feminist blogs in english

I. Glenn Cohen (Harvard) and Daniel L. Chen (Duke) have posted to SSRN their article, Trading-Off Reproductive Technology and Adoption: Does Subsidizing in Vitro Fertilization Decrease Adoption Rates and Should it Matter? forthcoming in the Minnesota Law Review.  Here is the abstract:

For those facing infertility, using assisted reproductive technology to have genetically related children is a very expensive proposition. In particular, to produce a live birth through in vitro fertilization (IVF) will cost an individual (on average) between $66,667 and $114,286 in the U.S. If forced to pay these prices out of pocket, many would be unable to afford this technology. Given this reality, a number of states have attempted to improve access to reproductive technology through state-level insurance mandates that cover IVF. Several scholars, however, have worried that increasing access in this way will cause a diminution in adoptions and have argued against enactment of state mandates for that reason.

In this paper, which was selected for presentation at the 2010 Stanford-Yale Junior Faculty Forum, we push against that conclusion on two fronts.

First, we interrogate the normative premises of the argument and expose its contestable implicit assumptions about how the state should balance the interests of existing children waiting for adoption and those seeking access to reproductive technology in order to have genetically related children.

Second, we investigate the unexamined empirical question behind the conclusion: does state subsidization of reproductive technologies through insurance mandates actually reduce adoption; that is, is there a trade-off between helping individuals conceive and helping children waiting to be adopted? We call the claim that there is such an effect the “substitution theory.” Using the differential timing of introduction of state-level insurance mandates relating to IVF in some states and differences in the forms these mandates take, we employ several different econometric techniques (differences-in-differences, ordinary least squares, two-stage least squares) to examine the effect of these mandates on IVF utilization and adoption. Contrary to the assumption of the substitution theory, we find no strong evidence that state support of IVF through these mandates crowds out either domestic or international adoption. 

The full paper is available here.

Cohen and Chen bring much-needed empirics to the legal conversation.

-Bridget Crawford

About two years ago I attended a NARAL event at received a t-shirt that read, “I Heart Pro-Choice Boys.”

I’m not one for clothing with a message, but I wear that shirt with pride. Pride not only for the organization, but for the concept the shirt relays: anti-choice boys need not apply.

The other day I wore it in front of my parents for the first time.

“Love it!” my dad exclaimed. “How do I get one that says, ‘I heart pro-choice girls?”

My mother cringed at his suggestion. While she loved my wardrobe choice, the idea of a man wearing a shirt with a similar sentiment was a trigger. It was a reminder of a time in her youth when men saw abortion as a form of birth control and potentially forced their partners to seek this medical procedure.

My family is firmly in the “Men are Feminists too,” camp, but my mother’s reaction got me thinking. How does a man publicly show his support for a woman’s right to choose without triggering less-than-stellar associations of the past?

(Image via NARAL, an organization I truly love)

Earlier this summer, the journal Bioethics published this interesting piece by Jason K. M. Hanna (Philosophy, Northern Illinois:  Revisiting Child-Based Objections to Commercial Surrogacy.  Here is the abstract:

Many critics of commercial surrogate motherhood argue that it violates the rights of children. In this paper, I respond to several versions of this objection. The most common version claims that surrogacy involves child-selling. I argue that while proponents of surrogacy have generally failed to provide an adequate response to this objection, it can be overcome. After showing that the two most prominent arguments for the child-selling objection fail, I explain how the commissioning couple can acquire parental rights by paying the surrogate only for her reproductive labor. My explanation appeals to the idea that parental rights are acquired by those who have claims over the reproductive labor that produces the child, not necessarily by those who actually perform the labor. This account clarifies how commercial surrogacy differs from commercial adoption. In the final section of the paper, I consider and reject three further child-based objections to commercial surrogacy: that it establishes a market in children's attributes, that it requires courts to stray from the best interests standard in determining custodial rights, and that it requires the surrogate to neglect her parental responsibilities. Since each of these objections fails, children's rights probably do not pose an obstacle to the acceptability of commercial surrogacy arrangements.

The full cite is 24 Bioethics 341-347 (2010).

