Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
I am vexed.
Okay, so as a disclaimer, I never meant for this little blog to be particularly political, but I can't help myself today because I am mad. Please comment, as I hope to inspire a commensurate level of angst amongst you ladies. This is partly in response to Megha's post about pregnancy planning amongst women in their 20s, though largely unrelated to the questions she was posing.
A few days ago I found out an organization formerly known as CRACK has set up shop down in the Gulf Coast. For those of you who haven't heard of CRACK, now packaged as "Project Prevention" and sometimes as "Positive Prevention," this organization and its coterie of employees are stationed all over the country, bribing drug addicted women with $200-$300 cash to get sterilized. That's right, they hand out cash on the spot to addicts. As a journalist from the Hartford Courant notes, "why not just skip a step and hand out rocks of crack?" Barbara Harris, the organization's founder contends, "If they spend the $200 on drugs, they spend it on drugs. It's none of our business what they do with the money we give them." And, it should come as no surprise, that their services and their green are targeted toward poor, black women. Their organization takes no interest in directing these women towards treatment clinics where they might recover from their addiction; rather they are specific in their goal of sterilizing drug users. Perhaps you've seen the billboard ads: "Don't let a pregnancy ruin your drug habit" and "Addicted to drugs? Get $200!"
Ms. Harris used to talk about "crack babies" as a scourge on the taxpayer, the government, and society in general, and she discussed her efforts as a favor being done for each of those groups. But recently she has begun to frame the effects of her work as benefiting the addict whom she is paying off. No longer does she advocate for punishing addicted mothers or compare them to dogs (as she did in a 1998 interview: "We don't allow dogs to breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children"). Instead, she appears sympathetic to women, choosing instead to lament the cycle of shame that plagues drug-using women whose children are taken away from them. But don't be misled by her rebranding; this is still a woman who once advocated jailing women who exposed their fetuses to drugs. Her and her cronies have had some success, as evidenced by prosecutions of drug using pregnant women for fetal homicide here in Mississippi and several other states, most notably Regina McKnight's case in South Carolina. Don't get me wrong - I'm fine with people being punished for breaking the law, and if a person is addicted to illegal substances, then fine the hell out of them and sending them on to mandatory treatment. But to charge a woman with homicide based on behavior that a man can engage in without the threat of any comparable penalty stinks of sex discrimination to me. But I digress.
I bring up this discussion of CRACK (sorry, I refuse to call them by their new euphemism), not because it is a novel topic (actually, they are quite well documented by the press here, here, here, here, here, well...you get the point); not because they have made a widespread impact in poor communities; and not because I see them as a primary target for advocates of pregnant women. Rather, I bring it up because I see this organization's efforts and its rebranding as part of a wider movement that is troubling to me and to which I am in part complicit. I think all women, especially us 20-somethings of reproductive age, ought to pay attention to it.
First, there are the racist and eugenicist foundations of the work they do. It's pretty obvious that CRACK is trying coerce black communities to stop reproducing. Yes, I know people walk into their offices on their own free will, but there is something inherently coercive about enticing someone to perform an act by promising to immediately feed their addiction.
And yet, while I am disgusted with these practices, I allow the same type of population control to perpetuate in less easily observable, though equally egregious, forms in my own movement. I have little to say when a pro-life protester tells me that abortion is "black genocide" when I know that the abortion rate amongst black women is three times that of white women in the U.S. As any good PR person will tell you, the most effective pieces of propaganda are reflective of the truth. Similarly, it is a problem that clinics in poor neighborhoods are advocating long term birth control solutions such as the Depo Provera (the shot) or IUDs to women more often than health care providers in middle class communities. And that my doctor's office in the Delta who served only the poor, black community in the town, handed out free birth control like they were breathmints, without requiring so much as a consultation with a nurse or doctor.
Please don't misconstrue what I say; I think it is important for all communities of people regardless of income level or race to have access to birth control and all methods of family planning, and there should be no shame in accessing those services. And I understand that many accept that family planning services are targeted toward poor communities because having lots of children keeps you and your children poor. But at what point are our "choices" forced upon us? There is a fine line here, and I hope me and the movement to which I have dedicated myself is on the right side of it.
In negotiating my feelings about this issue, I find myself shifting my attention to the side of the spectrum of choices I always supported but largely ignored in my actions: a woman's choice to carry her pregnancy to term. Under this umbrella fall issues such as affordable and good quality pre- and postnatal care, adequate and affordable childcare options, prenatal education, SCHIP, autonomy over how and where to birth, pregnancy prosecutions and other pregnancy discrimination issues such as forced leave or lightened duty, paid maternity leave and family leave. I am waiting for the day when my movement will actually become active around these issues and support women through every stop on their reproductive road trip, not just the ones under constant attack. (I should say, that there are organizations out there that are active advocating on behalf of pregnant women; my complaint is that securing those rights is not a widespread goal of the reproductive rights movement at large, and yet it is central to our ideology.)
The reason I posted this on this blog rather than just sending an angry email to my friends, is that believe that pregnant women are becoming more and more vulnerable to attacks on their rights, and that this trend transcends race and class. A couple quick facts:
- The C-Sections rate has risen over 50% in the last decade. Studies have shown that if you are on Medicaid, you are more likely to have a medically unnecessary c-section (hospitals and doctors can bill more for a c-section than they can for a vaginal birth). They also show that if you give birth on a weekend you are more likely, regardless of race or income level, to birth via a medically unnecessary c-section, suggesting that your OB/GYN is more concerned about making his or her tennis match than spending the time on a vaginal birth. Accounts suggest that many of these c-sections are coerced, and hospitals have procured court orders to force c-sections. This happens in public and private hospitals alike.
- Pregnant women who use drugs and live in states with fetal homicide laws (which allow for the prosecution of people responsible for the intentional or unintentional termination of a fetus), as discussed above, are being prosecuted for homicide if their babies are stillborn and traces of drugs are found in their bloodstreams. Women are avoiding necessary prenatal care and maternity care for fear that they will draw attention to their drug use and be thrown in jail.
- As my coworker told me firsthand today, in most of the country, it's impossible to get a job if you're showing a pregnancy. Women's rights organizations have taken this on, and have been successful in prosecuting cases in which women have been fired or forced on maternity leave. But it still remains a fact that walking into an interview with a belly full of baby is enough to convince employers that employing you is just not worth the risk.
- If you already have a job and get pregnant, you can sometimes be forced into early leave or unrequested light duty, even if you are able to perform your normal job functions.
- And if you're not convinced, what's leading cause of death for pregnant and post-partum women? Murder. Try exercising your rights to things like child support with that threat hanging over your head.
There are plenty of other instances in which pregnant women are denied basic rights. I wanted to highlight these few, because, though I enjoy the fluffiness of this blog, I also know that the women who read it, though few in number, are smart, concerned, and generally enlightened. So I thought I'd put it out there, both as an item to stir up some conversation, and to make sure we know what sorts of things our generation of childbearers are up against.
For more info about advocacy on behalf of pregnant women, visit my friends at National Advocates for Pregnant Women.
A few days ago I found out an organization formerly known as CRACK has set up shop down in the Gulf Coast. For those of you who haven't heard of CRACK, now packaged as "Project Prevention" and sometimes as "Positive Prevention," this organization and its coterie of employees are stationed all over the country, bribing drug addicted women with $200-$300 cash to get sterilized. That's right, they hand out cash on the spot to addicts. As a journalist from the Hartford Courant notes, "why not just skip a step and hand out rocks of crack?" Barbara Harris, the organization's founder contends, "If they spend the $200 on drugs, they spend it on drugs. It's none of our business what they do with the money we give them." And, it should come as no surprise, that their services and their green are targeted toward poor, black women. Their organization takes no interest in directing these women towards treatment clinics where they might recover from their addiction; rather they are specific in their goal of sterilizing drug users. Perhaps you've seen the billboard ads: "Don't let a pregnancy ruin your drug habit" and "Addicted to drugs? Get $200!"
Ms. Harris used to talk about "crack babies" as a scourge on the taxpayer, the government, and society in general, and she discussed her efforts as a favor being done for each of those groups. But recently she has begun to frame the effects of her work as benefiting the addict whom she is paying off. No longer does she advocate for punishing addicted mothers or compare them to dogs (as she did in a 1998 interview: "We don't allow dogs to breed. We spay them. We neuter them. We try to keep them from having unwanted puppies, and yet these women are literally having litters of children"). Instead, she appears sympathetic to women, choosing instead to lament the cycle of shame that plagues drug-using women whose children are taken away from them. But don't be misled by her rebranding; this is still a woman who once advocated jailing women who exposed their fetuses to drugs. Her and her cronies have had some success, as evidenced by prosecutions of drug using pregnant women for fetal homicide here in Mississippi and several other states, most notably Regina McKnight's case in South Carolina. Don't get me wrong - I'm fine with people being punished for breaking the law, and if a person is addicted to illegal substances, then fine the hell out of them and sending them on to mandatory treatment. But to charge a woman with homicide based on behavior that a man can engage in without the threat of any comparable penalty stinks of sex discrimination to me. But I digress.
I bring up this discussion of CRACK (sorry, I refuse to call them by their new euphemism), not because it is a novel topic (actually, they are quite well documented by the press here, here, here, here, here, well...you get the point); not because they have made a widespread impact in poor communities; and not because I see them as a primary target for advocates of pregnant women. Rather, I bring it up because I see this organization's efforts and its rebranding as part of a wider movement that is troubling to me and to which I am in part complicit. I think all women, especially us 20-somethings of reproductive age, ought to pay attention to it.
