COMMENTS: 24
An Open Letter to Gov. Sarah Palin on Women's Rights
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.
Many Americans agree with your position regarding abortion -- they do this as a matter of faith, ethics, personal experience and sometimes politics. I am just wondering though, if you have thought about what would happen if you succeeded in getting your position -- that fetuses have a right to life -- established as the law of the land? Did you know that it not only threatens the lives, health and freedom of women who might want or need someday to end their pregnancies, it would also give the government the power to control the lives of women -- like you who -- go to term?
Your last pregnancy, the one that has become the topic of widespread discussion and speculation provides an important opportunity to demonstrate how this could be true.
According to press reports your water broke while you were giving a keynote speech in Texas at the Republican Governors' Energy Conference. You did not immediately go to the hospital -- instead you gave your speech and then waited at least 11 hours to get to a hospital. You evaluated the risks, made a choice, and were able to carry on your life without state interference. Texas Governor Rick Perry worried about your pregnancy but didn't stop you from speaking or take you into custody to protect the rights of the fetus.
After Ayesha Madyun's water broke, she went to the hospital where she hoped and planned to have a vaginal birth. When she didn't give birth in a time-frame comfortable to her doctors, they argued that she should have a C-section. The doctors asserted that the fetus faced a 50-75 percent chance of infection if not delivered surgically. (Risks of infection are believed by some health care providers to increase with each hour after a woman's water has broken and she hasn't delivered).
The court, believing like you that fetuses have a right to life, said, "[a]ll that stood between the Madyun fetus and its independent existence, separate from its mother, was put simply, a doctor's scalpel." With that, the court granted the order and the scalpel sliced through Ms. Madyun's flesh, the muscles of her abdominal wall, and her uterus. The core principle justifying an end to legal abortion in the U.S. provided the same grounds used to deprive this pregnant and laboring woman of her rights to due process, bodily integrity, and physical liberty. When the procedure was done, there was no evidence of infection.
According to the press reports, instead of going straight to a hospital you chose to get on a long airplane flight back to Alaska.
When Pamela Rae Stewart, allegedly, didn't get to the hospital quickly enough on the day of her delivery, she was arrested in California on the theory that she had violated the rights of her fetus.
When Laura Pemberton chose to give birth at home in Florida, a Sheriff came to her house. Doctors believed that she was posing a risk to the life of her unborn child by having a vaginal birth after having had a previous c-section and were in the process of getting a court order to force her to have a c-section. The sheriff took her into custody during active labor, strapped her legs together and forced her to go to a hospital where an emergency hearing was taking place to determine the rights of her fetus. She was "allowed" to represent herself. A lawyer was appointed for the fetus. This woman, who vehemently opposes abortion, nevertheless believed in her right to evaluate medical risks and benefits to herself and her unborn child. She was forced to have the unnecessary surgery and when she later sued for violations of her civil rights, was told fetal rights outweighed hers.
You chose to continue working throughout your pregnancy -- even during your labor. Until 1991 women who worked in high paying blue color jobs that provided health benefits were being fired based on "fetal rights" policies that claimed if the woman became pregnant she would expose the unborn child to workplace health risks. Eventually, the Supreme Court said employers covered by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (the PDA) could not do this. But, millions of American women work part time or for small employers who are not covered by the PDA. If your political position on abortion is accepted -- all of these women could be forced to give up their jobs because an employer, family member, or state agent believed it necessary to ensure the health and rights of their unborn child.
Governor Palin, you have led an extraordinary life, balancing work and family, public service and private family obligations. We hope you know though that your freedom relies on exactly the same legal principles that guarantee that American women can choose to have an abortion when they need and want one.
Sixty one percent of women who have abortions are already mothers. Eighty-four percent of these women will be mothers by the time they are in their forties. As a proud mother of five beautiful children, we hope you will recognize that the issue isn't abortion -- it is ensuring the lives, dignity and freedom of all pregnant women and their families.
Lynn Paltrow
Executive Director
National Advocates for Pregnant Women
Stay up to date with the latest AlterNet headlines via email
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Sep 4, 2008 10:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
jdfu!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» it's not that she can't read it.
Posted by: EinMD
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tamiofbrooksgroth on Sep 4, 2008 7:37 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: itwieg on Sep 5, 2008 6:40 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Second, it's a good point that certain principles can limit the medical choices of women, but why can't legal distinctions be made to balance a fetuses "rights" against a potential mother's? This is just to say that Palin's position could be made legally coherent.
Finally, if pro-choice advocates were so concerned about the reproductive health and well-being of potential mothers, you'd think they'd try to increase awareness about how abortion increases the risk of breast cancer (and yes there is a plausible biological mechanism for this).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Important points lost in the rhetoric
Posted by: ae3n
» RE: Important points lost in the rhetoric
Posted by: Courtroom Mama
» Um... actually...
Posted by: vickums
» pro-choice advocates don't advise about increased breast cance risk because there isn't any.
Posted by: macarr42
» RE: pro-choice advocates don't advise about increased breast cance risk because there isn't any.
Posted by: itwieg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mj213 on Sep 5, 2008 9:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's terrible to think this, and I certainly hope this is not the case, but just reading about how she handled her last hours of pregnancy, it raised some great concern and humongous red flags for me and probably many others.
Also, as a survivor of rape, I was fortunate enough to have tested negative for pregnancy and negative for HIV after my attack. Had I been pregnant, and forced to carry an unwanted child that I would associate with the worst and most horrific experience in my life, if I did not have personal choice to have an abortion, I would have killed myself. There was no doubt in my head that that was what I would have done. How dare she want to take our freedom of choice as women away from us, especially in the most horrific of circumstances. Shame Shame Shame on Sarah Palin!!!!
MJ
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Questionable Morality
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CA NOW on Sep 5, 2008 9:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lily H. on Sep 6, 2008 3:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rae Stewart case occurred. Pamela Rae was a known
meth-using mom who was ordered by her doctors to
avoid having sex during the waning weeks of her preg-
nancy, but apparently her husband didn't bother
listening to the warning and had his way with her
anyway. She was already being monitored for her ongoing meth use, and was a trainwreck waiting to
happen. She avoided seeing doctors because she
was trying to cover up her drug use.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Slight Correction...
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: broussca on Sep 7, 2008 6:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women struggling to decide between Obama and Palin (that seems to be what it's going to boil down to) need to read this because many of them might see the hypocrisy and elitism behind many of Palin's "values." Is there a way to get this OUT THERE on the net where more people will see it?? I found it in a search but I'm worried that many people will miss it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: genegirl65 on Sep 7, 2008 6:05 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder what choice you would have made if the fetus had trisomy 13 or trisomy 18 instead of trisomy 21? Both of these chromosomal abnormalities impart significantly more severe birth defects on the fetus than those associated with Down syndrome. One could argue that the risk of a 43-year-old woman giving birth to a child with severe abnormalities, which is certainly a high-risk situation, surely endangers the mother's life. Would you have sacrificed your own health, and along with it the future of your other four children and husband, to carry to term a fetus with a chromosome abnormality incompatible with life?
Oh wait, yes, you would have, because your record demonstrates that you are both selfish and ruthless. Any woman who willingly enters into a situation which demands her full time and attention when she has small children at home, especially a special-needs infant, is either incredibly selfish, or just plain stupid.
Also, I hope you discussed your decision to continue the pregnancy with your children, since they are the ones who will be caring for Trig when you and your husband are long gone. He will no longer be the sweet, adorable little infant he is now, but rather he will physically be an adult with the IQ of a 5-year-old, unable to live independently, and will likely be suffering from dementia as well, since virtually all adults with Down syndrome eventually develop Alzheimer's disease. I have first hand knowledge of the difficulties of caring for an adult with Down syndrome, not only professionally, but personally as well. Today many individuals with Down syndrome are living well into their 50's and even 60's. That last decade is the most challenging, and you will surely be dead by then, or at the very least far too frail to care for him. If you think this will not be a burden to your other children, you are sorely mistaken.
I also wonder how you can align yourself with a party that has such disregard for those with special needs?
As far as I'm concerned, you are a disgrace to womanhood. I won't even address the other sources of my contempt for you, other than to say that the way you are self-righteously flaunting certain aspects of your life in order to catapult your career onward is absolutely disgusting.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: My addendum to this letter: And WOW. Part 1.
Posted by: bobtr900
» RE: My addendum to this letter: And Wow. Part 2.
Posted by: bobtr900
» A disgrace to womanhood?! (oh dear)
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: My addendum to this letter:
Posted by: kmerian
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Opinionator on Sep 9, 2008 5:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keep on writing men and women.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: donzerylight on Sep 11, 2008 10:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To focus on Mrs Palin's reproductive history, recount it here, and directly criticize her for her reproductive choices, violates the principle of privacy. Mrs. Palin is a person as well as a politician, and in reading your letter I felt that you were using her reproductive history to further a political agenda at her expense. This is much the same element of thinking which motivates the criminal scapegoating of pregnant women under the US justice system: the notion that a pregnant or reproductively active woman is less entitled to the right to determine, for herself, how to live her own life.
The methods of depriving a pregnant or reproductively active woman of her rights are often fostered through a process of public communication known as demonization.
While you may not have intended to, your letter and the comments printed here are politically opportunistic and some of them even verge on bigotry. They demonize Ms Palin. As a feminist and one of the medical professionals who signed the NAPW's 2005 public letter to the media on demonizing terminology related to the rights of pregnant women, I found the approach and tone of this letter to be uncharacteristic of your organization's mission.
Mrs. Palin is not the target. Please re-evaluate your focus. Irresponsible communication can harm the ethos of an organization and its mission over time. And many who are offended may not bother to say something about it.
I hope these comments are received in the spirit in which they were intended, which is that of support for the organization you represent and accountability for responsibly communicating and furthering its aims.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A dissenting opinion -- bear with me here
Posted by: Janusdog
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Sep 4, 2008 10:38 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
jdfu!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» it's not that she can't read it.
Posted by: EinMD
Comments are closed-
Posted by: tamiofbrooksgroth on Sep 4, 2008 7:37 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: itwieg on Sep 5, 2008 6:40 AM
Current rating: 1 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Second, it's a good point that certain principles can limit the medical choices of women, but why can't legal distinctions be made to balance a fetuses "rights" against a potential mother's? This is just to say that Palin's position could be made legally coherent.
Finally, if pro-choice advocates were so concerned about the reproductive health and well-being of potential mothers, you'd think they'd try to increase awareness about how abortion increases the risk of breast cancer (and yes there is a plausible biological mechanism for this).
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Important points lost in the rhetoric
Posted by: ae3n
» RE: Important points lost in the rhetoric
Posted by: Courtroom Mama
» Um... actually...
Posted by: vickums
» pro-choice advocates don't advise about increased breast cance risk because there isn't any.
Posted by: macarr42
» RE: pro-choice advocates don't advise about increased breast cance risk because there isn't any.
Posted by: itwieg
Comments are closed-
Posted by: mj213 on Sep 5, 2008 9:04 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's terrible to think this, and I certainly hope this is not the case, but just reading about how she handled her last hours of pregnancy, it raised some great concern and humongous red flags for me and probably many others.
Also, as a survivor of rape, I was fortunate enough to have tested negative for pregnancy and negative for HIV after my attack. Had I been pregnant, and forced to carry an unwanted child that I would associate with the worst and most horrific experience in my life, if I did not have personal choice to have an abortion, I would have killed myself. There was no doubt in my head that that was what I would have done. How dare she want to take our freedom of choice as women away from us, especially in the most horrific of circumstances. Shame Shame Shame on Sarah Palin!!!!
MJ
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Questionable Morality
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CA NOW on Sep 5, 2008 9:48 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Lily H. on Sep 6, 2008 3:24 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Rae Stewart case occurred. Pamela Rae was a known
meth-using mom who was ordered by her doctors to
avoid having sex during the waning weeks of her preg-
nancy, but apparently her husband didn't bother
listening to the warning and had his way with her
anyway. She was already being monitored for her ongoing meth use, and was a trainwreck waiting to
happen. She avoided seeing doctors because she
was trying to cover up her drug use.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A Slight Correction...
Posted by: VZEQICVA
Comments are closed-
Posted by: broussca on Sep 7, 2008 6:55 AM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women struggling to decide between Obama and Palin (that seems to be what it's going to boil down to) need to read this because many of them might see the hypocrisy and elitism behind many of Palin's "values." Is there a way to get this OUT THERE on the net where more people will see it?? I found it in a search but I'm worried that many people will miss it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: genegirl65 on Sep 7, 2008 6:05 PM
Current rating: 5 [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder what choice you would have made if the fetus had trisomy 13 or trisomy 18 instead of trisomy 21? Both of these chromosomal abnormalities impart significantly more severe birth defects on the fetus than those associated with Down syndrome. One could argue that the risk of a 43-year-old woman giving birth to a child with severe abnormalities, which is certainly a high-risk situation, surely endangers the mother's life. Would you have sacrificed your own health, and along with it the future of your other four children and husband, to carry to term a fetus with a chromosome abnormality incompatible with life?
Oh wait, yes, you would have, because your record demonstrates that you are both selfish and ruthless. Any woman who willingly enters into a situation which demands her full time and attention when she has small children at home, especially a special-needs infant, is either incredibly selfish, or just plain stupid.
Also, I hope you discussed your decision to continue the pregnancy with your children, since they are the ones who will be caring for Trig when you and your husband are long gone. He will no longer be the sweet, adorable little infant he is now, but rather he will physically be an adult with the IQ of a 5-year-old, unable to live independently, and will likely be suffering from dementia as well, since virtually all adults with Down syndrome eventually develop Alzheimer's disease. I have first hand knowledge of the difficulties of caring for an adult with Down syndrome, not only professionally, but personally as well. Today many individuals with Down syndrome are living well into their 50's and even 60's. That last decade is the most challenging, and you will surely be dead by then, or at the very least far too frail to care for him. If you think this will not be a burden to your other children, you are sorely mistaken.
I also wonder how you can align yourself with a party that has such disregard for those with special needs?
As far as I'm concerned, you are a disgrace to womanhood. I won't even address the other sources of my contempt for you, other than to say that the way you are self-righteously flaunting certain aspects of your life in order to catapult your career onward is absolutely disgusting.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: My addendum to this letter: And WOW. Part 1.
Posted by: bobtr900
» RE: My addendum to this letter: And Wow. Part 2.
Posted by: bobtr900
» A disgrace to womanhood?! (oh dear)
Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: My addendum to this letter:
Posted by: kmerian
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Opinionator on Sep 9, 2008 5:17 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keep on writing men and women.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: donzerylight on Sep 11, 2008 10:01 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To focus on Mrs Palin's reproductive history, recount it here, and directly criticize her for her reproductive choices, violates the principle of privacy. Mrs. Palin is a person as well as a politician, and in reading your letter I felt that you were using her reproductive history to further a political agenda at her expense. This is much the same element of thinking which motivates the criminal scapegoating of pregnant women under the US justice system: the notion that a pregnant or reproductively active woman is less entitled to the right to determine, for herself, how to live her own life.
The methods of depriving a pregnant or reproductively active woman of her rights are often fostered through a process of public communication known as demonization.
While you may not have intended to, your letter and the comments printed here are politically opportunistic and some of them even verge on bigotry. They demonize Ms Palin. As a feminist and one of the medical professionals who signed the NAPW's 2005 public letter to the media on demonizing terminology related to the rights of pregnant women, I found the approach and tone of this letter to be uncharacteristic of your organization's mission.
Mrs. Palin is not the target. Please re-evaluate your focus. Irresponsible communication can harm the ethos of an organization and its mission over time. And many who are offended may not bother to say something about it.
I hope these comments are received in the spirit in which they were intended, which is that of support for the organization you represent and accountability for responsibly communicating and furthering its aims.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: A dissenting opinion -- bear with me here
Posted by: Janusdog
Vancouver's Games Will Be the Gayest Olympics Ever
Trial Begins for Activist Who Fought to Protect Federal Lands from Drilling -- Join the Protest
Starbucks' Cop-Out to Gun Nuts: Customers Served Coffee While Strapped




