The Personhood Movement: Laws in Action

If the Personhood Amendment passes in Mississippi on November 8, the results could be devastating. Birth control pills could be illegal, along with contraceptives. In vitro fertilization, a procedure that has assisted countless couples in their desire for children, could cease to exist. Stem cell research that could provide cures for many diseases could disappear completely.

On September 9 of this year, a piece was published on the Clarion Ledger’s website discussing the possible consequences. Rims Barber writes,

If embryos are people, is the freezing of embryos considered child abuse? If so, what is the role of the Department of Human Services?

…

Does this Amendment apply only to embryos conceived in the state of Mississippi, or to any embryo entering the state (having been conceived elsewhere)? If they are transported to another state do they lose their personhood? Citizenship?

…

If more than five unrelated embryos/persons are housed in a single building, will it have to be licensed as a child residential care home?

In Pearl, there is an ordinance limiting occupancy to two persons in a bedroom. If a pregnant woman is two people, can she be in the same bed as her husband?

…

Effective treatment of tubal pregnancies, severe preeclampsia, and molar gestation could be prevented.

New stem cell treatments for patients with Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's disease, and cancers like leukemia and choriocarcinoma would also be at risk.

While many of these potential results sound ridiculous, the language of the initiative is so vague and open-ended, almost anything is possible.

Similar laws have already caused problems for pregnant women. Rennie Gibbs, a Mississippi woman, lost a baby in 2006. Her baby was stillborn, 36 weeks into the pregnancy. Prosecutors discovered that she had a history of cocaine use, and charged her with “depraved-heart murder” of her child. However, there was no medical evidencethat her cocaine use had anything to do with the stillbirth. None.

Another woman, Bei Bei Shuai, was also charged with the murder of her child. When she attempted suicide, she was pregnant. Her child was born a week later, and died four days after that. She was charged with “murder and attempted foeticide and she has been in custody since without the offer of bail.”

These cases have been brought to court under “foetal homicide laws,” which make it a crime for a third-party to end a woman’s pregnancy. Basically, the law is meant to protect a woman who was beaten and survived while her pregnancy did not. However, it’s being used instead to criminalize the pregnant woman instead.

And this is without the personhood amendment. 


We cannot let this amendment pass and put countless women's rights beneath those of unborn children, or as the case could often be, zygotes and fertilized eggs. 


Stand up for women everywhere and vote no.

The Personhood Movement and Women's Rights

As a woman and a feminist living in Mississippi, I have to comment on the personhood movement and the upcoming vote in November for Amendment 26. In this post, I discuss a short history of women’s reproductive rights in the United States, and how the personhood movement is a threat to all women, no matter their stance on abortion. In later posts, I hope to cover other issues related to this movement, reproductive rights, and the upcoming vote.

If asked, the average woman in the US today would probably say that an abortion is a legal option for any woman with an unwanted pregnancy. Unless, of course, that woman is of low-income, without health insurance, or both. Or, if that woman is a minor afraid to speak to her parents. Or, if that woman has been given inaccurate information about what an abortion is and does. Yeah, other than that, perfectly available option.

Obviously, the right to choose is not that. The right to choose barely exists. Many people feel that the 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wadewas the victory for women’s reproductive rights. But ever since that decision, politicians, anti-choice groups and activists have been taking away those same rights, bit by bit.

Roe v. Wade ultimately granted the right to have a legal abortion because the Court decided that this fell under the right to privacy (established by Eisenstadt v. Baird in 1972). The decision stated that the "right of privacy…is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

However, the first strike against this right came just three years later, with the Hyde Amendment. This amendment took abortions out of Medicaid health plans. As any other medical procedure, an abortion is expensive; if it’s not covered by health insurance, most low-income women have no access to it. They can either risk an unsafe, cheap abortion or carry the pregnancy to term. Strike one.

Also in 1976, Maher v. Roe was decided in South Carolina. The courts ruled that the state was not required to pay for abortions and hospitals were not required to perform them. Women would simply have to search around for someone willing to do it. Strike two.

In the 1970s and 80s, laws were passed putting more restrictions on abortions. Now, women had to have the permission of a husband, wait 24 hours before having the procedure, attend mandatory counseling in which they are encouraged not to have the abortion, and, if a minor, gain consent of a parent. Strike three. And four. And five…. I’ve lost count.