First, there are the racist and eugenicist foundations of the work they do. It's pretty obvious that CRACK is trying coerce black communities to stop reproducing. Yes, I know people walk into their offices on their own free will, but there is something inherently coercive about enticing someone to perform an act by promising to immediately feed their addiction.
And yet, while I am disgusted with these practices, I allow the same type of population control to perpetuate in less easily observable, though equally egregious, forms in my own movement. I have little to say when a pro-life protester tells me that abortion is "black genocide" when I know that the abortion rate amongst black women is three times that of white women in the U.S. As any good PR person will tell you, the most effective pieces of propaganda are reflective of the truth. Similarly, it is a problem that clinics in poor neighborhoods are advocating long term birth control solutions such as the Depo Provera (the shot) or IUDs to women more often than health care providers in middle class communities. And that my doctor's office in the Delta who served only the poor, black community in the town, handed out free birth control like they were breathmints, without requiring so much as a consultation with a nurse or doctor.
Please don't misconstrue what I say; I think it is important for all communities of people regardless of income level or race to have access to birth control and all methods of family planning, and there should be no shame in accessing those services. And I understand that many accept that family planning services are targeted toward poor communities because having lots of children keeps you and your children poor. But at what point are our "choices" forced upon us? There is a fine line here, and I hope me and the movement to which I have dedicated myself is on the right side of it.
In negotiating my feelings about this issue, I find myself shifting my attention to the side of the spectrum of choices I always supported but largely ignored in my actions: a woman's choice to carry her pregnancy to term. Under this umbrella fall issues such as affordable and good quality pre- and postnatal care, adequate and affordable childcare options, prenatal education, SCHIP, autonomy over how and where to birth, pregnancy prosecutions and other pregnancy discrimination issues such as forced leave or lightened duty, paid maternity leave and family leave. I am waiting for the day when my movement will actually become active around these issues and support women through every stop on their reproductive road trip, not just the ones under constant attack. (I should say, that there are organizations out there that are active advocating on behalf of pregnant women; my complaint is that securing those rights is not a widespread goal of the reproductive rights movement at large, and yet it is central to our ideology.)
The reason I posted this on this blog rather than just sending an angry email to my friends, is that believe that pregnant women are becoming more and more vulnerable to attacks on their rights, and that this trend transcends race and class. A couple quick facts:
- The C-Sections rate has risen over 50% in the last decade. Studies have shown that if you are on Medicaid, you are more likely to have a medically unnecessary c-section (hospitals and doctors can bill more for a c-section than they can for a vaginal birth). They also show that if you give birth on a weekend you are more likely, regardless of race or income level, to birth via a medically unnecessary c-section, suggesting that your OB/GYN is more concerned about making his or her tennis match than spending the time on a vaginal birth. Accounts suggest that many of these c-sections are coerced, and hospitals have procured court orders to force c-sections. This happens in public and private hospitals alike.
- Pregnant women who use drugs and live in states with fetal homicide laws (which allow for the prosecution of people responsible for the intentional or unintentional termination of a fetus), as discussed above, are being prosecuted for homicide if their babies are stillborn and traces of drugs are found in their bloodstreams. Women are avoiding necessary prenatal care and maternity care for fear that they will draw attention to their drug use and be thrown in jail.
- As my coworker told me firsthand today, in most of the country, it's impossible to get a job if you're showing a pregnancy. Women's rights organizations have taken this on, and have been successful in prosecuting cases in which women have been fired or forced on maternity leave. But it still remains a fact that walking into an interview with a belly full of baby is enough to convince employers that employing you is just not worth the risk.
- If you already have a job and get pregnant, you can sometimes be forced into early leave or unrequested light duty, even if you are able to perform your normal job functions.
- And if you're not convinced, what's leading cause of death for pregnant and post-partum women? Murder. Try exercising your rights to things like child support with that threat hanging over your head.
There are plenty of other instances in which pregnant women are denied basic rights. I wanted to highlight these few, because, though I enjoy the fluffiness of this blog, I also know that the women who read it, though few in number, are smart, concerned, and generally enlightened. So I thought I'd put it out there, both as an item to stir up some conversation, and to make sure we know what sorts of things our generation of childbearers are up against.
For more info about advocacy on behalf of pregnant women, visit my friends at National Advocates for Pregnant Women.
Friday, July 4, 2008
What is the #1 Thing 20-Something Women are not supposed to talk about? Babies!
Hello Lovely Ladies,
Happy 4th!
As an ardent admirer of the the smart and insightful women who contribute and participate in this blog, I'd like to first say thank you helping me feel a little bit less crazy and ridiculous as a woman in my 20's! Appreciate it...
