Mermaid Musings

It’s like salt in the wound. The Tiller family announced today that they are closing the clinic. Permanently. As one of my volunteers asked me, how do we spin this so it doesn’t sound like utter defeat? I’m at a loss.

I keep telling myself, we ARE winning. We ARE WINNING. The discussion of late-term abortion has caused some media pundits to shift their arguments from ‘it’s always wrong’ to ’sometimes it’s necessary’ - that IS progress. And I remind myself that we don’t have to convince the vitriolic, misogynist, terrorizing anti-abortion groups that women have a right to their bodies and their lives. We’re never going to. The majority of people in this country already believe that women have those rights. The fanatic fringe who will not rest until ‘abortion is illegal’ aren’t going to win. Because they have lost more this day than we have. They had to resort to the most deplorable violence to shut down Dr. Tiller. And if they see this as a victory, they are not as pro-life as they claim.

I fervently hope that other doctors will step forward with the courage and grace that Dr. Tiller exemplified and offer their services to the women that Dr. Tiller also served. In this way, the cowardly, vile person who shot a decent and courageous man will have defeated his own purpose - instead of one Dr. Tiller, I hope that in the coming months there are dozens of Dr. Tillers.  And in a few years, I hope there is a Dr. Tiller in every state. In this way, those wack-jobs passing for christians and human beings will have, by their own actions, opened up new choices for women.

I am still reeling from the shock that a man shot George Tiller in front of his church on Sunday morning. I can’t seem to wrap my mind around the fact that after years of harassment, death threats and shootings, George Tiller is dead. Words cannot describe the loss of this man.

My favorite quote from him:

Make no mistake about it this battle is about self-determination by women of the direction and course of their lives and their family’s lives. Abortion is about women’s hopes and dreams. Abortion is a matter of survival for women. -George Tiller, 2001

The man who took his life is known to believe that violence is justified in protecting the lives of the ‘unborn.’ The man who robbed the Tiller family of a husband, father, and grandfather, is a product of the vitriolic rhetoric of the so-called pro-life movement. The movement that values the lives of unborn fetuses above the lives of those already living. Already, these anti-life, anti-woman, anti-freedom forces are mustering to distance themselves from the ‘lone lunatic’ they created. Already the are disparaging those of us who fight for women’s dignity and justice for ‘using this tragedy’ for political ends.

No my friends, it is not we who use any and all means to gain political advantage. It is not the reproductive justice movement that feels that any means justifies the ends. That is the strategy and tactics of those among you who feel you have the right to dictate morality, to judge other peoples’ lives and find them wanting. We are not using this tragedy, we are pointing out the senseless violence that your rhetoric has spawned.

Dr. George Tiller was a generous, compassionate, brave and determined man who believed that women have the right to determine the course of their own lives. He worked long and hard to provide services to women who faced difficult choices and made heart-wrenching decisions. He saved more lives than any three of the leaders today ’standing firm’ in their anti-abortion rhetoric, combined. But those were women’s lives, so they are not as important…

The media are falling over themselves wondering what this tragedy will do to the ‘common ground’ conversation that President Obama has called for to ‘end the culture wars’ on abortion. How does the heinous murder of a good man change the national debate on abortion? How do you find common ground with people who want you dead? While I am sure there are good, well-meaning people who are opposed to abortion, I fail to see what part they play in this conversation. I am tired of states and courts deciding what kinds of abortions are ok and what are not, of deciding what hoops a woman must jump through to obtain an abortion, like she needs a license to make decisions about her own body, her own life, her own family. I bloody sick that there needs to be any debate at all. I want to go back to the ‘radical’ days of the women’s liberation movement:

Free Abortion on Demand.

Who are you to tell ME what I can and cannot do with my body? Who are you to shoot a doctor who provides caring and compassionate services that I NEED?? Just because you disagree? If you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one. For godsake, what if I started a movement against appendectomies? After all, god gave us an appendix, who are we to take it out? Get your morals and heavy handed rhetoric out of my medical care!

We will find common ground when women get the rights and respect they deserve as human beings. This isn’t about politics or political gain, this is about women’s lives. And now it’s about the life of a man who believed in helping women live the lives they wanted.

Archbishop Jose Cordoso Sobrinho of Brazil recently excommunicated ‘everyone involved’ in helping a 9 year old girl obtain an abortion. Apparently, abortion is a much worse sin than the rape this girl endured at the hands of her step-father, who was not excommunicated for his sin.

It was people like Archibishop Jose here who convinced me that Catholicism was definitely not a religion for any self-respecting woman. Any religion that has such little regard for females cannot possibly serve my spiritual needs. Hello. Why would I want to worship the woman-hating god these people espouse?