Today, the personhood movement is attempting to strip away even more rights granted by Roe. Amendment 26 aims to define life as beginning at the moment of conception. This would make abortions murder. But worse than that, by defining life in this way, we could lose birth control pills, contraceptives, in vitro fertilization. Women suffering miscarriages could be charged (and have been) with murder or manslaughter. If doctors had to choose between saving a pregnancy and saving the woman, they could end up “murderers” either way.

While the personhood movement wants to criminalize abortion, the potential consequences are far wider and deeper. More than the right to an abortion is at stake here. The right to plan a family is at stake. The right to hold off childbearing while getting through school or starting a career is at stake.

Pro-choice activists (a group I count myself in) have to stop arguing for abortion in extreme cases. It’s so easy to say, “What about the pregnant rape victim? The pregnant incest victim? Shouldn’t they have the right to an abortion, or the morning after pill?” Yes, they should. But all women should have the right to plan, and time, their families as they choose. We have to argue for all women who want control over their lives and their bodies. We have to argue for the right to live in this world as we want to. As Gloria Feldt wrote in her book War on Choice: The Right-Wing Attack on Women’s Rights and How to Fight Back:


       Having the right to choose determines whether women will find an equal place at life’s table, whether children will be truly valued, and whether everyone’s personal liberties, privacy, and bodily integrity will be safeguarded.

Cristina Yang and the Right to Choose

This week I had my wisdom teeth taken out. Why is this important? Well, because I had a lot of free time. As a result, I have now watched the entire seventh season of Grey's Anatomy. And an issue came up in the final episodes that really hit home for me. *WARNING: spoilers ahead if you haven't finished season 7.*

Cristina and Owen have recently gotten married. After the wedding they realize they have a major problem: Owen wants kids, Cristina doesn't. And in the final episode, Cristina finds out that she's pregnant. When she and Owen can't agree, she goes ahead and makes an appointment for an abortion.

I've written before about the choice to remain childless, and I'm not going to repeat that argument. Instead, I'd like to discuss how the show portrayed this situation.



Cristina has always said that she doesn't want children. Owen says to her that she might change her mind, that they can revisit the idea in a few years. And then, when he learns of her pregnancy, he's excited. He begs her to reconsider, to take time and think it over. Cristina, however, will not budge.

The way Cristina argues for her side is what really impressed me. She says, over and over, "I don't want to be a mother." It's not that she's not capable; it's just not something she wants for her life. She says, "I'm not a monster; if I had a baby I would love it." Owen asks her to compromise with him. She points out that this decision is not like choosing pizza or pasta for dinner. She says that this is a part of her and she cannot compromise.

I really love the way she sticks to what is important for her. She is, as Owen points out, in a partnership. There are two people with two voices and opinions that have to be heard and considered. However, she sees parenting as too big of a decision to enter into as a compromise. Ultimately, she would be compromising her body, her life, her career; she is not willing do that for another person, even the person she loves.

I'm glad that she show is portraying a woman who wants control over her body and her life without putting her in tragic circumstances. It's so easy to argue for "right to choose" by bringing up victimes of rape or incest who have become pregnant. Cristina is not a victim. Her health is not endangered by the pregnancy. She's capable of carrying a pregnancy to term and raising a child. She simply does not want to. And this, in my opinion, is why we fight for the right to choose. It's the right to control your own life. It's the right to space your children how you want to, the right to put off parenting until later, the right to not be a parent at all.

In the next few posts, I'm going to be discussing an issue that's directly related to this. On November 8, in Mississippi, we will be voting on Initiative 26. If passed, the initiative will define a person's life as beginning at the moment of conception. This could have all sorts of repercussions, beyond the obvious of making abortion illegal. It could also get rid of birth control, in vitro fertilization, and could even lead to women who suffer miscarriages being charged with murder or manslaughter. I plan to look at how women's reproductive rights have gotten stripped away since the 1973 passing of Roe v. Wade, and the serious consequences we face if we don't fight back now.

Check back in the next few weeks for more!


