RHRealityCheck.org's News & Commentary

"What If Your Mother Had Aborted You?"

Frances Kissling — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:21:56 -0400

"What if your mother had aborted you?" It's almost always a question some frustrated anti-choicer asks after a presentation; I've probably been asked that question a hundred times. In the beginning, my answer was fairly abstract, philosophical. I'd note that the "I" who stands before them is not the "I" that was once a fetus. The I of today is the result of a mother who continued a pregnancy and the process of becoming that made me who I am today. But over time, I felt a need to give a more personal and direct answer, something about me, my mother and the relationship between children and their mothers.

I feel a need to turn that question around and to ask instead: What if your mother's life would have been significantly happier and healthier if she had not had you? If you as a fetus had the capacity to make decisions, would you have given your life for your mother's life, health and happiness?

My mother, Florence, the last of seven children in a harsh Polish immigrant family, left home at 17 and came to New York City. She got pregnant, chased the soldier who impregnated her and ended up with me. As you might imagine, she was an interesting and difficult person. Frankly, she never should have had children. She had her good qualities, but mothering wasn't one of them. And she had a miserable life. Four kids, two husbands, both of whom abandoned her and us. When the second one left, she had to go to work to support us: a low paying job as a telephone operator working the 11pm to 7am shift and a two hour each way commute was her lot in life.

That life began to change when the youngest of us graduated high school and I offered her a job as the head of the telephone appointment staff at the abortion clinic I was directing. The pay was better, the company included young, empowered women and she flourished. By 1980, she had moved to DC and was the practice manager for a busy orthopedic practice. Her pleasure and first time security was cut short by lung cancer and at the age of 58 she died.

As a fetus I would have gladly given up my chance to enter the world and become Frances Kissling to have given my mother a better chance at happiness. Far too much is made of a mother's obligations to her children and far too little of what a child's love for her mother means. If fetuses could love, I think they would be as passionate in defense of their mothers as born children become.

If we are going to imagine, as some do, fetuses as part of the human community, we are going to have to accept that if they could make decisions, they might be as willing to sacrifice for others as we demand that women and only women be.

From Inside Prisons, Mothers Long for Their Children

Christy Hall — Fri, 09 May 2008 08:00:00 -0400

If you are like me, you tend to be more than a little suspicious of holidays that seem only to fill the coffers of card companies and pesticide-laden flower shops. Mother's Day is showy, but what does it actually mean? Certainly, mothers are an under-appreciated group of people -- so I don't oppose a little recognition for the unpaid labor that mothers do. But I'm sold on Mother's Day because of its radical history. Turns out, Mother's Day in the United States started off as a call to women to unite in opposition to war. It was intolerable to the founder of Mother's Day in the United States, Julia Ward Howe, that mothers would tolerate their children causing harm to other people's children. The core belief that mothers do not raise their children to perpetuate violence has been tamed in recent decades by commercialization. Still, it is easy to find many kinds of violence tolerated in our society that cry out for a modern resurgence of this value.

Prisons are just one glaring example of state-sponsored violence that should stand out on a day like Mother's Day. Across the country, children whose mothers are locked away inside prisons feel the absence of their mothers every day -- but perhaps more so on a day when the mother/child relationship is celebrated publicly. From inside prisons, mothers are longing for their children; at least 80% of women in prison are mothers to minor children, five percent of women in prison are pregnant upon intake and 15% have children under six weeks in age upon intake.

Most people feel uneasy about the idea of a pregnant women or mothers of young children being incarcerated. This uneasiness comes from a gut awareness that prison is not a healthy or safe environment for such an emotionally and physically special time in a person's life. We can easily recognize the damaging effects of separation during early childhood for both mother and child. Somehow, when a person is pregnant or parenting, her humanity and her need for support and compassion are easier to see -- even when she has done something that is defined as criminal. Regardless of your belief about how we define crime in our culture or what a reasonable system of accountability for addressing harm might be, it is clear from the example of incarcerated mothers that our current response to crime creates unintended negative outcomes.

The fact that the majority of women in prison are the mothers of minor children, combined with the fact that women are the fastest-growing prison population in the country, means that more and more children are being raised away from their mothers. This factor alone puts children in a high-risk category for becoming incarcerated later in life themselves -- thus perpetuating an endless cycle of displaced violence.

There are both short- and long-term consequences to our treatment of those who become entangled in the criminal justice system -- many of whom are the same mothers we aim to honor with the holiday this weekend. In the short-term we can begin to redress the harm done to mothers and families by extending understanding, compassion and support for people through their sentences and return to their communities. In the long-term, we can begin to ask the more difficult question: why have we become so reliant on and satisfied with a system that does not effectively address harm but instead creates a new and ever-increasing group of victims?

When considering how to honor the mothers in our own lives this Sunday, remember that at its core Mother's Day was created to oppose state-sponsored violence. Mother's Day should be a day to remind ourselves, and those around us, that all human beings -- mothers and their children -- deserve a life free from violence.

For more information about supporting mothers in prison, check out The Birth Attendants: Prison Doula Project's website.

The Politics of Motherhood, the Capacity for Choice

Carolina Austria — Fri, 09 May 2008 08:35:00 -0400

"It is often argued that art, industry and government create new human reality while mothering merely reproduces human beings and their cultures and social structures. In reality, mothering persons change culture and social reality by creating the kinds of persons who can continue to transform themselves and their surroundings." - Virginia Held, Feminist Morality: Transforming Culture, Society and Politics (University of Chicago Press: 1993)

The origins of the word mother are said to be the Latin mater, meaning source or substance, and mamma, meaning breast. It was only in 1863 that the use of "mother" meaning "to take care of" became common. Motherhood has many meanings across cultures and many of these meanings have changed over time.

For many, the most familiar and enduring meanings of motherhood are those commonly associated with caring, relating, intimacy and emotional needs. Particular human relations in the family, friendship as well as sympathy and concern for others have traditionally been neglected and excluded in the field of ethics and moral philosophy.

When the experience of women began to be brought into the domain of moral consciousness, feminist philosopher Virginia Held noted that what emerged as the most fundamental and central social relation was the relationship between the mother or mothering person and the child. Yet even as many cultures accord motherhood and what they consider "motherly" roles with a great deal of reverence and respect, the same roles also oftentimes overlap as a site of subordination and devaluation for both women and girls.

Feminists are credited with pointing out the way in which the acceptance of the domestic ideal is the foundation of women's oppression. While some radical feminist positions (popularized by media) did, early in the women's movements, portray the choice of motherhood as "false consciousness," it is hardly fair to say that women cannot freely choose to be mothers and take on primarily domestic roles in the family without ending up oppressed. The point about linking motherhood and women's oppression is perhaps best understood in the context of the enforced ideal, role and state of motherhood.

In many societies, to this day, becoming a wife and mother continues to be the only option for women and girls. As a matter of survival, often compounded by societies' claims of cultural and religious identity, women and young girls are pressured and become mothers. In such situations, choice is simply not an issue.

We don't even have to make a comparison from our great-grandmother's generation, to imagine how this works -- because it's still happening today.

The Texas sect practicing polygamy in violation of US laws, was also discovered to be marrying off girls aged 14-17 to much older men with several wives. Warren Jeffs, the reputed leader of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS), who has been charged by the authorities in Arizona with conspiring to commit sexual conduct with a minor, himself had 70 wives.

In the sect, marriage and submission to one's husband (in a polygamous marriage) was the only future for a woman since the sect believed that men had to have at least three wives in order to "reach the highest degree of glory in heaven." One of Jeff's former wives recounted her life in the sect, as a young girl forced to marry a man with several wives, and how after running away, she faced a custody battle over her children. As alarming as the story was to the public, it was painful to witness how the children were hauled off and taken into custody by the police and now continue to be separated from their mothers. Easily, the moral hysteria around polygamy tends to focus on the "unusual" sexual arrangement without necessarily taking issue with the lack of women's agency and freedom in such arrangements. Indeed, the issue of polygamy is a complex issue, one which is usually complicated by cultural difference. But as we bore witness to the fumbling state, ill-equipped to handle the complex issues of individual women's and children's rights clashing with "religious group rights," many were left wondering about the future of the children who were placed in foster care. But how about the wives and mothers left behind? Admittedly, a case like this presents no easy solutions or answers.

On the other hand, FLDS's practices (which included controlling women's and girls' mobility and access to information) are certainly not a unique feature of one cult. All over the world, major religions led by its male religious authorities still actively work to limit women's and girl's access to information, particularly when it comes to sexuality. Conservative opposition to sexuality education in the US for instance, is not just a matter of religious preference but the very stuff of politics. Similarly, politicians in Manila in the Philippines have gone as far as banning modern family planning methods simply by virtue of their own religious beliefs on the matter.

Within many religious traditions, considering motherhood as a choice and a woman's decision remains a big challenge. According to Lynn Freedman, the threat that the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) posed for religious fundamentalists was not really fertility regulation itself but the challenge to traditional patriarchal social structures.

Their fear really isn't so much that feminism or women's human rights will suddenly lead all women to reject motherhood but rather that in the capacity for choice, women are challenging the very notions that rationalize male domination embedded in traditional meanings of motherhood.

New Moms in Africa Fight Postpartum Depression

Masimba Biriwasha — Fri, 09 May 2008 08:20:00 -0400

Across sub-Saharan Africa, new moms are at risk of falling into depressive states that can potentially damage their own mental health as well as the well-being of their new born child.