Catholic Brazilians have responded by demanding that they be excommunicated as well. Apparently, they don’t want to belong to a church that would punish a 9 year old girl, a rape victim who was pregnant with twins and likely to suffer lasting harm to her small body (if not die herself) trying to carry this pregnancy to term. Frankly, that Archbishop has no business presiding over the spirituality of any community. While I appreciate the people asking to be excommunicated in solidarity (and would do so myself if I knew how to say it in Portuguese!), a much more effective strategy would be to petition to have the Archbishop himself at least removed from his office, if not excommunicated himself. Any spiritual leader who would publicly condemn a 9 year old girl, who was the victim of several years of sexual abuse, and not have at least that much condemnation for her abuser, has violated every code of decency that I can think of. To say that abortion is a greater sin than rape because the ‘victim’ in abortion is undoubtedly ‘innocent’ while a rape victim may or may not be innocent… it just makes my blood boil.

Truly, if there is a shred of decency left in the Vatican, this man will be removed from his position and cloistered in a monastary for the rest of his life. Because he has clearly lost all touch with reality.

Is the goal of reducing abortions really common ground for evangelical anti-abortion folks and the reproductive justice movement? A really good article examines some of the foundations of this new common ground.

I can’t really argue that reducing the need for abortion is a laudable goal, but as the author of the above article points out, anti-abortion forces have long regarded reducing the numbers of abortions performed as their goal and they are willing to erect any number of barriers that limit a woman’s ability to obtain a safe, legal abortion. Some of those barriers include waiting periods, no public funding for abortion, parental consent/notification laws, forcing women to view ultrasounds before a procedure and the latest from North Dakota: legislation declaring that a fertilized egg has the same rights as the woman in which it resides. Can reproductive justice advocates really feel comfortable finding common ground with folks who’s interest is in eliminating abortion, rather than ensuring women’s human rights?

In North Dakota, should this legislation be signed into law, will create conflicts between women’s rights and the rights of her fertilized egg. I’m no lawyer, and I definitely wouldn’t want to be one practicing in North Dakota right now, but I can see this creating nightmare legal questions. Indeed, until we can agree on a common agenda for a woman’s right to her own body, this common ground of abortion reduction only paves the way for localities to decide for themselves what rights women have when it comes to dealing with an unplanned pregnancy.

Truly, if we want to reduce the number of abortions performed, we first have to ensure universal access to abortion care. When any woman can choose to have an abortion at will, then we can begin to create programs and incentives and policies that will support women choosing NOT to have an abortion. But without universal access as a prior condition, we are simply perpetuating the injustice of women not being guaranteed autonomy over her own body. Comprehensive sexuality education and access to reliable birth control should be givens for anyone interested in reducing abortions, whether they are interested in just reducing the numbers or reducing the need. It is heartening to see the right wingers come around to recognizing the need for these things. However, even with universal access to contraception, no method of birth control is 100% effective; there will ALWAYS be a need for abortion services.

I would be much more comfortable finding common ground if there was general acknowledgement that we can do much more to reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy in this country (currently about 1/2 the pregnancies that occur in the US are unintended), but there will always be a need for abortions and even if we cut the abortion rate to 10% of what it is now, those 10% of women still seeking abortions have an absolute right to do so and deserve access to abortion services without having to overcome barriers established for the sole purpose of discouraging abortions.

What we need is a woman’s guaranteed right to control her reproduction. It seems silly, but in the absence of federal guarantees, states like North Dakota are going to take matters into their own hands and grant a handful of cells the same rights as grown women. And that shit has just got to stop.

“Marriage is a coercive state structure that perpetuates racism and sexism through forced gender and family norms. Right wing pro-marriage rhetoric has targeted families of color and poor families, supported a violent welfare and child protection system, vilified single parents and women, and marginalized queer families of all kinds. Expanding marriage to include a narrow band of same-sex couples only strengthens that system of marginalization and supports the idea that the state should pick which types of families to reward and recognize and which to punish and endanger.” (link)

Someday I want to live in a society that honors people for who they are, that supports people who need a little extra help and that makes as its primary objective supporting its members to realizing their full human potential.

It’s really nice having a president that isn’t a war-mongering, woman-hating, vengeful-god-worshipping monkey who’s primary motivation is fear. But let’s face it, Obama is not going to make this country or this planet a better place until we create a shift in cultural values, and that can’t be legislated or dictated by policy.  Marriage rights are nice, but really not going to create a culture and a society that values queer people. It’s going to bestow a handful of special rights onto a select group of same-sex couples, most of whom already have much of the privilege that our society bestows upon those who fit into the narrow confines of what someone, somewhere once decreed was ‘normal’.

Wouldn’t a better path be to expand the notion of normal? Is that not what liberation politics is really about? I don’t really want to stop those same-sex couples who desire a life-long committment to each other to be publically acknowledged. More power to them, really. But why should married people have special rights that the rest of us don’t have? Why the extra privileges? Why should the state be so invested in people’s love and sex lives?

It’s high time this society started recognizing the rights of LBGTQ folks in all aspects of their lives. Period. No exceptions for the genderqueer folk, everyone has an absolute right to their sexuality and their sexual identity. All is fair among consenting adults.

What I would like to see is a new sexual revolution - one that supports healthy sexuality for everyone regardless of who they have sex with. One that is based in liberation and the belief that humanity is beautiful because of its diversity. One that is grounded in love, for ourselves, for each other, for this great planet we live on and the belief that loving someone can never be wrong.