**Update (with spoilers!): I just watched the first two episodes of the current season (thank you hulu!) and Cristina does have the abortion, and Owen stands by her. The story was brilliantly done: Meredith tries to explain to Owen what it's like to be the unwanted child of a surgeon, and Owen understands that he fell in love with Cristina for who she is and not who he wants her to be. The best part was that the writers allowed Cristina to be sad, even when making the decision she knows is right. Because it is sad. Knowing that you should have an abortion doesn't mean it's an easy thing to do, especially when your partner wants the child. Anyway, I won't write more about it, because Feministing already covered it beautifully, but I just wanted to update this post.

The Problem of Sex Euphemisms

There are the metaphors your parents used: The birds and the bees. Rounding the bases. Going all the way.

There are the metaphors your friends used: Get some. Get it in. Make it. The in and out. Get laid. Bump and grind. Do it. Get busy.

There are the metaphors that imply male domination and leave out the woman's agency and/or desire (though these can also be used by women to leave out the man, it just happens less often): Bang. Nail. Screw. Pound. Mount. Get into one's pants. Getting some ass.



Now, before I begin explaining the problems with some of these metaphors, let me say that I am not against using euphemisms for sex. They can be fun, convenient (and funny) when in a public place, and downright gross/hilarious/both. Even trying to come up with more for that intro, I had fun going through a website with a ton of euphemisms listed. But the intention of the post is to explain the problem that arises when most (or all) of our sex conversations revolve around euphemisms that explain nothing about the mechanics, pleasures, and/or risks of having sex.

I was fairly sheltered from sex growing up. As I've expressed before, I knew very little to nothing about female masturbation and female pleasure during sex. I also knew very little about the act of sex itself. Hearing people talk about different bases confused me. For one thing, I've heard more than one variation on what each base is.

The Bases of Sex, A: 1st base = making out, 2nd base = heavy petting above the waist, 3rd base = heavy petting below the waist (I'm assuming this was another way of saying hand jobs and the like), 4th base = sex.

The Bases of Sex, B: 1st base = making out, 2nd base= heavy petting above and below the waist, 3rd base = oral sex, 4th base = intercourse.

The Bases of Sex, C: 1st base = heavy petting above the waist, 2nd base = heavy petting below the waist, 3rd base = oral sex, 4th base = intercourse.

In the first version, the one I was most familiar with growing up, oral sex isn't even mentioned. Where does it fit in? Do we count it as sex, or do we count it as 3rd base? Many of my friends and I still don't agree on this (and if we can't define sex, how can we define our boundaries or our desires?).

Now, the variations between these different versions seem fairly small, but they can also very big consequences. Imagine a girl who only knows to know talk about sex (or who is only comfortable talking about sex) within the baseball euphemism. Maybe she tells the guy she's on a date with that she doesn't want to go beyond second base. What's his definition for 2nd base? What's hers? What if his definition goes "too far" for what she meant to agree to? Or, what if her definition goes too far for him?

When most of our conversations, especially those we have with young children and teens, are spoken in this sort of code, we are doing our children a huge disservice. Having a talk about the birds and bees says nothing about men and women (and doesn't make any sense!!!). Telling your daughters (or sons) not to go beyond a certain base may leave them uncertain about what happens at that "base," or what the possibilities and risks are at later "bases."

Many people are saying that parents should teach their young children the proper names for their body parts (penis, vagina) instead of euphemisms (tallywacker [the one my dad was taught], private place) so that they can better understand and speak up if/when they have been violated. How can you tell your parents you've been molested if you're just a three-year-old with a pee-wee?

This same logic should apply to how we discuss sex with children and teens. We should be explaining what sex is, how it works, how it's good and how it's risky. We should explain pleasurable alternatives to sex (my mother once told my sister that "mutual masturbation" was the safest bet; we're still working out what exactly she meant by this but we've narrowed it down to two theories).

If you don't want your teen ending up with an unwanted pregnancy or an STD, they need to understand what it actually means to round the bases and go all the way. Euphemisms are only fun when you actually know what they're explaining.

Let's be honest: phrases like "fill the cream donut" and "part the pink sea" are only funny (and disgusting) when you know exactly what they're describing.

Stop Acting So Crazy!