In many parts of the continent, public health systems are ill-equipped to deal with postpartum depression, which affects a significant number of women after giving birth. The situation is made worse by the absence of psychiatrists or clinical psychologists trained to help women cope with the condition.

According to researchers, postpartum depression (also called post-natal depression) affects as many as one in five women, particularly during the first year of motherhood. Less than 2 in 1,000 women are also at risk of developing postpartum psychosis.

The condition causes mothers to feel exhausted and emotionally empty and can potentially destroy the bonding between a mother and her newborn baby.

"Women seem to be particularly vulnerable to depression during their reproductive years: rates of the disorder are highest in females between the ages of 25 and 45. New data indicate that the incidence of depression in females rises, albeit modestly, after giving birth," reports the Scientific America journal.

According to the journal, dramatic hormonal fluctuations that occur after delivery may contribute to postpartum depression in susceptible women, but causes of the disorder are not fully understood.

"A longer term consequence of not diagnosing and treating postpartum depression is the effects it can have on the family, including the parental relationship and the development of the child. Children of depressed women have been found to have attachment problems, higher rates of behavioural problems and lower vocabulary skills," states a report titled Postpartum Depression: A Literature Review.

For some new moms, the situation can be so severe it can lead to cases of infanticide and suicide.

However, among African women, few if any studies have been conducted to better understand the condition, and the way that women cope in the absence of appropriate public health services.

It is possible to surmise from existing data from other parts of the world the general experience of African women following childbirth.

A study by the University of Iowa revealed that low-income women are much more likely to suffer from postpartum depression than wealthier women.

The research revealed that women who are poor already have a lot of stress, ranging from poor living conditions to concerns about paying the bills. The birth of an infant can represent additional financial and emotional stress, and depression negatively impacts the woman's ability to cope with these already difficult circumstances, according to the study.

The study which focused on a sample of 4,332 new mothers from four Iowa counties showed that compared to white or Latino mothers, African-American mothers are more likely to experience depression after having a baby.

Furthermore, the study revealed that African-American women tend to have weaker support networks, a major predictor of postpartum depression.

Like African-American women, African women that give birth are also affected by low incomes and live in stressful contexts which increases the likelihood of the onset of depression.

While there is clearly a need for more research into the coping methods of African women, simple screening methods can be utilized to identify women that are at risk of postnatal depression. Nurses in public health settings need to be provided with training so that they are able to detect and assist new mothers from post-partum depression. The use of a simple tool, the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale, translated into local language, can assist nurses, family members and new moms to detect depressive symptoms.

If anything, public educational and awareness raising programs or simple pamphlets and posters describing the condition need to be displayed in ante-natal clinics so that women are mentally prepared to deal with the problem.

As research shows, social support networks can also play a key role in helping women deal with postnatal depression.

Overall, it is essential for national government throughout the world to guarantee that new moms have access to clinical and maternal services that can help to avert the emotional upheavals associated with giving birth.

Too Poor to Parent?

Gaylynn Burroughs — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:00:00 -0400

When a recurrent plumbing problem in an upstairs unit caused raw sewage to seep into her New York City apartment, 22-year-old Lisa called social services for help. She had repeatedly asked her landlord to fix the problem, but he had been unresponsive. Now the smell was unbearable, and Lisa feared for the health and safety of her two young children.

When the caseworker arrived, she observed that the apartment had no lights and that food was spoiling in the refrigerator. Lisa explained that she did not have the money to pay her electric bill that month, but would have the money in a few weeks. She asked whether the caseworker could help get them into a family shelter. The caseworker promised she would help--but left Lisa in the apartment and took the children, who were then placed in foster care.

Months later, the apartment is cleaned up. Lisa still does not have her children.

It is probably fair to say that most women with children worry about their ability as mothers. Are they spending enough time with them? Are they disciplining them correctly? Are they feeding them properly? When should they take them to the doctor, and when is something not that serious? But one thing most women in the United States do not worry about is the possibility of the state removing children from their care. For a sizable subset of women, though--especially poor black mothers such as Lisa--that possibility is very real.

Black children are the most overrepresented demographic in foster care nationwide. According to the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO), blacks make up 34 percent of the foster-care population, but only 15 percent of the general child population. In 2004, black children were twice as likely to enter foster care as white children. Even among other minority groups, black mothers are more likely to lose their children to the state than Hispanics or Asians-groups that are slightly underrepresented in foster care.

The reason for this disparity? Study after study reviewed by Stanford University law professor Dorothy Roberts in her book Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare (Basic Books/Perseus, 2002) concludes that poverty is the leading cause of children landing in foster care. One study, for example, showed that poor families are up to 22 times more likely to be involved in the child-welfare system than wealthier families. And nationwide, blacks are four times more likely than other groups to live in poverty.

