An Open Letter to "Concerned" Women for America

It's open letter time! And I am not linking to the original source that gave me this information, as I don't wish to give them the publicity. But as both a crisis worker and as a pro-choice activist, I couldn't let this slide. As a side note, unless otherwise specified, the sexual assault survivors I am referring to are female. While I know that men are also victims of abuse, women are primarily the ones who are victimized by it.

Dear "Concerned" Women for America,

Who do you think you're kidding when you say that abortion is a "cure-all for rape"?!

I mean it. Honestly, do you really think anyone is fooled by your stating to be "concerned" when your actions and words say the exact opposite? And who in their right mind would see anything as a "cure-all" for rape?

I'm a professionally trained rape crisis worker. In April, I will have been one for five years. I've provided support and guidance to nearly one hundred women and men seeking assistance in the aftermath of abuse, helped with support groups for traumatized populations, and have trained victims' advocates to do the same. My thesis was on the history and politics of the anti-rape movement, and I have successfully planned and facilitated two panel discussions surrounding reproductive justice. So, in other words, "concerned" women, I am no lightweight when it comes to both of the subjects you are discussing.

And I do have some empathy and concern for women in America. However, judging from your language in that letter, I think that what you mean by concerned and what I mean by concerned are two very different things. As a crisis worker, I have a lot of concern for the women I work with every day. After all, rape is a crime that takes choice and consent away from its victims. Who wouldn't feel concerned about that? However, as an advocate, I know that there is no "cure-all" for rape. The only cure for rape that I see is if it never happened, ever.

But let's look at your reasoning, "concerned" women. No one is doubting that a pregnancy as a result of rape is difficult, and no one would disagree on the importance of preventing the crime and punishing perpetrators. Those are things that you and I can agree on. However, your saying that abortion merely deals with the "physical consequences," is really doing a huge disservice for women who may be traumatized, scared, AND pregnant. For many (I understand, not all) women, ending a pregnancy that they in no way wanted or planned for can be a HUGE relief and a huge saving grace for them. Try thinking a mile in their shoes. Can you imagine being traumatized due to sexual assault...and living with the reminder of the rape for nine months? Can you imagine keeping the child and dealing with a living reminder of the assault? For the women who may be pregnant due to rape, it can be a nightmare dealing with this additional issue. Abortion is not simply "dealing with the physical consequences." For many women, it can help them to restore their choices. You even said it in your letter: "pregnancies under these difficult circumstances need an extra measure of compassion and support." Compassion and support includes not judging a woman's choice, even if that choice doesn't involve carrying a pregnancy to term.

A welfare rights group once said it best: "The right to choose is a poor woman's right to life." The welfare rights organizations were among some of the first pro-choice allies in the days when abortion was illegal. They knew the importance of making one's own decisions, especially for women who did not have the needed resources to either keep their child or the connections needed to secure a safe illegal abortion. They also knew the tremendous importance of promoting all women's autonomy. You may do well to think on that.

And for the record, I would be much more open to my tax dollars paying to assist one of my low income sisters get a safe, LEGAL medical procedure than for my tax dollars to pay for killing already-born, full grown adults in two wars.

Trusting women always (in the words of the martyred Dr. George Tiller),

Revel

Oh baby!

Well, here is yet another piece of news to add to Alex's Top Rantings. I swear, I've been on a feminist roll this whole day. First with unexpectedly playing Alex The Advocate in my first class (Ross asked me minutes before class started if I wouldn't mind handling disclosures during a presentation--which is fine by me, but I would've preferred advance notice), then ripping into Restoration-era sexual mores, and now this.

Apparantly there are some recent federal guidelines out regarding women's health. These guidelines instruct doctors to treat all women as either "pregnant" or "pre-pregnant" and to work with them accordingly. You can go here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/15/AR2006051500875.html) to find the whole story about it, but this is truly a strange set of rules.

While I am totally in favor of making prenatal care more affordable and accessible for everyone (something that's especially needed in poorer and more racially diverse communities), I think that this is a little much. It seems to be taking that need and trying to "fix" it by using a snow shovel where a trowel is needed. The regulations require doctors to tell all women to stay away from certain things that could endanger the fetus or prospective fetus, but they don't really do much in terms of taking care of a pregnancy that's already there. That is where the need lies, since for nine months out of the year, a woman who's expecting needs to keep herself extra healthy. By telling a woman who isn't pregant and might not even be considering it what she can and can't do, there is little that gets accomplished. It's more or less reducing women to wombs and not much else. While I agree that childbirth is pretty important to many women, I think that this is simply assuming that all women are geared for that and not much else and treating them like baby incubators. What about women who physically cannot procreate? Can they be "pre" anything their bodies simply cannot do? Does that make sense? Can a lesbian be pre-pregnant? (And yes, I know several same-sex couples who have children, but they can't get each other pregnant.) And what about women who aren't planning to have children or who would like to adopt instead? Or women who have miscarried? I highly doubt a woman who has endured a miscarriage would like to hear about how she can protect another prospective fetus after that loss.

Can you imagine what would happen if the roles were reversed? It would be ridiculous! But sadly, this is pretty normal for a society that seems to be ignoring the pretty basic need for comprehensive sexual and reproductive health education (read my March post "Tease Squeeze Please" for more). The necessity lies in affordable health care and comprehensive education, not a one-size-fits-all public service announcement.