![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Aug. 6th, 2010 03:57 pmRachel Maddow's coverage on the numerous Republican candidates this year who support forcing survivors to bear their rapists' children.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Now the government is targeting unmarried adults up to age 29 as part of its abstinence-only programs, which include millions of dollars in federal money that will be available to the states under revised federal grant guidelines for 2007.
The government says the change is a clarification. But critics say it's a clear signal of a more directed policy targeting the sexual behavior of adults.
... Wade Horn, assistant secretary for children and families at the Department of Health and Human Services, said the revision is aimed at 19- to 29-year-olds because more unmarried women in that age group are having children.
... The revised guidelines specify that states seeking grants are "to identify groups ... most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock, targeting adolescents and/or adults within the 12- through 29-year-old age range." Previous guidelines didn't mention targeting of an age group.
"We wanted to remind states they could use these funds not only to target adolescents," Horn said. "It's a reminder."
from Abstinence message goes beyond teens
Let that sink in for a moment. The government is paying people to tell adults they shouldn't have sex out of wedlock. Anyone want to guess who is going to be particularly targeted here? Here's a hint: have you ever been to a government assistance office?
The government does not exist to tell you how to live your life. The government exists to facilitate the decisions you, as a free person, make.
The government does not exist to tell you what language you may or may not speak, the government does not exist to tell you what religion you may or may not practice, the government does not exist to tell you what chemicals to put in your body or not put in your body, the government does not exist to tell you to have children or not have children, and the government sure as hell does not exist to tell you who to have sex with or who not to have sex with.
Some of these choices might not be as economically efficient as others, but economic efficiency is not the end-all-be-all of human existence, not even close.
A while ago i wrote about an idea i had, that perhaps economic necessity shaped the moral code of the Tanakh (aka the Old Testament) -- that pastoral societies have a need for maximum reproductive output from each person... hence mandatory marriage, polygamy, prohibitions on homosexuality and masturbation, and so on. I was quite proud of this theory; if i do say so myself, it's brilliant.
I also now think it's wrong.
At the time that i came up with this theory, i was not inclined to consider the likelihood that the people who devised these laws and wrote these texts had an agenda and were participants in a factional struggle for control of their society. This is because whoever opposed them no longer speaks to us across the millenia; the opposing voices in this debate were not recorded for posterity.
This is why i am now a proponent of what i've been calling (for lack of a better term i'm aware of) "embedded theology": because when you deliberately overlook the political agenda behind "spiritual" texts, when you don't examine religion through the lens of human power dynamics, you miss too much, and much of the real historical significance of a piece of "scripture" is obscured.
What makes me inclined to re-examine my previous hypothesis was a series of realizations about the militaristic and authoritarian imperialism of the modern USA. And what's going on now is not in any way new or unique, because it resembles too closely what happened in the last century.
It began in the early 20th Century with efforts to prevent 'undesirables' from having children -- eugenics boards, forced sterilization, etc. The Nazis took many of their ideas about sterilization from eugenics measures which were already being enacted in the US and Canada and elsewhere. (And actually, American proposals to euthanize people with disabilities helped inspire the Final Solution.) Alongside with eugenics, women of "desireable" races were encouraged or pushed towards having as many children as possible.
I cite this historical stuff not for hyperbole, but because i think most Americans are not aware of how deeply embedded these barbaric principles and practices are in our recent history, and to illustrate how potentially damaging the ideologies now being espoused by the American right-wing really are.
John Gibson of Fox News really tipped his hand when he told white women that they were neglecting their duty to have babies:
Behind this, we see exposed the nexus where sexism, racism, and homophobia swirl together into a single whole: a war over the nation's population. It doesn't matter to these reactionaries that America's population is still growing, it matters who that population consists of. And only someone hopelessly naive would think that this faction is not going to become more brazen and brutal in the coming decades.
Put this next to proposals to prevent the children of undocumented immigrants from having automatic US citizenship, and Pat Buchanan's crusade against Mexican immigration, and one part of the pattern comes into focus: they believe the US should have fewer non-white children.
Combine this with the new classification of all women of childbearing age as "pre-pregnant," efforts to deliberately make it harder for mothers to hold down a job, the ageless and ongoing efforts to stem abortion rights and make it more difficult for women to have access to any form of contraception, and another part of the pattern comes into focus: they believe white women should be forced to have more children.
A third part of this pattern comes into play with the right's program of mandatory heterosexual marriage, designed more than anything else to keep gay and lesbian people in the closet so they will reproduce, which is punctuated by the 'unintended' consequences of punishing unmarried cohabiting straight couples as well. The message, increasingly, is, "marry or else."
The babies you have better not be disabled, either. The right-wing, following ancient and historical precedent, is not too keen on protecting the self-sufficiency of people with disabilities, either. And the gateway to the Final Solution was the Tiergartenstrasse 4 project.
It was this comprehensive perspective on the modern "baby wars" that led me to re-consider my interpretation of ancient moral codes on reproduction. Efforts to encourage the upper class race to reproduce may prove to be a signature pattern of militaristic and expansionistic regimes.
I also now think it's wrong.
At the time that i came up with this theory, i was not inclined to consider the likelihood that the people who devised these laws and wrote these texts had an agenda and were participants in a factional struggle for control of their society. This is because whoever opposed them no longer speaks to us across the millenia; the opposing voices in this debate were not recorded for posterity.
This is why i am now a proponent of what i've been calling (for lack of a better term i'm aware of) "embedded theology": because when you deliberately overlook the political agenda behind "spiritual" texts, when you don't examine religion through the lens of human power dynamics, you miss too much, and much of the real historical significance of a piece of "scripture" is obscured.
What makes me inclined to re-examine my previous hypothesis was a series of realizations about the militaristic and authoritarian imperialism of the modern USA. And what's going on now is not in any way new or unique, because it resembles too closely what happened in the last century.
It began in the early 20th Century with efforts to prevent 'undesirables' from having children -- eugenics boards, forced sterilization, etc. The Nazis took many of their ideas about sterilization from eugenics measures which were already being enacted in the US and Canada and elsewhere. (And actually, American proposals to euthanize people with disabilities helped inspire the Final Solution.) Alongside with eugenics, women of "desireable" races were encouraged or pushed towards having as many children as possible.
I cite this historical stuff not for hyperbole, but because i think most Americans are not aware of how deeply embedded these barbaric principles and practices are in our recent history, and to illustrate how potentially damaging the ideologies now being espoused by the American right-wing really are.
John Gibson of Fox News really tipped his hand when he told white women that they were neglecting their duty to have babies:
Do your duty. Make more babies. ...
Now, in this country, European ancestry people, white people, are having kids at the rate that does sustain the population. It grows a bit. That compares to Europe where the birth rate is in the negative zone. They are not having enough babies to sustain their population. Consequently, they are inviting in more and more immigrants every year to take care of things and those immigrants are having way more babies than the native population, hence Eurabia.
Why aren't they having babies? Because babies get in the way of a prosperous and comfortable modern life. ...
To put it bluntly, we need more babies. Forget about that zero population growth stuff that my poor generation was misled on. Why is this important? Because civilizations need population to survive. So far, we are doing our part here in America but Hispanics can't carry the whole load. The rest of you, get busy. Make babies, or put another way -- a slogan for our times: "procreation not recreation."
from Gibson: "Make more babies"
Behind this, we see exposed the nexus where sexism, racism, and homophobia swirl together into a single whole: a war over the nation's population. It doesn't matter to these reactionaries that America's population is still growing, it matters who that population consists of. And only someone hopelessly naive would think that this faction is not going to become more brazen and brutal in the coming decades.
Put this next to proposals to prevent the children of undocumented immigrants from having automatic US citizenship, and Pat Buchanan's crusade against Mexican immigration, and one part of the pattern comes into focus: they believe the US should have fewer non-white children.
Combine this with the new classification of all women of childbearing age as "pre-pregnant," efforts to deliberately make it harder for mothers to hold down a job, the ageless and ongoing efforts to stem abortion rights and make it more difficult for women to have access to any form of contraception, and another part of the pattern comes into focus: they believe white women should be forced to have more children.
A third part of this pattern comes into play with the right's program of mandatory heterosexual marriage, designed more than anything else to keep gay and lesbian people in the closet so they will reproduce, which is punctuated by the 'unintended' consequences of punishing unmarried cohabiting straight couples as well. The message, increasingly, is, "marry or else."
The babies you have better not be disabled, either. The right-wing, following ancient and historical precedent, is not too keen on protecting the self-sufficiency of people with disabilities, either. And the gateway to the Final Solution was the Tiergartenstrasse 4 project.
It was this comprehensive perspective on the modern "baby wars" that led me to re-consider my interpretation of ancient moral codes on reproduction. Efforts to encourage the upper class race to reproduce may prove to be a signature pattern of militaristic and expansionistic regimes.
pre-barefoot too?
May. 16th, 2006 02:51 pmNew federal guidelines encourage doctors to treat all women of childbearing age as "pre-pregnant". (Thanks to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
jessicamelusine and naohai for the link)
Do i have to write an essay on why and how this is insidious, vile and abhorrent? Or is it pretty well obvious by now?
Edit. Here's a link to the actual guidelines themselves [PDF] (thanks tojonquil for linking to them). While some people seem to think these are not as insidious as the article suggests, i believe they are. Here are some selected quotes:
jessicamelusine and naohai for the link)Do i have to write an essay on why and how this is insidious, vile and abhorrent? Or is it pretty well obvious by now?
Edit. Here's a link to the actual guidelines themselves [PDF] (thanks to
jonquil for linking to them). While some people seem to think these are not as insidious as the article suggests, i believe they are. Here are some selected quotes:Preconception care aims to promote the health of women of reproductive age before conception and thereby improve pregnancy-related outcomes.
... Preconception care should be an essential part of primary and preventive care, rather than an isolated visit. Whereas a prepregnancy planning visit in the months before conception has been recommended, improving preconception health will require changes in the process of care.... Guidelines for Perinatal Care, jointly issued by AAP and ACOG, has recommended that all health encounters during a woman's reproductive years, particularly those that are a part of preconception care, should include counseling on appropriate medical care and behavior to optimize pregnancy outcomes. ... Several national organizations have recommended the routine delivery of preconception care.
... The target population for preconception health promotion is women, from menarche to menopause, who are capable of having children, even if they do not intend to conceive.
(no subject)
Apr. 12th, 2006 03:22 pmMore evidence that the Chaliban's anti-choice movement is about punishing women for having sex instead of protecting life:
Cedar River Clinics, a women's health and abortion provider with facilities in Renton, Tacoma, and Yakima, filed a complaint with the Washington State Department of Health this week alleging three instances where pharmacists raising moral objections refused to fill prescriptions for Cedar River clients. The complaint includes one incident at the Swedish Medical Center outpatient pharmacy in Seattle. According to the complaint, someone at the Swedish pharmacy said she was "morally unable" to fill a Cedar River patient's prescription for abortion-related antibiotics. Cedar River's complaint quotes its Renton clinic manager's May 17, 2005, e-mail account: "Today, one of our clients asked us to call in her prescription... to Swedish outpatient pharmacy. [We] called the prescription in... and spoke with an efficient staff person who took down the prescription. A few minutes later, this pharmacy person called us back and told us she had found out who we were and she morally was unable to fill the prescription." (Cedar River thinks their client eventually got her prescription filled.)
from Bitter Pill: Women's Health Clinic Files Complaint Against Swedish Medical Center Pharmacy (emphasis added) (thanks to
(no subject)
Jan. 31st, 2006 09:42 amlady_babalon's advice to all American women in light of the certainty that reproductive rights are about to be rolled back.(no subject)
Jan. 10th, 2006 12:13 pmIn recent years, according to several specialists in India, Indian women have aborted uncounted numbers of female fetuses simply because the family wanted a boy. The practice is made easier by the the proliferation of ultrasound machines, which after 14 to 16 weeks of gestation can usually determine the gender of the fetus.
The British-based medical journal The Lancet published a study yesterday quantifying the phenomenon: The report estimated that Indian women aborted a stunning 10 million girls in the two decades leading up to 1998. The study, analyzing data from a national survey of 1.1 million households, calculated that 500,000 female fetuses were aborted each year in India.
The "girl deficit," as the study labeled it, was more prevalent among educated women and did not vary according to religion, the study found.
... According to India's 2001 census, there were 932 girls for every 1,000 boys under the age of six, but in some parts of India the ratio is even more skewed toward boys. In Daman & Diu state, north of the city of Mumbai, for instance, the ratio of girls to boys was 710 to 1,000, according to the 2001 census.
from 'Girl deficit' grows in India: 10 million female fetuses aborted, a study estimates
Either way, women pay the price: on one hand, they are the ones who are being selectively aborted as embryos, and on the other hand, they are the ones who bear the brunt of a family's displeasure for birthing a daughter instead of a son. Women are the ones who have to fear losing control of their reproductive systems if the problem of selective abortion is "solved" by restricting abortion (rather than working to change society). There is no answer to this problem that will improve the lives of women other than getting rid of patriarchy.
crossposted to my journal and crossposted to
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif){kind=small}
feministEdit. While typing this i was listening to the Samuel Alito confirmation hearings on live feed, specifically Sen. Biden's questioning about Alito's understanding of discrimination and whether he understands this from a "real world" perspective the way Justice O'Connor does. I think that's relevant to ask regarding the "solution" India has put in place for the problem of selective abortion -- which is to make it against the law for ultrasound technicians to tell parents the sex of the fetus. It's a stopgap, not anything resembling a solution. It's the kind of approach, doomed to failure, which attempts (and fails) to put a band-aid on the wounds in society caused by sexism, without actually addressing the disease itself.
(no subject)
May. 3rd, 2005 07:50 pmIf a theological position can be shown to lend support to the continuation of oppression, does this in itself cast doubt on the validity of the belief?
The first example is the case I cited a short while ago about what I called the "stealth genocide" of queer people in the United States. The primary -- okay, I'll say it, the ONLY -- opposition to civil rights protections for queer people cites religious doctrine.
It's my belief that even if homosexuality is a sin, it is more unethical to contribute to the perpetuation of homophobia than to teach that homosexuality is wrong. And... how is it possible that "God's Truth" could demonstrably contribute to discrimination and oppression? Virtually everything that Jesus said or did indicated that he was opposed to every form of oppression and discrimination he saw -- and that in his mind it was more important to avoid contributing to that than to enforce rules about individual sexual behavior. John 8:1-11 showed Jesus choosing leniency over enforcement of religious rules against sexual sin when violence and oppression were involved.
A second example comes to me by way oflady_babalon, who linked to this story about a direct link between women's access to education and health care (including contraception) and the health of children.
If access to contraception can improve the health of women and children, then it is unethical to hamper that access. Yet that is what many religious organizations are actively doing right now.
Before someone argues that any religious teaching can be twisted to promote evil, I strongly disagree. No one ever shouted "love thine enemy" as he charged into battle, or said to himself, "what you do unto the least of these my brethren you do unto me" while letting someone starve on his front stoop.
The first example is the case I cited a short while ago about what I called the "stealth genocide" of queer people in the United States. The primary -- okay, I'll say it, the ONLY -- opposition to civil rights protections for queer people cites religious doctrine.
It's my belief that even if homosexuality is a sin, it is more unethical to contribute to the perpetuation of homophobia than to teach that homosexuality is wrong. And... how is it possible that "God's Truth" could demonstrably contribute to discrimination and oppression? Virtually everything that Jesus said or did indicated that he was opposed to every form of oppression and discrimination he saw -- and that in his mind it was more important to avoid contributing to that than to enforce rules about individual sexual behavior. John 8:1-11 showed Jesus choosing leniency over enforcement of religious rules against sexual sin when violence and oppression were involved.
A second example comes to me by way of
lady_babalon, who linked to this story about a direct link between women's access to education and health care (including contraception) and the health of children.Save the Children argues that education, family planning and trained birth attendants are key in boosting child survival and well-being. Effective contraception use can save thousands of lives, it concluded.
In the United States, 71 percent of women use modern birth control, one in 2,500 mothers dies in childbirth and seven out of 1,000 infants die before they are one. In Mali, where 6 percent of women use birth control, one in 10 mothers dies in childbirth, and one in eight infants dies before reaching age 1.
"The Mothers' Index clearly shows that the quality of children's lives is inextricably linked to the health and education of their mothers," MacCormack added. "In countries where mothers fare well, children fare well; in countries where mothers do poorly, children do poorly."
If access to contraception can improve the health of women and children, then it is unethical to hamper that access. Yet that is what many religious organizations are actively doing right now.
Before someone argues that any religious teaching can be twisted to promote evil, I strongly disagree. No one ever shouted "love thine enemy" as he charged into battle, or said to himself, "what you do unto the least of these my brethren you do unto me" while letting someone starve on his front stoop.
