Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Punishment For Pregnant Women

By Lynn M. Paltrow, TomPaine.com. Posted July 18, 2006.


A proposed law would prevent pregnant women from smoking. Could a law requiring women to breastfeed be far behind?
Advertisement

In a society that values children, it's striking how frequently our public policy falls short of our rhetoric. Too often, the notion of collective responsibility for the nation's children translates into collective demonization of pregnant women. Collective responsibility for our children should mean support for policies that help pregnant women get the care they need to have healthy babies. Instead, states and localities are increasingly blaming individual women, exaggerating the harms from individual behaviors.

In Arkansas' recent special spring session, Hot Springs Rep. Bob Mathis followed up his successful proposal to make it illegal for someone to smoke in a car with children with a proposal to ban pregnant women from smoking. For those who subscribe to the view that pregnant women are vessels, treating them like cars makes perfect sense.

No one disputes that smoking, drinking and using drugs raise serious health issues for everyone, including pregnant women and their future children. Addressing these health matters, however, through punitive prohibition measures does not work to protect the health of women or the babies they're carrying. Rather, focusing on pregnant women as dangerous people who require special control or punishment inevitably undermines maternal and fetal health. Such measures divert attention from pregnant women's lack of access to health services, and deters them from seeking what little help is available. That is why medical groups including the American Medical Association, the March of Dimes and the American Academy of Pediatrics overwhelmingly oppose punitive measures targeting pregnant women.

Nevertheless, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee supported Mathis' proposal, saying, "A lawmaker's suggestion to prohibit women from smoking during pregnancy makes sense from a health standpoint."

It only makes sense if you haven't bothered to think for a moment about the nature of addiction. Ask Rush Limbaugh, who has by word and deed made clear that addiction -- even for the most popular and economically privileged people -- can be very very difficult to overcome. According to press accounts, Huckabee added that "such a prohibition, if enacted, would probably have to cover other unhealthy activities such as drinking." Perhaps the governor forgot about America's experiment with alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. It failed miserably and there is nothing to suggest that resurrecting it for women only will work any better.

Meanwhile, a county in Alabama is also pursuing public policies that punish pregnant women for their otherwise legal behaviors. Late last month in Franklin County, a woman was arrested and charged with child torture for giving birth to a baby that tested positive for methamphetamine. Never mind that Alabama's legislature has not made it a crime to continue a pregnancy to term in spite of a drug problem or that more than 90 medical researchers warn not to rush to judgment about the potential harms of prenatal exposure to methamphetamine. And just ignore the fact that access to appropriate family drug treatment for pregnant and parenting women is virtually non-existent in this country.


Digg!

Lynn Paltrow is the executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
My first instinct...
Posted by: Aussie Kim on Jul 18, 2006 12:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...was to think "YEAH!!! Legislate against stupidity! Because there ARE stupid women out there, as well as just ignorant women who will do stupid stuff like smoking during pregnancy."

But I read the article and yes - it does appear to be making women the scapegoats and whipping bags of people who should be working and trying harder.

Why not just legislate to make sure everyone gets a good education - during school and throughout societies and communities. That way, women can make choices, instead of just letting life wander by in an ignorant fashion. Give them education and support and women can make EDUCATED choices that are likely to be healthier for them AND their babies. Teach them that if they smoke during pregnancy, their children will be WAY more expensive to bring up because they will need growth hormones in order to not be midgets and they will also have a much greater risk of being mentally deficient, etc.

Either that or do what the Australian government did here years and years ago and tax cigarrettes to such an extent that they are prohibitively expensive. (The taxes go into the health system because smokers get sick more often)

Cigarettes here are currently about $10-$12 per packet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Great Idea!!! Posted by: jeff2045
» RE: Great Idea!!! Posted by: PickleBarrel
» RE: Great Idea!!! Posted by: jeff2045
» RE: Great Idea!!! Posted by: juergen
» RE: Great Idea!!! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Great Idea!!! Posted by: Aussie Kim
» I think it's a pragmatic thing Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Great Idea!!! Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Great Idea!!! Posted by: jeff2045
» RE: Great Idea!!! Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Great Idea!!! Posted by: polyquat50
» RE: My first instinct... Posted by: Eithne
» What Brand Posted by: pcushniesr
» RE: My first instinct... Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: My first instinct... Posted by: hiryuu75
» RE: My first instinct... Posted by: smulcahy
how unsurprising
Posted by: coldeye on Jul 18, 2006 1:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the war against smokers simply has moved into another logical stage. government tells private businesses how their customers should behave; now it just bans smokinng by individuals because of gender. since blacks may have genetic dispostion to higher lung cancer deaths, why not tell blacks they can't smoke. Or Jews with higher heart disease rates they can't eat traditional Jewish foods on Sabbath. Or Latinnos cant eat......etc.

I mean the government knows best right? It would not subsidize farmers who put chemicals into food, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: how unsurprising Posted by: christininrome
Editorial note
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on Jul 18, 2006 2:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is only on "e" in vassels. Personally, I would have used the word "chattel".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Editorial note Posted by: mazur
» RE: ditorial note Posted by: Sushi
» RE: ditorial note Posted by: Shehova
Thanks for pointing out the double standards govt gives to Big Coal
Posted by: maxpayne on Jul 18, 2006 2:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As soon as petroleum runs out, Big Coal will step in and given that mercury poisoning causes far more fetal deaths than even typical murderers and abortions combined, get ready for Amerika to turn into an even bigger prison nation ready to torture pregnant women to death. "Pro-life" eh? And don't think that men will be suffering any less as more burdens will be placed on them since our rightwing nazis don't believe in family values much as they try to claim otherwise.

P.S.: Methamphetamine has always been used as an illegitimate excuse to ban hemp production. But hey, what they fuck? I guess this country still needs to keep its fossil fuel dependence going given how nearly identical the Muslim Fundies and the Christian Fundies are and their admiration of it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maxpayne--mercury causes more fetal deaths than abortion
Posted by: drappleby on Jul 18, 2006 2:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maxpayne, you state that "mercury poisoning (I am assuming you mean as a by-product from burning coal?) causes far more fetal deaths than.....abortions." There have been more than 30 million abortions in the U.S. since 1972. Could you please show us some solid, peer reviewed studies to back up your assertion? regards

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

drew
Posted by: drew on Jul 18, 2006 3:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
a woman who has decided to have a baby has, by definition, made the decision about her body, herself and her future. This is not a right to choose issue, not an issue of abortion rights, but an issue of parental responsibility. Prenatal and postnatal smoking does threaten a baby's health and development- and damage to health and development is the defining characteristic of abuse. What is a child's right to health and what is the obligation of a person who has choosen to and is anticipating becoming be a parent to provide for that health? You seem to be be saying that there should not be an obligation of society to intervene when a parent is, knowlingly, failing to provide for the well being of a child. The child does have a right to health, well being and protection and, in those instances in which abuse is taking place, society should intervene. Education before the fact is important, but not providing for protection when a parent is abusive is inexcusable under any circumstances of abuse.
I would strongly agree with your point about industrial polution- it likewise is a violation of the rights to health of us all- it isn't an either or issue and it is a mistake to dichotomize your thinking. Pregnant women are not as you say THE primary threat but they certainly can be A threat to a child's right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: drew Posted by: Eithne
» RE: EITHNE Posted by: getoutofiraqnow
» RE: drew Posted by: juergen
» RE: drew Posted by: nylaw13
» RE: drew Posted by: nylaw13
» RE: drew Posted by: drew
» Ban women driving Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: drew Posted by: jmoore
» RE: drew Posted by: thisway
Blame The Victim
Posted by: ChristopherLL on Jul 18, 2006 3:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all men should not be left out of any discussion concerning reproduction, healthy lives and healthy babies. Research suggests that those toxins in cigarettes, many drugs and certainly industrial polutants may damage the genetics of sperm (birth defects; autism; SIDS?). Sperm constantly reproduce making them far more vulnerable to mutations than ovumm which are dormant from birth. Second is that the government and the legal system has lost contact with humanity in general and seem to follow their own self generated vision of human behavior which has little to do with reality. There are over 150 types of addition and nicotine is just one. If legislatures or courts were serious about the health of human beings they would remove nicotine from cigarettes. Any addiction is based on self medicatiing or engaging in behavior meant to assuage emotional pain or turmoil (stress, depression). The causes of these are being multiplied in our society which is becoming more technologic, material and rigid. Judgment and punishment are the dominant methods in an attempt to control people rather than understanding, compassion, forgiveness and support. We are less able to do the latter. It simply comes down to blaming the victim. It is the easy way out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Blame The Victim Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Blame The Victim Posted by: fork
» RE: Blame The Victim Posted by: aussidawg
Tax cigarrettes
Posted by: Annarisse on Jul 18, 2006 4:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Canada tried that. The result was a black market across the border, particularly with Native people selling American cigs for much cheaper. It would be great to do that on both sides of the border, though. What high school kid could afford to smoke?

As for taxes on being fat - that's setting up a straw-man slippery-slope argument. Obesity is a result of many different factors, only some of which are within individual control; smoking is a behaviour. They are not equatable. Similar techniques will not work on them, so implying that similar techniques logically flow from each other and all of them are flawed is very poor logic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Not to mention... Posted by: paulaH
» RE: Tax cigarrettes Posted by: Aim
Those last two paragraphs are nonsense.
Posted by: BJT on Jul 18, 2006 4:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is not an attack on pregnant women. It's an attack on all of us. Pregnant women are just an easy target.

The premise behind these laws is not a transference of responsibility. The premise is that the State knows better than you how to take care of yourself. Now, I know the Left leans toward socialism and thus agrees that the State knows better than we do what to do with our money (which must mean they are pro-war, the bastards), but hear me out.

The smoking bans, the seatbelt laws, the Drug War, all of it is a campaign to establish that the State is the authority on personal conduct. Slowly the premise is being built that anything bad for you should be illegal, and that the State is who you should consult to find out if something is OK for you to do, eat, drink, inject or inhale.

This might just be bureaucrats looking for any excuse to make a new law. This might be part of a concerted effort in government to make us its cattle. Either way, it is all part of a general assault on our personal rights. To complain that it's some kind of anti-environmentalist transferrence of responsibility to the poor pregnant girls is the bleeding heart hippie in you looking for a way to make it a sob story about helpless victims.

Don't listen to the hippie. It doesn't look at the whole picture. This government wants to control your life. Economically AND socially. It's your fault they're doing it because you've bought their premises.

How long is it going to take before you stop electing Republicans and Democrats? They are just going to continue this bullshit. Find a different party. Or help start one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Paranoia Posted by: jeff2045
» RE: Paranoia Posted by: mama_jess
» RE: Paranoia Posted by: jeff2045
» RE: Paranoia Posted by: Shehova
» RE: Paranoia Posted by: paulaH
» Control Posted by: YogiBear
» The slow leak of liberty Posted by: YogiBear
war
Posted by: rsaxto on Jul 18, 2006 5:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We don't need a war against women who abuse unhealthy drugs. We need a war against all those who profit from unhealthy drugs like tobacco and hard booz. It should be totally illegal for anyone to profit from making/selling/promoting any of the really bad drugs that harm human health. It is totally hypocritical to have any war against drugs without this provision.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: war Posted by: Be Positive
» RE: war Posted by: Aussie Kim
metaphor
Posted by: kh on Jul 18, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's worth thinking about this initiative as metaphor expressing a larger societal feeling of not being nurtured, of being negatively nurtured. Maps to the reduction of safety net and to the extension of corporate/commercial/objectifying principles into private/domestic/social life -- a feeling that our society isn't nurturing us, or is negatively nurturing us; that we are being fed poison.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Defective issue
Posted by: ankhet on Jul 18, 2006 6:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just wondering...why don't the legislators go after men who abuse substances, legal or otherwise, and cause their sperm to be defective? Alcoholism damages sperm - many other substances - and behaviours - do, as well.

This fetal health issue is entirely bogus. It has more to do with getting women out of public life and out of the workforce.

It also acts as compliance/obedience training - teaching that a person doesn't own him/herself, that those who claim to pay your way (wages, insurance) have more rights to you than you do. Women are an easy and obvious target for that, and the American worker/citizen is already treated more like property than a person with the dignity assumed in the Bill of Rights.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Defective issue Posted by: juergen
» Part II Posted by: juergen
» RE: Part II Posted by: Aim
» RE: Part II Posted by: Cathyblj
Check out a movie...
Posted by: zooeyhall on Jul 18, 2006 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...from the 1990's called "The Handmaid's Tale". It is a prophetic movie that stars Robert Duvall and is disturbingly predictive of trends today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Check out a movie... Posted by: SekhmetsatRa
scare them into it!
Posted by: wearesilhouettes on Jul 18, 2006 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This "yahoo" logic (think Bush) is just right on track with America's tactic of scaring people and fining them for mistakes instead of logic or education. I agree with the previous poster who said that this is "negative nurturing" instead of positive which leads to fear and control. It's like manipulation. Also, it's a blatant pass for State control over the people, instead of people thinking for themselves. Somehow I believe that this government thinks that we can't make decisions for ourselves...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's just sterilize smokers
Posted by: xbj on Jul 18, 2006 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here's an idea... let's just sterilize smokers. And reverse it only if they quit. With weekly drugtests, of course.

Solves everyone's problems, and increases the intelligence and overall health of the human race as well.

(Joking.)

This is a real tough one. Do pregnant women poision their fetuses?

Of course.

Do smoking parents who smoke indoors poison their kids, placing time bomb carcinogens in their bodies for often decades-later cancers, even if their kids never smoked?

Absolutely.

Do smokers in enclosed public places kill the people that have to work in them to make a living?

Certainly. All this has been proven by every single study NOT funded by the tobacco companies.

But how about this idea?

Make it illegal for any business to sell a poisionous product. Sounds reasonable, right? Obvious, even?

That ends the problem. No tobacco products worldwide, no smokers, no posioned fetuses, no posioned kids, no poisoned people. Well, except for the small group of desperate hillbillies who will grow their own. But that will become a criminal problem, and no longer a social one. And then, ONLY CRIMINALIZE the growers, suppliers, and dealers; NOT the users.

Let's go after the real culprit here, and NEVER TAKE OUR EYES OF THE TARGET:

BIG TOBACCO. SELLING POSION TO THE WORLD and KILLING BILLIONS, for hundreds of years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Wow Posted by: jeff2045
» RE: Wow Posted by: xbj
» RE: Wow Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Wow Posted by: jmoore
» RE: Wow Posted by: xbj
» RE: Wow Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Wow Posted by: xbj
» RE: Wow Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: Wow Posted by: xbj
» RE: Wow--xbj Posted by: paulaH
» RE: Wow--xbj Posted by: xbj
» RE: Wow Posted by: xbj
» RE: Wow Posted by: artteezy
» RE: Wow Posted by: xbj
» Smoking, child health and abortion!!! Posted by: Conservasaurus
Do the right thing.
Posted by: WitchyNy on Jul 18, 2006 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You are right. It is unfair.
It should be illegal for ANYONE to smoke tobacco.

Also it should be illegal to drink too much booze, work to much (and still not earn a living wage), not love and play with your children, to not be able to read well, to not vote, to eat meat, white bread and white sugar, and to drink soft drinks instead of fruit juice. And not brush your teeth.

And living by a large lake as I do, and hearing the sirens all summer long...I think it should be illegal for people to go near water if they don't know how to swim well.

I am serious. What is a law? It is only a symbol of what we as a people- believe in. Let's grow up, do the right thing and work towards a world- where common sense prevails.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Do the right thing. Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Do the right thing. Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Do the right thing. Posted by: aussidawg
» RE: Do the right thing. Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Do the right thing. Posted by: coldeye
Fund Healthcare/Daycare - Don't legislate morality
Posted by: sofla100 on Jul 18, 2006 7:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is once again another example of state legislative stupidity. Perhaps we should also make pregnant women listen to mozart concerts because it might be good for the baby. Of course, pregnant women should not smoke. But, you cannot legislate it. What's next when you try, Guantanamo for pregnant women (don't give GWB any ideas please!). You want to legislate something, how about this one. Affordable, decent healthcare for all the residents of your state. Whey don't you do that. Or, decent, subsidized daycare.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Government Intrusion
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jul 18, 2006 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, let me say that I smoke & am a resident of Arkansas. Second, I do not smoke in my car with anyone who does not smoke-- period. I try to be respectful of others right to not breathe second hand smoke, but expect a little consideration in return.

Last year Arkansas banned smoking in any form on the CAMPUS of any hospital, clinic or medical office. Yes, you read that correctly. Not 100 feet or 100 yards from an entrance or even in your own car in the parking lot. I have no argument with protecting the public from second hand smoke, but this goes beyond the pale. The proposed law discussed in the article is just more of the same.

Bad or poorly considered laws do not improve the general welfare or safety-- they just tempt people to break the law. Just like the mandatory nationwide 55 MPH Speed Limit made lawbreakers out of tens of millions of otherwise law-abiding citizens, this kind of law is unenforceable and breaks down respect for the law in general. Do you really think that the smoke police are going to be watching for you? With all of the crime going on in our country, is this the best use of our legislature's time and consideration?

The government has a reasonable interest in promoting the general welfare, but at some point things must be left to individual choices. Just as decisions regarding abortion, drinking and who you sleep with should be left up to the individual; the same should apply here. Unenforceable laws designed to impose someone else's moral choices are in nobody's interest. Since our legal system is heavily based upon precedent, stepping so deeply into someone's personal conduct could come back to bite many sacred cows in other's lives later.

It's real simple:
Smokers should be considerate of others and use restraint and prudence in their use of tobacco. I'll continue to go outside, well away from entrances so you don't have to wade through a cloud of smoke.

Likewise, non-smokers should not try to drive smokers off of the face of the earth. Remember the concept about rights extending to the point that they intrude upon others? I'll stay away from you while smoking, so please return the favor.

A little reason, consideration and tolerance in many things would make our world a better place.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Flawed Logic
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jul 18, 2006 8:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The whole concept about taxing tobacco heavily to 'recover' costs associated with smoking is complete and utter B$.

Why not heavily tax Tanning Booths because sunbathers have higher rates of skin cancer?
How about heavy taxes on alcohol due to the higher incidence of ulcers, pancreatitis, stomach cancer, hepatitis and Cirrhosis?
How about heavy taxes on condoms and other birth control because people who are more promiscuous and/or sexually active are more prone to a whole range of STD's and potentially HIV?
How about massive taxes on junk food that have contributed to the obesity epidemic in the US because these people are more prone to Diabetes, CV disease and a whole laundry list of other health problems?

The simple fact about smokers costing the government more is a plain and simple lie- just an excuse to shake down companies for money. Probably 75% of the current retail price of a pack of cigarettes is Federal, State, County or City TAX. Most states double dip with both a tobacco tax and a sales tax. Tobacco has been heavily taxed in the US by the Federal and State governments from the dawn of our nation. Most local governments also tax tobacco products through sales taxes. Additionally, every tobacco retailer has had to purchase special licenses from the state, county and city to sell tobacco.

Every smoker has also paid into the same Social Security, Medicaid, Income Tax and sales tax systems that have paid uninsured costs associated with illness associated with tobacco use. Like most non-smokers, most smokers have health insurance which has paid most of their health care costs.

The lawsuits launched by states and the Feds to 'recover' money from tobacco companies were nothing more than trolling for dollars and should have been thrown out upon their filing. The fact that most have been nullified upon appeal shows how vaporous the legal argument is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Flawed Logic Posted by: NoPCZone
» RE: Flawed Logic Posted by: Jordon
» RE: Flawed Logic Posted by: FauxPorteno
» RE: Flawed Logic Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Flawed Logic Posted by: jeff2045
» RE: Flawed Logic Posted by: Aussie Kim
» RE: Flawed Logic Posted by: YogiBear
There's never a Feminist around when you need one ...
Posted by: AdamSelene40 on Jul 18, 2006 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's one of the disadvantages of living in a Post-Feminist political environment ...

Without feminist sensibility this sort of Right to Life legislation seems sensible. After all, if "people who become pregnant" can be prevented from making bad choices that cost taxpayers and insurers money ... that's not a question of Women and their 'special rights' ... it's just the legitimate operation of State interest in the well being of its citizens -- both the born, and the pre-born.

Only a Feminist would object to slipping the 'pre born citizen' into the argument. Only a feminist would notice that such laws fall exclusively on 'persons' of the Female persuasion. Only a Feminist would, without embarassment, assert that the right of the living woman to 'equal protection of laws' here and now might override a State concern about the well-being of a 'potential person' at some time in the future.

And, probably, only a Feminist would notice that these 'fetus protection' laws have less to do with producing healthy babies who do not burden the public health services or private insurance industries ... than they do with selectively targeting women for a higher and more difficult standard of behavior than men because 'oppression of women' is, in some communities, a wildly popular thing to do, politically.

In fact, only a feminist would use the term 'ppression of women' as if it were an issue, let alone an important one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is insane
Posted by: eastcoker on Jul 18, 2006 8:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article does not make any sense. I am going to have to disseminate it to my cronies to make sense out of it, my cronies in the religious and feminist world. I will get back to you. At least I could finish it unlike that article on George Lakoff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

hmmmmm
Posted by: mysticalrae on Jul 18, 2006 8:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why not include the fathers, brothers, sisters and anyone else that comes in contact with the pregnant woman? And the father of the baby as well? and all of the co-workers, bosses, etc, because we know how detrimental second hand smoke is? C'mon people! now we're going to have smoke police!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

leolady
Posted by: Leolady on Jul 18, 2006 8:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our society seems to find new and creative ways to objectify women. If we are intent on reducing people to their body parts, then we should, in the interest of fairness, expand this to cover men as well. Why not legislate against the misuse of the penis? After all, if wrongly used, it can be a deadly weapon.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: leolady Posted by: realmuzik
Oh my gosh, next the evil legislators will make it crime for a pregnant woman...
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Jul 18, 2006 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...not to be wearing a seatbelt while inside a moving motor vehicle! Oh, the humanity!

Oh...uh...wait a sec...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There ought to be a law against all stupidities
Posted by: davinci on Jul 18, 2006 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The manufacture of cigarettes should be totally banned all over the planet. Corporations have made enough money on this and could probably make money getting us hooked on something else that's harmless, like pure water and clean air. There are already enough people, besides children, who have died of cancer from passive smoking. While we are at it, only unorganised religion should be lawful.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

just plain dumb
Posted by: classcynic on Jul 18, 2006 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What's next: pregnant women arrested for hazardous levels of dioxin in their breast milk? I am sick of this kind of anti-woman sentiment. I am sick of men trying to control every aspect of a woman's life.

How about a law that says if a man has a heart attack because he was using Viagra, he gets thrown in jail for attempting suicide?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

IQ's higher with breastfeeding, immune system helped
Posted by: plantland on Jul 18, 2006 9:44 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A group advocating for pregnant women is wrong to take aim at HHS for its"strident" position of promoting breastfeeding. While it is theoretically in line with choice to question HHS's stand, given the four to six point " loss " of IQ when Nature's plan is not put to use, seeing this as a feminist issue rather than a human rights issue (every child should receive nurturing and food which will enable proper neuronal development) is not best for society. More children fall in the retarded range of under 70 and fewer reach 130.

Since the African American rate of breast feeding is by far the lowest, promoting breast feeding in all groups could eliminate the achievement gap now being addressed but not solved everywhere.

My suggestion- embrace HHS's promotion of breastfeeding, and then work to provide social supports to enable women to actually do so. Generous stipends to stay home with an infant rather than to go to work are thus in America's best interest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: breastfeeding Posted by: janakiblum
Women over here, Men over there. Blacks here, whites there. Division makes us weaker
Posted by: unperson on Jul 18, 2006 9:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is it that the articles on this site always look for a women's angle in everything? May only women be liberals? You would think so, because all your articles take the viewpoint of the woman? Does that mean that men should go over to Rush Limbaugh and Bush?

Also, this site and other sites like it (liberal sites) always take the minority perspective? Is being liberal only for minorities (and women)? Does that mean that whites should go over to Rush Limbaugh and Bush?

Is that deliberate? Because I think that is good for the rich people to have everyone else divided up into factions. I wonder which side this site is on?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: