http://www.hercircleezine.com/2012/08/30/republican-candidates-and-rape-still-blaming-the-woman/
Like the Famous Quote of the Supreme Court Justice who said that he may not be able to define pornography, yet knew when he saw it, representatives in state and federal legislatures may refuse to say, “vagina” or “uterus,” yet they want to regulate it. Earlier this year, female members of Michigan’s legislature were sanctioned and silenced for using anatomical terms to describe their female reproductive and sexual organs, and for speaking about permanent male birth control. Apparently, male representatives to Michigan’s House and Senate find the female anatomy so repulsive that mere mention of the actual medical terms was viewed as damaging to the decorum preferred by these men, which, I assume, makes it o.k. to regulate what can and can’t happen to the female body, as long as the body parts they are regulating are not mentioned. The problem I have with all of this is that these same members of Congress do not even understand the physiology or function of the female body’s reproductive organs, and yet they want to regulate them.
With the addition of Paul Ryan to the Romney ticket, talk has come around again to protecting a woman’s right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. Ryan’s stance has been proven in his support for legislation that has pended before Congress, and that stance is that he would not even allow for abortion in cases of rape. Republican rhetoric (Rep. Todd Akin, specifically) has actually gone as far as to claim that while the rapist should be punished, the child (who is the result of rape) should not. Presumably, a woman seeking an abortion after being raped is punishing the child for the violent behavior of its “father.” Fortunately, I have never been raped. However, I imagine that being raped, finding out that I’m pregnant and having to undergo an abortion would seem equivalent to double indemnity.
What would Representative Akin have done with the children forcibly born as the result of rape? If we assume the rapist is caught, convicted and sentenced to prison, then who raises the child? Apparently, the woman who is raped should be forced to raise the child. Oh, but isn’t there always that choice of adoption? Yes, I am sure there is a list of people waiting who would be thrilled to adopt the child who is the result of a rape. Even if the adoptive parents were not aware of the circumstances surrounding this child’s conception, what happens twenty years later when the child decides to seek his or her birth mother? (As we all know, more often than not, a father is left off a birth certificate in adoption cases, and thus is protected forever in anonymity.) How does that child feel when he or she calls “mom” and is told that he or she is the product of rape, and that is why he or she was “unwanted” and put up for adoption? Then again, maybe rape victims who are forced to bear the offspring of rape would be allowed to remain off the birth certificate to protect their privacy. Maybe the father only could be listed. He could be the one to do the explaining about the child’s conception. And, I suppose if we forced women to bear the children that resulted from rape, they’d have an easier time proving their case in court to get a conviction of the rapist. The DNA paternity would be a perfect piece of evidence for the prosecution, no?
Let’s return to the lack of knowledge of and the refusal to speak in medical and anatomical terms on behalf of representatives who want to regulate the same parts about which they cannot speak. Rep. Stephen Freind, who is not a medical doctor, insists that pregnancy from rape is extremely rare because women’s bodies “secrete a secretion” that kills sperm. Really? Women’s bodies possess a chemical that kills sperm? Why can’t we just turn that on at will to use as birth control? Why invent nonoxyl-9? Why not just tap women’s bodies for this sperm-killing “secretion”? If stress and fear could expel a pregnancy, then teen pregnancy would likely be more rare than pregnancy from rape.
It is terrifying to me that men sit in Congress who know nothing—absolutely nothing—about women’s bodies and are the same people who not only wish to, but also have the ability, through legislation, to control women’s bodies. Not only do they want to stop abortions for any reason, but they also want to redefine rape in the most narrow terms. They believe that by doing so, they can reduce abortions. And, even if pregnancy from rape is rare, it is not non-existent. Regardless of whether a woman is appalled at being pregnant and wants to abort the child that is the result of rape, she must still be the one to undergo the abortion procedure.
On a closing note, the Representatives I name herein, amongst others, have already been elected to office. They’re proposing these kinds of legislation because they’re in a position to do so. I’ve said it before and will likely say it again this election season: we need to carefully examine the people behind the names on the ballot. We can’t allow advertisements to influence us. We must look at real actions, voting records, and/or other experience that demonstrates the particular candidate’s likelihood to protect our right to control our own bodies.
No comments:
Post a Comment