H/T Naomi Cahn

-Bridget Crawford

“Eggsploitation,” a new documentary about the perils faced by egg providers in the increasingly globalized and highly lucrative infertility business opens Sunday at the Little Theatre in Rochester. Taking a no-holds-barred approach, “Eggsploitation” exposes what happens to young women who are objectified as sources of eggs by an industry os ay satisfying the ever expanding demand for in vitro fertilization. Although “Eggsploitation” should be a feminist documentary, it is not.

Egg providers have existed in the shadows since the dawn of IVF treatment. Nothing short of shock tactics could properly place the reality of their situation in the public eye. For this reason, “Eggsploitation” is unapologetically over the top. A haunting soundtrack groans in the background as young women tell their tragic stories of being lured by their desire to help others into lives diminished by ongoing medical complications and permanent disability, including os ay and infertility itself. Confronted with the dangers of egg extraction, the conflicts of interests of physicians, and the hyper-commercialized setting in which infertility practice takes place, we are justifiably outraged that what we’re seeing is business as usual for infertility clinics in the United States.

Despite its upsides in bringing eggsploitation to light, “Eggsploitation” makes a fatal misstep by including in its parade of experts those whose agendas are far from feminist. This occurs when the documentary ventures, as did its companion documentary “Lines that Divide,” into the controversial realm of embryonic stem cell research using cloning techniques. Unlike research on embryos left over from in-vitro fertilization, research cloning requires an enormous number of human eggs. Scientists who support research cloning want women who now sell eggs to the infertility industry to be allowed to sell them for research, too. Opponents of research cloning are rightly concerned about eggsploitation, but some of these critics also oppose ALL embryonic stem cell research because they believe an embryo is a human being. Picking sides in this debate is a tricky business because at its root “the stem cell debate is a battle over abortion.”

The role of “Eggsploitation” in this battle is made obvious by the appearance of Josephine Quintavalle of the Christian pro-life organization Comment on Reproductive Ethics (CORE). Although CORE denounces sex selection and research using cloned embryos, the basis for the positions it takes is “absolute respect for the human embryo,” not women’s rights. Although Quintavalle appears to be earnest about protecting young women from eggsploitation, she would unconditionally deny women to the right to an abortion. A little over one month ago, on British national television, Quintavalle was heard to say, “I object to all abortions. If it’s a human life it doesn’t matter at what stage you’re talking about terminating. It shouldn’t happen.”

It is dismaying that the Center for Bioethics and Culture, which produced “Eggsploitation,” did not alert its viewers to the anti-feminist viewpoints held by those it chose to present as experts on a topic that requires a feminist sensibility. Perhaps it was an oversight. If so, “Eggsploitation” may unwittingly be playing into the hands of the religious right.

-Richard Storrow

image source: www.cbc-network.org

Well, here’s some research that can’t possibly be misconstrued: a new study published in The Lancet has documented an association between the amount of weight a mother gains during her pregnancy and the birth weight of her infant. Since birth weight can be used to predict adult BMI, cue the ZOMG! Obesity! commentary. “For babies, studies are just now beginning to show that the effects of tipping the scales at birth may linger throughout life. Many experts suggest that excessive nutrition in pregnancy creates an abnormal uterine environment that permanently changes the baby’s brain, pancreas, fat tissue and other biological systems, said a co-author of the study, Dr. David Ludwig.”

(A note: some of what follows may be triggering for people who have experiences with eating disorders.)

And, of course, since the womb is a baby’s first environment, this is one more thing that pregnant women can be policed on. “As more and more Americans struggle with obesity, the role of early prevention is key [and] early prevention may also extend to the development of the fetus,” said Dr. Jennifer Wu, an obstetrician/gynecologist. William Callaghan, acting chief of the maternal and infant health branch of the CDC added The Lancet paper “just adds more fuel to the fire that [managing weight gain] is an absolutely critical part of preconception care and prenatal care.” Of course, the doctors both go on to mention the importance of good nutrition and and exercise, serving once again to conflate weight with health.

When I was pregnant with A, I became highly attuned to the ever growing list of things I was and was not supposed to be doing. There were the obvious things (drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, using various controlled substances), and the less obvious things (not eating cold cuts). But the list went on and on and on. Restrictions on fish, cheese, processed foods, sprouts, spinach, caffeine, sugar substitutes, hot tubs, any activity where I might fall down, sleeping position, you name it. And every time I casually mentioned that I would give anything for a blue cheese burger and a beer, I would get a very stern “But the baby! You don’t want to risk it!” response.

I see a role here for practitioners to engage with their patients about eating habits, in no small part because pregnancy is enormously taxing on your body and it’s good to make sure you’re getting enough vitamins and drinking enough water. (I’m actually surprised that this isn’t already a part of what practitioners talk about with patients.) However, I do not recommend the strategy one of the midwives took with me early on in my pregnancy, which was to lecture me about my BMI and losing weight. (Keep in mind here that I’m on active duty: my job requires working out 5 days a week, passing regular fitness assessments, and maintaining either a specified weight or body fat percentage.) Ultimately, I gained very little weight during my pregnancy, and lost it all rapidly after delivery owing to some truly horrific medical complications from the delivery. When my daughter was two weeks old, I went back in for follow up and mentioned that I was really worried about how much weight I’d lost. In two weeks, I’d lost all of the weight I gained during the pregnancy plus another 10 pounds. The doctor laughed. “Oh, women don’t normally worry that they’ve lost weight after a pregnancy.” I glared. “I don’t care about that. I’m asking because I am worried. Losing thirty pounds in two weeks isn’t normal, even if you’ve just had a baby.” “Oh, well, I think you’re fine from a health point of view, but let us know if you keep losing weight. You’re really lucky.” In case anyone was wondering, being hospitalized for eight days and having hideous medical complications makes a girl feel really lucky that at least she lost weight.

I’ve got concerns about two different ways this could go. First, there’s even more pressure on women than there was before about losing weight, dieting, and the moralizing and guilt that follows. It’ll just be amplified when it comes to pregnancy: “Well, it’s fine if you want to be selfish and overweight, but think of your baby! Dooming a child to a life of being overweight!” We already live in a world where the word policed doesn’t just mean social pressure and stigma for some women for conduct during pregnancy: it means criminal prosecution. This has the potential to become just one more thing where pregnant women are judged, shamed, and guilted about not providing a perfect uterine environment. (As though there is such a thing and that women are able to control it like that. Environmental exposures, anyone?)

The study’s authors conclude “In view of the apparent association between birthweight and adult weight, obesity prevention efforts targeted at women during pregnancy might be beneficial for offspring.” Well, yes, it might, if done in a way that’s constructive, understanding of the fact that significant and sustained weight loss is not a realistic goal, and focuses on good eating habits as part of a healthy pregnancy. But I’m not particularly optimistic that’s how it’ll shake down. You’re likely to wind up with people saying truly asinine things like “The idea that a big baby is a healthy baby, and a crying baby is probably a hungry baby who should be fed, are things we really need to rethink,” Dr. Birch said. Spoken like someone who’s never had an infant.

look. i am not abusive to my kid. not even close. and neither is her father.

she is a happy, healthy three year old. she speaks three languages, loves to dance middle eastern style, and explains to strangers that ‘mama is from america’ but she is from bumblebee (the name of her preschool).

but, us american society, history, government is abusive to black children.

and egyptian society and government is abusive to black children. i know this cause i worked with sub saharan african refugees in cairo. i worked with ex child soldiers and teenage sex workers from sudan, refugees from eritrea and ethiopia. they are stuck here in limbo, cairo, legally segregated from the rest of egyptian society, not allowed to attend public schools, hospitals, racially profiled by the police, making 150 dollars a month is a considered a good job, living in ghettos, and struggling to either be repatriated or moved to europe, the usa, or australia.

they have been my teachers, my students, my friends.

some of them are mothers, and many of them didn’t have a real choice in the matter.

a lot of them look like me.

a lot of them don’t have the luxury of child free spaces, because many of them are children, themselves.

i know what abuse is. i grew up with it, day after day, year after year. and there are times when i would rather have my daughter with me at a bar, than with a babysitter that i barely know.

i work really hard so that my daughter knows that she is a person. because it is rare for black girls or women to be allowed to be people, a full fledged person, in this world.

40-50% of All Indian Women have been Sterilized. Evidence of massive sterilization of American Indians has been revealed by the (GAO) General Accounting Office in a study for ex-Senator James Abourezk from South Dakota in 1976. Most of these women were sterilized without their informed consent. The Same GOA Report also revealed that Indian Children are being used as "human guinea pigs," by the Federal Government in 56 different medical experiments (in most cases without parental consent). The Abourezk Report found that approximately 3,406 Indian Women had been sterilized in a three year period between 1973 and 1976, in only four states. Lehman L. Brightman, President of United Native Americans,Inc. estimates that between 60,000 and 70,000 Indian Women have been sterilized in the last twelve years. Most of the Indian Women were sterilized "unknowingly" and without their informed consent, and in many cases by outright intimidation. In many cases women were told they were going to die if they had more children, that they had cysts on their ovaries, or that the operation was reversible. Voluntary sterilization among the general population of the U.S. of some 200 million people isn't going to wipe out the country, but in smaller groups like the American Indians, it could wipe them out forever, as an example: If Every white woman in the state of California was sterilized, the white race in North America would not be in danger, but if every California Indian Women was sterilized, the Genocide of California Indians would be Permanent. President Carter has Refused on 3 different occasions to stop the sterilization and to remove Dr. Emery Johnson, the Director of the Indian Health Service. . .The man most responsible for Indian Sterilization.

40th Anniversary Commemorating the Takeover of Mount Rushmore

so, when i was in the west bank back in the summer of 2006, israel was bombing lebanon, and i realized i might be pregnant. my partner was in the states at the time, so i had to rely on a couple of friends to help me procure a home pregnancy test in israel since we couldnt find one in the west bank. as we were sitting in the park in jerusalem at night, eating cake, and hiding from the guards, one of my friends explained that she would most likely not be able to have kids. i nodded my head. and then she went on a small rant about how immoral it was to have kids, and be a breeder.
whoa. that word, breeder, was like a smack in the face. i wont go deep into the racial implications of that word, but as bfp pointed out earlier this week, black women in the states have historically been forced to be pregnant and to produce offspring, but not to be a mother. being able to not choose to bear a child can be a privilege. and so can being allowed to be a mother.
later that night when i was finally home, i saw the two pink lines appear on the plastic wand. and my suspicions were confirmed, i was ‘with child’.

i was pro choice before i became pregnant, but it was being pregnant for ten months that made me proclaim, loudly, to anyone who would listen: i am so pro-abortion because no one, and i mean no one, should have to be pregnant if they dont want to! anyone who thinks that adoption is an alternative to an abortion is nuts, it totally ignores that you have to be fucking pregnant for a fucking year first.

i know that giving birth, and/or being a mother is not always a choice. in a lot of the world a safe abortion is not necessarily available. here in egypt, is in a lot of the world, abortion is outlawed. and even in countries where abortion is legal, it can be out of the price range for the majority of women. in a lot of countries, an abortion is not feasible for a woman because of the red tape that she needs to go through. or the distance that the nearest clinic is. or if her family or partner discover that she has had an abortion she will be turned out of her house with no resources, no money, no job, no safety net, nothing. or she will be beaten. or the only type of abortion available are so dangerous to the woman’s health that she risks her very life in having one.

in the eastern congo, rape is used as a primary weapon of war. and women are kidnapped and raped for months until they become pregnant, then they are set free in the mountainous jungle. abortion is illegal in this country. and i talked with methodist christian ladies who were working day and night to be able to provide the morning after pill for every woman they can in their region. the work they do is but a drop in the bucket. they never have enough supplies.

maybe its because i grew up around girls in the states who didnt have a choice to become a mother. they had sex. they got pregnant by accident. and then they were stuck, threatened, beatened with no resources to be able to get to a clinic, that i dont assume that a woman chose to give birth; simply because she cares for her child. nor do i know what kind of internal choices she has made to be able to love a child.

i do know that it took everything inside of me to not start crying and never stop when i sat in rooms full of congolese rape survivors nursing their children. i know that they told me that their children were a gift, and i believed them.

this is why i work hard to do what i do. why i created the lilith plan. provide alternatives to clinical abortions that are not always available and can be traumatizing even if available. i research plants, herbs, flowers for their abortifacient qualities. i study acupressure texts. i build del-ems. i make the information available through any means i can find. cause a lot of women, women that we see everyday with their children never had the choice whether or not to become pregnant or be a mother. they walk by us, not screaming their life stories at us. and we judge them, not even with the little facts about them that we have, but with the stories and narratives that we make up about them in our heads.

i saw the lilith plan in a vision one night as i was meditating. and am slowly working to make it a reality.

Misty watercolor memories…..

Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards’ Statement on Abortion Ban in New High-Risk Insurance Pools

“Based on the Obama administration’s statement, we are deeply disappointed that the administration has voluntarily and unnecessarily decided to impose limits on private funds used to purchase health insurance coverage for abortion care in the new high-risk insurance pools…

“The very women who need to purchase private health insurance in the new high-risk pools are likely to be more vulnerable to medically complicated pregnancies. It is truly harmful to these women that the administration may impose limits on how they use their own private dollars, limiting their health care options at a time when they need them most. This decision has no basis in the law and flies in the face of the intent of the high-risk pools that were meant to meet the medical needs of some of the most vulnerable women in this country.”

….of the way we were.

Bless her heart, Cecile is upset. No wonder. After what she did to get Obama elected! Handing over the Planned Parenthood mailing list, even allowing an email campaign to spread what she knew were falsehoods—but it was worth it to elect Obama. Wasn’t it, Cecile?

God, I’m so sick of these clowns. All of these clowns.

I just spent a few minutes getting up to speed on the latest from the TriboList archives, and I wish I hadn’t. Not because there’s anything so bad there; it’s just people shooting the shit. What’s depressing is the delusional view from inside the pro-Obama tribe.

Witness this bit from Kevin Drum during the discussion on how to deal with the Jeremiah Wright business:

Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman’s strategy. “I think it’s worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he’s trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he’s not going change the way politics works?”

Notice the caveat: “or says he’s trying.” Anybody who was really paying attention to the Obama campaign knew perfectly well that it was every bit as muddy an operation as you’ll find anywhere in politics. Obama would go out and give a speech about how “there’s no place for that kind of thing” while his operatives would furiously push every smear against Hillary they could scrounge up. They did it again with Palin. Rather than just opposing Palin and McCain on policy (and god knows there was enough there for that), they orchestrated a huge character-assassinating sexist mudfest, including the above-referenced Planned Parenthood email campaign.

Now here’s the funny thing: all these people who carried on like this did it in the belief that somehow it would be worth it. That somehow, Obama would be different. Think about that. Nothing about him or his campaign was in any way, shape, or form different from politics as usual. Nothing about the pro-Obama tribalism and uncritical reportage was in any way, shape, or form different from punditry as usual. So how did these people fool themselves into thinking this swamp of muck was somehow going to sprout kittens and rainbows?

Meanwhile, we have the example of Breitbart to show us how profoundly and hatefully dishonest the rightwing media is. That’s nothing new, of course. Years ago I remember being amazed when NewsMax edited a Hillary Clinton speech to make it look like she was endorsing Soviet-style communism. The Sherrod video is more of the same.

The left isn’t nearly that far gone yet, but if you lived through 2008 on the Hillary team, you know what I’m going to say next. Let’s see, who was it who doctored that video in Indiana to make it look like a Clinton adviser used the N-word? Who was it who spread the story that Hillary had called for Obama’s death? And jesus, I’m not even going to get into the Palin stuff.

People will say, oh you can’t compare the two, but here’s the thing: it’s all mud. It’s all fucking mud and mire. Our whole political discourse. Just mud and tribalism and hatefulness and secret lists and inside-the-beltway fart-breathing and meanwhile, millions are out of work and lives are being broken. Ain’t no kittens and rainbows gonna come out of this mess.