Because I'm a snively marketing person, I've also decided to use you women as a focus group or audience for my own benefit....
I'm taking an introductory Anthropology course this summer - and I've been charged with taking on my own research assignment from an anthropological point of view. I'm thrilled! (No really, I am.)
I wanted to share my abstract with all of you and get a general feel for your opinions, thoughts, questions, comments, love notes, anything in general in reaction to it. I think it's especially pertinent to 20-something women and would love to hear what you think.
I've apprehensively decided to approach the whole topic of child-birth. (which I believe makes all twenty something women batty in one way or another...) I really want to understand this, what it means to different women, of varying backgrounds, goals, and beliefs. Even if you're not a New Yorker, hope this topic strikes a chord with you and elicits a response!
It's not a totally brilliant abstract, yet. I know that I'm leaving out many other external influencers, but not sure what all of them are yet...This is me trying once again to make sense of my world as a twenty something. I really appreciate your time and response. Be brutally honest. Thank you ladies!!
Abstract:
Abstract:
Today's world has afforded women more options and more opportunities than generations of women before us. We can travel all over the world, with whomever we want, live with men or women, have children or not have children - so many options. Many sociologists would say the biggest driver of all this change, globally, is the education of women. Women everywhere are now educated to high levels, in a variety of fields, especially in urban environments. Many interesting questions emerge from all of this - but mainly I'm interested in the attitudes and values educated women have concerning childbirth and childrearing.
To date, I've been surrounded by talented and highly educated women (undergraduate degrees and beyond) in business related fields. Most are charging ahead professionally. However, I hypothesize that there is a distinct correlation between higher education levels of women and beliefs about delaying childbirth, specifically in New York City. Women believe that they need to fulfill their professional goals first, and put their personal life plans on hold. New Yorker women plan (or in some cases, do not plan) to have children after age 35. Despite being highly educated, maybe these women are not accounting for biology. Biologically, there are increased risks for many diseases and disabilities for newborns with mothers over age 35. I wonder how many women know this or really believe it? What is their threshold for success? Is it worth it to become President or head of your firm, and then have a risky pregnancy? Does having a family mean success? If not, what does?
Using a survey methodology to test attitudes of educated, working female New Yorkers and second hand research, I will analyze this question in greater detail.
Happy 4th!
As an ardent admirer of the the smart and insightful women who contribute and participate in this blog, I'd like to first say thank you helping me feel a little bit less crazy and ridiculous as a woman in my 20's! Appreciate it...
Because I'm a snively marketing person, I've also decided to use you women as a focus group or audience for my own benefit....
I'm taking an introductory Anthropology course this summer - and I've been charged with taking on my own research assignment from an anthropological point of view. I'm thrilled! (No really, I am.)
I wanted to share my abstract with all of you and get a general feel for your opinions, thoughts, questions, comments, love notes, anything in general in reaction to it. I think it's especially pertinent to 20-something women and would love to hear what you think.
I've apprehensively decided to approach the whole topic of child-birth. (which I believe makes all twenty something women batty in one way or another...) I really want to understand this, what it means to different women, of varying backgrounds, goals, and beliefs. Even if you're not a New Yorker, hope this topic strikes a chord with you and elicits a response!
It's not a totally brilliant abstract, yet. I know that I'm leaving out many other external influencers, but not sure what all of them are yet...This is me trying once again to make sense of my world as a twenty something. I really appreciate your time and response. Be brutally honest. Thank you ladies!!
Abstract:
"Do you want to have children?
Yeah sure, I'll get to it ... later."
Yeah sure, I'll get to it ... later."
Today's world has afforded women more options and more opportunities than generations of women before us. We can travel all over the world, with whomever we want, live with men or women, have children or not have children - so many options. Many sociologists would say the biggest driver of all this change, globally, is the education of women. Women everywhere are now educated to high levels, in a variety of fields, especially in urban environments. Many interesting questions emerge from all of this - but mainly I'm interested in the attitudes and values educated women have concerning childbirth and childrearing.
To date, I've been surrounded by talented and highly educated women (undergraduate degrees and beyond) in business related fields. Most are charging ahead professionally. However, I hypothesize that there is a distinct correlation between higher education levels of women and beliefs about delaying childbirth, specifically in New York City. Women believe that they need to fulfill their professional goals first, and put their personal life plans on hold. New Yorker women plan (or in some cases, do not plan) to have children after age 35. Despite being highly educated, maybe these women are not accounting for biology. Biologically, there are increased risks for many diseases and disabilities for newborns with mothers over age 35. I wonder how many women know this or really believe it? What is their threshold for success? Is it worth it to become President or head of your firm, and then have a risky pregnancy? Does having a family mean success? If not, what does?
Using a survey methodology to test attitudes of educated, working female New Yorkers and second hand research, I will analyze this question in greater detail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