Today, a friend or two on Facebook posted this article on their wall, and I immediately needed to share it. This is an article written by a man explaining how men in our society have been socialized to treat women's normal emotions (anger, frustration, sadness, etc.) as "crazy" and "irrational," you know, because emotions are just so feminine. Since the article is titled "A Message to Women From A Man: You Are Not 'Crazy,' " you can guess where the author's opinions lie.

This article is so refreshing! It's really great to see a man understanding, and speaking out about, the deeply ingrained misogyny in our society (and though I know it happens, I still love seeing a man openly identifying as a feminist). Many men (though I am not saying all), even those who see themselves as progressive and forward-thinking, tend to fall back on this kind of reaction to women's emotions.



Men and women have been socialized to feel and express emotion totally different.** Women are taught to be passive, more in touch with their "feminine" emotions and their expressions (like feeling sad and then crying) while men are taught to "man up" and express as little emotion as possible. So it makes sense that men see women's emotional reactions as abnormal or different (just like when women don't understand men's seeming lack of emotion). Any one man by himself is not at fault for not understanding a woman's emotions at any given time.

The problem really comes in with the way our culture created and reinforces the idea that women's reactions are not just different from men's, but "crazy" and "irrational." How many movies have you seen where a man discusses his "crazy" ex-girlfriend who constantly "freaked" out about nothing? This stereotype associates natural emotion with mental illness, instability, and illogical thinking. It's a terrible way to think about the women of the world (and a terrible stereotype that undermines and ignores the many, many people of the world who have mental illness and can cope and lead stable lives).

I would write more about this, but honestly, the article that inspired this post is written so well, I really suggest you read it in its entirety. However, don't read the comments after; surprise, surprise, they are filled with misogynist reactions attempting to undermine the author's piece.



**I would just like to point out that when I discuss men's emotions and women's emotions as categories, I am talking about two things: 1. the way these gender groups are socialized to feel and express emotions and 2. the way that members of each of these gender groups tend to express emotions. I recognize that every person feels and expresses emotion differently, and many people may not fit solidly into one, or either, of these categories. I am simply using the categories as they are used in society to reinforce these stereotypes.



Update: Just discovered this follow-up to the original article. Here he specifically responds to the misogynistic comments the first post received. I love it!! I think I'm gonna start following this blog.

The Fab Five: Representation Revolution or Standard Stereotypes?

When it was on air, I loved the 2003 Bravo reality show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Loved. For one thing, it was so exciting to see gay men on TV, and not only were they accepted by everyone they worked with,  but they were also the authority on the show: they were more knowledgable because they were gay! This was pretty new.

Looking at films and TV shows, gay characters definitely have more representation than ever; but does any representation mean good representation? In many movies today, especially light movies like romantic comedies, the "gay best friend" is often present. (A gay man of course; because we all know that lesbians are butch, and don't like feminine things like fashion and shopping, and therefore are not useful to straight women.) Does this really represent gay men? Of course not, it's based on a stereotype and is not helpful to the gay community. I remember being in middle school/high school and saying "I really need a gay best friend." But did I really want a friend? Or a gossiping and shopping sidekick? As someone in a class of mine put it, the gay man has become, in popular culture, a necessary accessory for every straight girl. No real depth, no well-rounded interests, just shopping and gossiping and makeovers. And witty comments.



Recently, I thought about Queer Eye for the first time in a long time. When writing my previous post on Chaz Bono, I mentioned Carson Kressley, another current contestant on Dancing with the Stars, and former star of Queer Eye, which got me thinking about it. The show was a favorite of mine once upon a time. But even though I loved the show, I have to wonder: was it just perpetuating the sassy-gay-best-friend-who-loves-to-shop-and-is-a-necessary-accessory-for-every-straight-girl stereotype?

Let's break it down: a typical make-over (though they called it a "make-better") show with gay men as the authorities. The "Fab Five" consisted of Carson (fashion guru), Ted (food and wine), Thom (interior design), Kyan (grooming), and Jay (culture vulture (the most vague job on the show!)). Each queer man helped the straight guy (though later, I just learned, the show expanded to "making better" women and gay men) with an aspect of his life. The gay men were also at varying levels of, what shall we say?, flamboyance. I always appreciated that aspect of the show; they weren't all stereotypes with high pitched voices, squealing and talking about fashion dos and don'ts. Kyan was the one we always referred to as the "straight one;" he didn't look or dress like a stereotypical gay man, he had a deep voice, he didn't squeal, etc. Ted and Thom also came across as less stereotypical or flamboyant than Jay and especially Carson.

For starters, the difference in personalities made for non-stereotypical gay personas. And, in the context of the show, the gay men were more than merely accessories, they were authorities. The show was both dealing in, and playing with, the stereotype that gay men know more about fashion and grooming than straight men. The gay men came in and told the straight men how to dress, decorate their homes, cook, etc. But they weren't all about making the men "fabulous;" often, they were focused on making the men neater, healthier, more professional/adult looking and dressing, and more well-rounded in their hobbies/ interests (culture vulture alert!).

What I also liked about this show was that many of the show's participants seemed to be uncomfortable with the gay men at the beginning of each episode. While I'm guessing that outright homophobia might have disqualified men from being contestants, there were plenty of standard heterosexual male "they can be gay as long as they don't hit on me/ touch me/ make me see it" attitudes that usually seemed to disappear by the end of the episode. Now, maybe this was scripted in, but even if it was, I still liked it. It sent an outright message to viewers: Spending time with actual, and varied, homosexuals can break down homophobia and discomfort, and lead to better understanding. Cheesy? Sure. But needed in our culture and on our TVs? Definitely!

While the overall premise of the show seems to be a stereotype, my conclusion is that this show was still great, and the content of the episodes was much more complex than simple cliches. I still love it and would love to re-watch it (while doing research for this post, I tried to find some episodes to rewatch online, but I couldn't! Bravo, if you're reading this, please fix this!). I think Queer Eye was still pretty groundbreaking in its featuring of gay men on TV, and in the accepting and loving way in which they were portrayed.

Transphobia, ABC, and Dancing with the Stars

The other day I was driving home from work and was basically tuning out the radio until something along the lines of "...negative backlash...Chaz Bono...contestant on Dancing with the Stars..." caught my ear. Really?

I looked it up, and it seems that tons of people (over 1,000) commented on ABC message boards when the contestants were announced. People ranted about being "DISGUSTED" with the show's decision, and many said that they would no longer watch the show. Luckily, the message board also had Chaz supporters firing back, but it's still worth commenting on.

For those who may not know, Chaz Bono is the son of Cher and Sonny Bono. Born Chastity Bono, Chaz has undergone a female-to-male transition as well as legally changed his name and gender. On DWTS, he will be dancing with a female professional dancer. And this seems to bother many, many people. 

What's interesting to me is that many of the "concerned" and "disgusted" viewers seem to think that ABC is "pushing a homosexual agenda" by featuring Chaz. No one, however, has mentioned fellow dancing star, Carson Kressley, an openly homosexual TV star, formerly of Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Are they really concerned about homosexuality? Or are they more concerned about harder-to-understand transsexuality and transgender individuals? 

I also find it funny that at the top of the message board (with the most recent posts; I couldn't scroll through them all!!), there is one Chaz-hating, trans- and homophobic commenter who is constantly firing out angry messages, but when anyone posts a response that is calm and level-headed, this Chaz-hater ignores it. Because they don't know how to answer questions that use logic instead of anger? I think so... 

What makes me sad, though, is while ABC is standing by their decision to feature Chaz and his story (they pointed out that his "fascinating story" is one reason for choosing him), they are also very adamant about saying that they are not pushing a homosexual agenda. I mean, I don't really know what these critics have meant by a homosexual agenda: one that features homosexuals? one that dares to accept homosexuals as normal? one that says "everyone should be gay! we'll take over the world"? Out of those three interpretations (though there could be many, many more), ABC is certainly in the realm of the first two: Chaz and Carson are both featured contestants, and as far as I know, they are both seen as normal, capable contestants, no different from any others. And I know that in our homophobic culture, a channel can't come out and say "Yay! We love the gays!" without losing some ratings, but oh I wish they would. I, for one, would watch more if they did that! And based on the message board, many Chaz supporters have commented that they will watch DWTS when they never would have before, precisely because Chaz is a contestant.

In fact, I might also...I'll just mute it when the judges talk. They're annoying.