elitist cultural obsession with wealth, race, and gender. Someone has to tell the truth here—we are cruel when it comes to providing equal rights for poor people—especially poor women.

          G. D. Anderson said, “Feminism isn’t about making women stronger. Women are already strong. It’s about changing the way the world perceives that strength.” I think the world—at least the American world—is about to find out just how strong women truly are—in real time. We will survive this particular form of inequity just as we have others, and we will prevail. As we say around here, “Hide and watch!”

                                                  In the Spirit,

                                                  Jane

         

         

           

No comments: