Time to End the "Back Alley Butcher" Myth
Belief:
What if People Actually Treated Religion as Just a Metaphor (Like Trekkies and Secular Jews)?
Greta Christina
Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Happened to That Prosperity Tax-Cutters Promised Us?
Sam Pizzigati
DrugReporter:
The War on Weed: Marijuana Is Basically Harmless -- The Monumentally Stupid Drug War Is Not
Jim Hightower
Environment:
The Real Scandal Over Climate Change Isn't About Hacked Emails But the Media's Coverage
Alex Steffen
Food:
10 Tips for a Sustainable Thanksgiving
Sarah Newman
Health and Wellness:
Is the House's Health Bill Really Worse than Nothing?
Joshua Holland
Immigration:
Hate Group, FAIR, Is Looking for "Ethnically Ambiguous" Actors to Amplify Its Racism
Adam Luna
Media and Technology:
The Memory Scrub About Why Ft. Hood Happened Is Almost Complete ... If It Weren't for Archives
Mark Ames
Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler
Politics:
Just When You Thought It Was Safe: 3 Potential Obstacles to Health-Care Reform
Adele M. Stan
Reproductive Justice and Gender:
Why Can't We Look Away From Sarah Palin?
Vanessa Richmond
Rights and Liberties:
Obama Quietly Backs Renewing Patriot Act Surveillance Provisions
Willam Fisher
Sex and Relationships:
Hot Mormon Muffins and Models for Jesus: What's With All the Sexy Christians?
Liz Langley
Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders
Water:
Poseidon's Financial Shell Game: Why Is a Private Desalination Plant Asking for Public Money?
Peter Gleick
World:
Obama Will Announce 34,000-Troop Escalation in Afghanistan 'Within Days'
The new Romanian movie 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days is rumored to have been overlooked at the Oscars because abortion is central to the story, and this is a climate in which film makers tend to assume that a woman cannot be a empathetic character while actively desiring an abortion. The film is, by almost all accounts, excellent -- it won the Golden Palm and International Federation of Film Critics prizes at the Cannes Film Festival; Best Film and Best Director at the European Film Awards; and more than a dozen other accolades at festivals and awards ceremonies. Lauren, who blogs at Faux Real Tho, has an excellent review up of 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days which doesn't give away any major plot details, and is worth checking out for some basic background. In the review, she mentions one character in the film who is the famous archetype that symbolizes the entire era of criminalized abortion: The Back Alley Butcher. And while it sounds as though the movie uses this character in an interesting way -- and while this column should not be construed as a criticism of the film -- pro-choicers should be careful about resting on the Back Alley Butcher myth as an argument for abortion rights.
Even in the days when abortion was a crime, the vast majority of abortion providers were competent, caring professionals who entered the illegal field in no small part because they believed in justice. Far more interesting than the mythical character of the Back Alley Butcher, for instance, is the story of the Jane collective, a feminist organization in Chicago that provided abortions to area women as a protest against misogynist laws.
In the classic book Beggars and Choosers, historian Rickie Solinger argues for the use of the concept of "reproductive rights" over "choice" in the abortion rights movement. She further begs pro-choice activists to quit talking about the Back Alley Butcher as a reason abortion needs to be kept legal. In reality, she says, women and men took incredible risks to provide abortions to women in need; the imaging of illegal abortion providers as greedy and self-serving not only re-writes history, but it taints all abortion providers -- including legal ones.
But there's another reason to avoid resorting to the Back Alley Butcher argument: It perpetuates the myth that women need to be protected from themselves. You know the scenario: Anti-choicers run around saying that we have to ban abortion in order to protect women. That warped logic implies that women are basically children who can't be trusted to know what they really want -- and that women have one uniform desire, to have one child after another. In the litany of things that make you wonder if anti-choicers have ever had contact with the real world, this belief is one of the most mind-bogglingly out-of-touch. And the field of "mind-bogglingly stupid beliefs" is not an underpopulated one when it comes to the anti-choice philosophy.
The most egregious example of this kind of "Womenz is teh stoopid" thinking as of late is Mississippi's recent attempt to ban women in order to protect women's right not to have rights. The bill is worded as such:
A pregnant mother possesses certain inherent rights that are natural intrinsic rights which enjoy affirmative protection under the Constitution of the United States, and under the laws or Constitution of the State of Mississippi; that among these rights are the fundamental rights of the pregnant mother to her relationship with her child; her fundamental right to make decisions that insure the well-being of her child; and her interest in her own health and bodily integrity.Anti-choicers invest in this nonsensical philosophy for political reasons. Voters don't want to imagine sending women to jail for terminating pregnancies, and this philosophy that states that women are the victims of their own rights. So, in a bit of logical ju-jitsu, anti-choicers claim that they want to criminalize a behavior that women participate in, but punish someone else entirely for it.
See more stories tagged with: abortion, pregnancy, health care, illegal abortion, reproductive justice
Amanda Marcotte co-writes the popular blog Pandagon.
Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »
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.