In the recent years there have been increasing trends of media propaganda that promotes pro-life rather than pro-choice in the controversial issue on abortion. MTV hit television show sequels such as 16 and Pregnant and Teen Mom and movies like Juno, are leading examples where the media implicitly advocates for anti-abortion. Through the personal stories and struggles of various teenage mothers, society is sold the image that no matter what anyone’s situation is, it is never the right choice to abort a pregnancy; instead the moral and righteous thing to do is to carry the child to full term and to become a mother or in Juno’s case, turn to adoption options. With the media’s growing image of motherhood and anti-abortion messages, Congress is of no expectation as it also endorses legislations that promote pro-life. Just in this year, we have seen much legislation passed or that are on the table for passage on further restricting women’s abortion rights and making access to abortion harder and stricter. One prime example is the recent legislation passed in South Dakota, which requires women who are seeking an abortion a three-day waiting period and mandates them to go through consultation. This new South Dakota law not only subtly pushes an anti-abortion agenda, but it also interferes with women’s abortion rights and inclines them to accept traditional gender roles as mothers and caregivers.
The controversy about to what extend should abortion be legal has been a long and on going debate in the United States. However, in 1973 the landmark decision in the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade has made abortion legal; the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment has given women full autonomy over their pregnancy in the first trimester. Although the federal government has given women abortion rights since 1973, this decision has not stopped state government from implementing local laws that circumvent federal law and impede on women’s abortion rights. On March 22, 2011, New York Times journalist A. G. Sulzberger reports the news about the latest legislation South Dakota’s Governor Dennis Daugaard have signed. Unlike traditional federal requirements for abortions, this new law requires women in South Dakota who are seeking abortions a three-day — instead of one day — waiting period and consultation at a pregnancy help center, such as Alpha Center in Sioux Falls, had sweeping support in the state Legislature. Sulzberger’s article “Women Seeking Abortions in South Dakota to Get Anti-Abortion Advice,” criticizes the new law as a Republican mechanism that pushes for an anti-abortion agenda.
The rhetoric behind this legislation and the disconnect between the law and the actual execution of the law are extremely problematic. Indeed, this new legislation does subtly pushes for a pro-life mentality in South Dakota as the three-day window period allows for people in the pregnancy help center to sway women to reconsider their decision. Republicans and supporters for pro-life believe that this grace period of reevaluation will help women make the right choice that they will not regret and hopefully help reduce abortion rates. Also, the primary mission for mandating consultation is to “educate, counsel and otherwise assist women to help them maintain their relationship with their unborn children” (Sulzberger 2). This new requirement under the law wants to make sure that women are not being pressured to have an abortion. While on the surface level, this requirement seems innocuous and positive, however the rhetoric and the actual execution of the law does not match, instead the goal and the practice of the law are contradicting. Sulzberger mentions in the article how the clinic is extremely bias and already possesses a pro-life stance on abortion. As a result of these biases in addition to the non-medical professionals at the clinic providing advice, women receive distorted and manipulated information that will sway them to not have abortions. Ironically, while the new law was suppose to ensure that these women were not influence by any third party to have abortions, the clinic are coercing these women to not have abortions. As it clearly is depicted in the political cartoon above, this three-day wait period provides as a buffer to persuade women to carry their child to full term.
Furthermore, not only is this new law pushing an anti-abortion agenda, but also the requirements are “unconstitutional obstacles for women seeking to have an abortion,” which thus hinders women’s abortion rights. Racial feminist Brownmiller and Beauvoir’s both state that women cannot achieve equality by working in the system, specially the legal system, because it is patriarchal and therefore does not have women’s right and best interests at heart. On that note, Browmiller and Beauvoir would agree that abortion legislation normally does not care about upholding and enhancing women’s abortion rights. Instead, government will want to impose legislations that represent their patriarchal view; in terms of abortion, the US would normally push laws that in sync with the Christian view that all fetuses have lives that cannot be taken away from their parents. Although throughout the years our government has changed a bit, but at the core of government is still the traditional patriarchal values it was founded upon. Therefore, our continual reliance on government to protect women’s abortion rights and rights in general will always be meet with opposition and we will always have laws such as South Dakota’s new law on abortion. While part of government wants to grant and protect women’s rights, the other part wants to implement laws that will circumvent the existing rights that women have and keep women inferior.
Lastly, an implicit consequence — I believe — that comes from the South Dakota legislation is the increase inclination for women to accept their traditional gender role as mothers and caregivers. Not only does this legislation interfere with women’s autonomy over their pregnancy, but it also subtly stripes women of their choice to whether to become a mother or not. As we have been reading in class, how women are often in confliction between choosing a career or a family, this law further perpetuates and narrows that choice. Like Eang and Pinand’s mothers who had jobs and obligated to worked the second unpaid shift — household responsibilities — the new South Dakota law further suggests that women are suppose to be mothers and the primary caregivers. Society is still trying to birdcage women into traditional gender roles. As Marilyn Frye gives the analogy that chivalry, such as when men hold the doors for women, act as a form of women’s oppression, the South Dakota law is also a form of women’s oppression. Like the example Frye gives, the new abortion law suggest that women are incapable of making decisions that regard their bodies. Therefore a law that on the surface seems like it is doing women a favor, in actuality the law only strengthens the wires on the birdcage and traps and bonds women to traditional gender roles.
The increasing support and propaganda in the media on anti-abortion sells society the message that under no circumstance should women have abortions. As a patriarchal society, our politics closely embody this message the media is conveying as we see more and more legislations pushing for pro-life agendas. The continual acceptance of these abortion restrictions and requirements that make access to abortion harder will not ensure women’s equality. If we continue to fight within the legal system, little to no change will be brought about; instead our patriarchal government will continue to subtly take women’s rights away. We must work outside the legal system to ensure that the extend to which abortion should be legal becomes illegal. We must refuse to accept that our primarily roles in society are as mothers, housewives, and caregivers. We must act to achieve our equality.
No comments:
Post a Comment