But when state child-welfare workers come to remove children from black mothers' homes, they rarely cite poverty as the factor putting a child at risk. Instead, these mothers are told that they neglected their children by failing to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, education or medical care. The failure is always personal, and these mothers and children are almost always made to suffer individually for the consequences of one of the United States' most pressing social problems.

The legal system often provides no haven for these parents. Based on even the flimsiest allegations, they are essentially presumed guilty and pressured to participate in various cookie-cutter services that often do not directly address the concerns that brought them to court. For example, after her children went into foster care, Lisa was asked to attend parenting classes, undergo a mental health evaluation, seek therapy and submit to random drug testing before her children could be returned. But child-welfare authorities did not assist her in repairing her home or finding a new apartment, nor have they gone after her landlord for allowing deplorable conditions.

Race and poverty should not be a barrier to raising one's children. But in order to prevent the entry of poor children into the foster care system, state and federal government must confront poverty-related issues. Until this country comes to terms with its culpability in allowing widespread poverty to exist, poor black mothers will continue to lose their children to the state. And we will continue to label these women "bad mothers" to assuage our own guilt.

The full text of this article appears in the Spring issue of Ms. magazine, available on newsstands and by subscription from www.msmagazine.com.

Nicaragua: Working for Safety Despite Abortion Ban

Karim Velasco — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:20:00 -0400

Editor's Note: With this post we welcome Karim Velasco, a lawyer based in Lima, to RH Reality Check. Karim will join our Global Perspectives team reporting on reproductive and sexual health and rights issues internationally.

After more than a hundred years of legally allowing women access to a therapeutic abortion if her life or health was in danger, in October 2006 the Nicaraguan National Assembly banned this procedure in all circumstances under pressure from conservative movements and the church. A year later, despite international pressure and claims to respect the human rights of women, the hopes and efforts of women's rights organizations and medical associations were shattered when a new Penal Code reaffirming the ban was approved in September 2007 by the National Assembly.

Although in January 2007 a group of civil society organizations filed an appeal to the Supreme Court to declare the amended provision unconstitutional, the appeal had to be resubmitted since the Penal Code had been rewritten.

Besides the importance of drawing a legal strategy to challenge the ban on constitutional grounds, it is necessary to think of the consequences and challenges that this ban is already bringing to public health. The CEDAW Committee, Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO), UNFPA and the Interamerican Commission of Human Rights among others warned the Nicaraguan government of the alarming effects that the ban on therapeutic abortion would have not only on women's lives and health but also on health service providers' behavior. And it is now clear that clandestine abortions and maternal mortality rates have spiraled since the ban was introduced.

According to UNICEF, the adjusted maternal mortality ratio is estimated to be 170 deaths for every 100,000 live births, one of the highest in the region. PAHO, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and IPAS have documented cases of women who died because they were denied or delayed treatment for obstetric emergencies, mainly because of the fear of prosecution or misperception of the law on the part of medical personnel. Some women have reportedly tried to get medical treatment because of constant bleeding or proved ectopic pregnancies but were left unattended for hours or transferred to a different health center, which in some cases led to their deaths. Women have no choice but to look for emergency obstetric care elsewhere, even though in many cases they need to be treated for incomplete miscarriages that have nothing to do with induced abortions.

The ban on therapeutic abortion is not only affecting the access to emergency obstetric care, it is also affecting the quality in delivering the service. For IPAS the ban has a double impact on the health system: i) the economic costs of treating these preventable emergencies, caused by delays in care, consume a major portion of the health sector's limited budget, and ii) health providers find themselves having to choose between appropriately treating the patients by ignoring the law or denying them the necessary care to preserve their health and lives.

It is also important to highlight the fact that not only medical staff fear prosecution. Women also fear seeking treatment because they are afraid of being accused of having induced an abortion themselves. This vicious circle is certainly affecting the most vulnerable women, that is, young poor women. IPAS has even pointed out that "75 percent of the maternal deaths recorded this year [2007] were women who lived in rural areas and more than 80 percent were adolescents and youth." Although the strong link between adolescent pregnancy and poverty is not new, the ban on therapeutic abortion severely worsens the risks for these women.

Up to now the only serious attempt carried out by the government to mitigate consequences of the ban was the issue of "mandatory protocols for the provision of emergency obstetric care." In December 2006 the Ministry of Health issued the Norms and Protocols for Treatment of Obstetric Emergencies. According to Human Rights Watch these guidelines "cover most if not all obstetric emergencies, including ectopic pregnancies and post-abortion care. If fully implemented, it is possible that these guidelines could overcome a good part of the negative consequences of the blanket ban." However, HRW's research also shows that doctors and health officials are not willing to implement the guidelines; they usually ignore them or delay their implementation due to fear of prosecution. It is not clear to them whether the protocols are compatible with the ban or not, which usually leads to leaving patients unattended or turning them away from the hospital. Unfortunately, the Ministry of Health "does not monitor the full implementation of protocols, does not systematize complaints received for the delay or denial of care, and so far has not studied the impact of the law on the lives and health of women."

PAHO and Human Rights Watch have issued a list of recommendations to the Nicaraguan government to amend the Penal Code and decriminalize therapeutic abortion, guarantee women immediate access to emergency obstetric services and postabortion care and appropriately implement the guidelines on emergency obstetric care. HRW additionally called on donors and United Nations agencies to expand funding for reproductive health related programs in Nicaragua and to support campaigns seeking to educate women about their right to access contraception.

In an attempt to lessen the impact of the ban IPAS Central America's work is not only focusing on "ensuring access to high-quality postabortion care (PAC)", but has also included among its activities "improving the availability and quality of abortion-care services in the context of comprehensive reproductive health care."

Similarly, it is imperative that additional initiatives are implemented to mitigate the impact of the ban on women's lives and mental and physical health, especially by the government and national organizations.

Mothers Deserve More than One Day a Year

Sarah Seltzer — Thu, 08 May 2008 08:30:00 -0400

Flowers, jewelry, cupcakes, and manicures. These are just some of the more clichéd gifts American businesses want us to lavish on our mothers and grandmothers this weekend, thanking them for everything they do for us, for all the sacrifices they make and have made. Spas and department stores are opening their doors and slashing prices, encouraging moms to flex their capitalist muscles and get pampered, while restaurants trot out brunch menus and pink tablecloths, eager to tempt hungry families fete-ing their matriarchs. Advertisements for Mother's Day "events" at retail outlets show smiling, happy, relaxed mothers -- free of wrinkles, under-eye circles, etc. -- posing harmoniously with their offspring.

There's something very wrong with this picture, and it has little to do with Mother's Day itself (I'm looking forward to celebrating with my mom and grandmother over a delicious brunch, as I always do). It has to do with the way American policymakers and corporations make a giant fuss over this holiday and then proceed to ignore moms, or "reward" them, with unfair laws, poor health care, strict maternity leave policies, and often nonexistent options for child care. I'm hardly the first to seize on this contradiction but it bears repeating, because issues that affect moms have a way of fading from public view quickly.

The phenomenon of idolize-but-ignore that afflicts moms at this time of year is rooted in the belief that women's second-class status can be rectified with a day of celebration and some pricey gifts -- just like on Valentine's Day. But it also comes from the perversely American "do it yourself" ethos: don't expect help, even when you're doing what advertisers and "family values" right-wingers remind us is the world's most important job.

For the 364 days of the year that are not the second Sunday in May, we live in a society poorly structured for making motherhood manageable. Perhaps if we viewed the concept of valuing mothers as more than an opportunity to buy more presents -- instead, seeing it is our collective responsibility -- those smiling, happy women on the Mother's Day advertisements wouldn't be a fantasy.

Practically speaking, the value we put on motherhood is a mess in this country. Individual moms do make absolutely heroic efforts every day; they more than rise to the challenges foisted on them. But we see article after article about harried mothers trying to juggle careers and family, trying to afford doctor's bills and mortgage payments, fighting for better education and recreation in their neighborhoods -- all things which should be theirs by right.

We've got moms stereotyped onscreen and on TV -- either controlling and Type A (if they're white and wealthy) or a font of understanding, wisdom and tough love (any movie with a non-white or non-rich mom) -- but rarely something in between. These images are a perverted reflection of the zeitgeist, the pressure to do all and be all that affects women across the economic spectrum.

We have the manufactured concept of an opt-out revolution, the idea of a parade of affluent women giving up the working life to devote themselves to hearth and home. It's merely a wishful thought on the part of a retro press corps, but it won't die.

We also have the "Mommy Wars," an exhausting shouting match within a usually wealthy group of women, divided between stay at home moms and working ones. The conflict, fed by guilt and a lack of part-time or options is overhyped and amplified by the media, eager for catfights. But the focus on the Mommy Wars ignore the reality of most American women, who have no choice but to work. And if we had fairer policies and better daycare options, the schism would be far less fraught.

A different approach is possible. Across the pond in France, for instance, parents get generous maternity and paternity leave packages, subsidized day care and in home-childcare, and quality government-provided health services (not to mention generous vacation time, manageable hours and delicious food and wine!). Somehow, French women don't find themselves engaged in "Mommy Wars" -- or at least, not wars of a magnitude that this Francophile has encountered. Most women are allowed to balance home life and work with a considerable amount of flexibility. Unsurprisingly, French women take advantage of this, enjoying professional success and time with the kids. Shocking, isn't it?

Fortunately, here in the US, there's a movement afoot to organize moms and get political, including groups like the awesome MomsRising. This year, women are using Mother's Day to campaign for better childcare, flexible working hours, health coverage, family leave and more. As they gain more and more attention and traction, we have the foundations of a massive grassroots and powerful mom-movement.

As Amie Newman pointed out this week, anti-choice policies that force women to become mothers against their wills go hand in hand with a lack of support for them once they do have kids. To counter this hypocrisy, reproductive justice encompasses the belief that every woman and family has the right to raise a family with dignity and freedom -- from deciding when and whether to have kids to having resources to help with parenting. Changing our society's attitudes and policies so that this is possible is a gift we can give to all mothers, not just our own.

Outing the Pro-Teen Sex Agenda

Cristina Page — Wed, 07 May 2008 13:23:56 -0400

On this National Day to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, I thought it would be a fun exercise to compare the sexual activity of teenagers and their pregnancy rates in the most pro-choice states with those of the most pro-life states. I used NARAL's rankings to determine which were the best and worst states on choice. (Simply, those that scored "F" are the worst and those with an "A" are the best.) I then filled in the state data for each on the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy website, the National Day sponsors, and compared the pro-choice states with the pro-life states.

Which side is actually doing a better job?

Conclusion: one side has a lot more to celebrate. Turns out pro-life states, those that are prone to tell kids that abstinence is the only proven contraception, and discourage use of actual contraception, then wag their finger at the less "morally superior" states, are where high schoolers are:

more sexually active
more likely to have had sex before the age of 13
more likely to have four or more sexual partners.

Turns out that to be "pro-life" is to be pro-your-young-teen-having-a-risky-sex-life. In addition, the states that are witnessing the most dramatic drop in teen pregnancies are the most solidly pro-choice ones (CA, VT, HI, AK) while the ones where teen pregnancy rates are declining most slowly are anti-choice (NE, MS, WY, OK).

As this election goes from a simmer to a boil, the culture warriors will be dosing ideological gasoline on the flames. Isn't it time to call the religious right's bluff? If we measured their agenda based on its results they could only be considered the pro-risky-adolescent-sex-unwanted- pregnancy-teen-mothers- and-more-abortion crowd. They have no right to moralize and no standing to be sanctimonious -- that should be our job.

They're wrong. We know it and it's time the American public did too. Pro-choice people, and most candidates, have got to use the gifts of evidence we've been given (and earned). The American public doesn't want its 12-year-olds sexually active or their daughters impregnated by one of their four or more sexual partners -- but that's what the pro-life agenda is poised to make America's reality, and sadly has for too many already. And there's quantitative data to prove it. One thing is for sure, they're not going to be the ones to mention it. Now wonder they're lying low today.

The Motherhood Melee: An Interview with Amy Richards

Laura Barcella — Wed, 07 May 2008 08:30:00 -0400

In recent years, feminist motherhood has been the source of a steady stream of contentious public debate. Much of the "mommy wars" began with Lisa Belkin's "Opting Out," a 2003 New York Times Magazine article claiming that successful professional women were rejecting the boardroom to return to the nursery and raise their kids. The story's limited scope (Belkin's interview subjects were all college-educated, married white women) sparked a backlash, but it also prompted many women to wonder -- both privately and in the media -- whether having kids and having a life were, in practice, mutually exclusive. Of course not, Third Wave activist/author Amy Richards asserts in her new book, Opting In, which illustrates the infinite variety of ways to be a feminist mother.

An insightful mix of memoir, feminist history, and how-to, Opting In brings clarity and perspective to the quandaries of feminist mothering, both major and minute, from gendered toys to the child care crisis. Richards -- an unmarried but attached mother of two sons -- artfully forges a new path for finding personal and professional fulfillment within today's mish-mash of conflicting attitudes about parenting.

RH Reality Check sat down with Richards in San Francisco to discuss her latest "baby."

Laura Barcella: What sparked your interest in writing this book?

Amy Richards: I wanted to talk about the relationship between mothers and feminism. It's an interesting time for these issues. Feminism of the ‘70s was based on women trying to free themselves from traditional roles - looking back, there's a big difference from one generation to the next. Thirty years ago, women became feminists after they were mothers; today it's the opposite. In past generations, when you talked about motherhood you were also talking about marriage, but today we're not imagining kids and marriage as [automatically] interconnected.

Women today are confused about what qualifies them to be feminists; they wonder, "If I want [motherhood], am I still a feminist?" They are wondering how they can have kids and still be true to themselves... I see lots of confident women who thought they wanted to be successful, then found it hard to be as successful as they wanted to be [so they decided to have kids].

When I was thinking about writing this book, the Sylvia Ann Hewlett controversy was in full effect. What was missing was women's own choice. Most women weren't making very genuine choices...they felt trapped. Women are frustrated by their female peers living in feminist idealism and then going out and buying Volvos or getting steady jobs... they had been so progressive until they had kids!

LB: You write about Hewlett's controversial book Creating a Life, and the backlash that surrounded her claims that 20- and 30-something women should "hurry up" if they want to have kids. How did your attitude change as you wrote your book?

AR: Initially I misunderstood her to be saying that every [woman] should want to have babies, now. Then I reread it. What she was really saying was that if women want to have babies, they need to think about it sooner rather than later. I became more sympathetic [to Hewlett's message]. No one wants to use ART [Assisted Reproductive Technology] to have children; most want to have their own biological children. If that's what most women want, it's lying to tell them that it's safe to put it off until their late thirties/forties.

So many women thought ART would always be an option, but it's not an indefinite option. Once I started asking women about their birth stories, I realized how unsympathetic to women it is to tell them, "wait; you can [have kids] later." In their early thirties, women should be starting to ask themselves, "Do I want kids?" Know what your options are before you're in a vulnerable or desperate place.

LB: What are some of the myths you uncovered about single moms?

AR: There's a lot of mythologizing about single celebrities having kids.

A single mom raised me, and I never met my dad. It's inspiring that women today are deciding to be single moms. Parenting is about expectations. What keeps you down is expectations - I have seen more frustrated parents in two-person households than single parents. Single women are more thankful for what they get.

There is also more general sympathy for single moms now -- people are more willing to help them out. What they need is help -- but not necessarily in a conventional way. They need to be able to ask for seats on the subway, or ask for help in taking their boots off at night. Being pregnant can be the only time that women feel comfortable asking for what they need.

LB: What are some of the prevailing myths about how it differs being a single white woman vs. being a single mom of color?

AR: There's more of a division around economics than race when it comes to single motherhood.

Middle class mothers are more caught up in figuring out the right or wrong way to parent. But most kids don't need as much material or financial success; they need love and support. For most middle class women, it's hard to choose a "poor woman's route" - single motherhood -- which isn't as respected by society. People don't always think single motherhood is a choice. But because there is less expectation placed on poor single moms, they're not as likely to buy into that.

The biggest myth is about what their decision is going to cost. People are more supportive of white single moms; we're doing everything we can to prevent poor women from reproducing, yet we have no concern about white women doing that. But the middle-class four-person family does more damage to government resources than the poor kids. Why aren't we putting pressure on wealthier families to only have one kid? Why aren't their choices ever questioned?

LB: You write about your belief that feminism isn't necessarily associated with motherhood because it's been overshadowed by the abortion debate. Can you explain?

AR: What's known as the reproductive rights movement (i.e. Planned Parenthood) thinks that if they say something is "pro-choice," that it means pro any choice [for women and mothers]. Theoretically, I believe them, but choice has become so closely equated with abortion. People have lots of discomfort with abortion, pitting women against each other. We need to be more honest about what's at play. Abortion is a beleaguered right. A lot of the reproductive rights debate is still about 70s-era reproductive choices - "abortion stops a beating heart" vs. "no it doesn't." But the more we indulge reproductive technology, the more we need to indulge abortion.

LB: How did your politics change after giving birth to your two sons?

AR: Parenting is more of a liberal art than a science. As much as you want to be passionate [about raising your kids according to your politics], it's not black and white. It's not that clean. Kids force you to be more honest; they challenge you.

Before I seriously considered having kids, I thought kids were about nurture more than nature. I thought "no trucks; no blue or pink or dolls." Then I realized how pointless that kind of bean-counting is.

Instead, I try to subtly disrupt their thinking. My role as a parent is not to control their choices, but to protect and inform them so they make good choices on their own.

LB: Do you have any advice on how to raise children in a more gender-neutral fashion?

AR: In my house, I try not to make Peter [my boyfriend] be the disciplinarian, and I try to avoid being the comforter. But they still call for Mommy [when they're hurt]... Parents owe it to their kids to show them their vulnerabilities, but not in the way that moms will tell their daughters they're beautiful, and then comment on feeling fat.

LB: How does the childfree by choice movement fit into modern feminism?

AR: People think childfree people are lying when they say they don't want kids, or they think they had abusive childhoods...

It's been hard for feminists to promote the choice to be childfree because of all the obvious assumptions. People's reasons for wanting kids in the past aren't as relevant today. In the past it was about giving them identity and legitimacy; thirty years ago, people needed kids to justify their purpose in life. We still have kids to extend our own mortality.

LB: What's the biggest threat to feminist moms?

AR: Lack of confidence in their choices. For instance, moms don't always take paid leave because they think you're "not supposed to" do it. They also obsess about things like having the right hospitals, strollers, vaccinations, and schools. This competitiveness becomes hostile to women; they see other mothers' different choices as a condemnation of their own choices. They fear being judged by other mothers.

Hagee's Church of Easy Answers

Amanda Marcotte — Wed, 07 May 2008 08:35:00 -0400

With all the controversy over Obama's minister Rev. Wright dominating mainstream media, some astute political observers are wondering why John McCain's big time buddy John Hagee of San Antonio isn't receiving the same breathless coverage. After all, Hagee made a name for himself in D.C. by promoting Christian Zionism, a wacked-out religious ideology that promotes an extreme form of Zionism, that Hagee and others belive is necessary to bring the End Times they think the Bible prophesies. Luckily, some people are beginning to dig, including the current Rolling Stone gonzo journalist Matt Taibbi, who went undercover in Hagee's church, pretending to be a new convert.

The article is a must-read, and not just because Taibbi, in desperation, concocts a story about being raised by an alcoholic clown in order to survive gender-segregated group meetings with his cover intact. For those unaware how far gone Christian fundamentalism has gone now that it's become a branch of the right wing revolution, this article will be a splash of cold water to the face. For instance, speaking in tongues, once the art of a select few believers, has become a mandatory part of worship at Hagee's church. So is undergoing demon explusions, in which people fling themselves violently to the floor, play-acting at expelling demons inside that cause everything from homosexual longings to cancer to anal fissures.

But what struck me as most relevant for the purposes of reproductive rights activists--who no doubt will immediately read the Taibbi article, since the parishioners he infiltrates are our opposition--is the pathetic masculinity issues that permeate the worship. The broken souls that gravitate to Hagee's church and many like them (who then hit the streets as anti-choice, anti-sexual health protestors who pressure the government to institute abstinence-only education and to ban same-sex marriage) aren't drawn by the promise of salvation as promised in the gospel of Jesus Christ. You can get that at your staid, regular-sized (as opposed to mega) church down the street, the church that mostly stays out of politics. The allure of modern fundamentalist Christianity, on the other hand, is salvation through stratified gender roles. Jesus Christ won't just save your soul, but make your erections just that much more erect.

One of the implicit promises of the church is that following its program will restore to you your vigor, confidence and assertiveness, effecting, among other things, a marked and obvious physical transformation from crippled lost soul to hearty vessel of God. That's one of the reasons that it's so important for the pastors to look healthy, lusty and lustrous - they're appearing as the "after" photo in the ongoing advertisement for the church wellness cure.

In these Southern churches there are few wizened old sages such as one might find among Catholic bishops or Russian startsi. Here your church leader is an athlete, a business dynamo, a champion eater with a bull's belly, outwardly a tireless heterosexual...

It certainly explains why the modern fundamentalist church treats abortion and birth control--never once mentioned in the Bible--and homosexuality (mentioned in the rules-heavy parts of the Bible that also condemn cutting your hair and eating cheeseburgers, parts that Jesus explicitly denied had relevance for the modern believer) like the most grievous sins and threats to humanity imaginable.

The vicious cycle goes something like this: Otherwise hard-working men find that you just can't stretch a dollar like you used to. They feel emasculated, especially in comparison to their fathers, who often had two cars, a mortgage, and a housewife on the salary of just one worker. While the correct solution is to demand a return to the liberal economic policies of the mid-twentieth century that created that prosperity, this solution overwhelms. But here's your local megachurch fundamentalists offering an easy solution to feel like the man you thought you could be. You can't afford to be a breadwinner, but you can hang onto straight male privilege! Every woman deprived of her reproductive rights, every gay person deprived of the right to marry suddenly makes you look so much stronger, so much more manly in comparison. You've got a boot on your neck, but as long as you apply yours to someone else's, you aren't the bottom of the heap.

Of course for women that won't work, but there's another story just for them. It's the story of a time when women lived free of financial worry or the stress of ambition, living gleeful lives of low-stress industrious housewifery with complete dedication to familial subservience creating sheer bliss. Reproductive rights are then a dangerous drug, access to fleeting pleasure that will deprive women of real, stable happiness from male-dependent security. Never mind that even June Cleaver only had two children. Perhaps those who achieve true housewife bliss finally overcome sexual desire? Becoming a true woman is like being a Level 8 Scientologist perhaps; the goal on the horizon seems far off, but you continue to strive because you've heard there are superhuman powers at the end of the line.

Easy answers permeate this church, as is evidenced by the belief that nearly every ill imaginable is the result of demons lurking under the skin, left there by generational curses put on you by parental and grandparental sin. Open your mouth and vomit out your demons and all your problems will go away. No wonder then it's easy to believe that all gays have to do is just pray the gay away or that women with unplanned pregnancies are just delusional if they think their circumstances come with real world problems. Just vomit out your demons! It's easy; you don't need an abortion. Vomit out the demon of no health insurance or vomit out the demon of not wanting to be a mother at 15. The only demon you can't vomit out, it seems, is the demon that makes the pregnancy persist against your will. In this much, we all agree, it will require a doctor's intervention to expunge the undesired condition.