Monthly Archives: July 2022

Americans are having trouble seeing things from other points of view lately. And not just lately. People in the United States have had this problem since before there was a United States. So maybe it's just a problem of being human. One of many.

For example, there is the Dobbs ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court last week, which overturned Roe v. Wade and the "right" to end a pregnancy. Or, in another point of view, end the life of a living person in the womb before he or she is allowed to be born.

Here are some of the things we've read in the paper about that ruling, from a certain point of view:

"It is unconscionable that a group of politicians, who mostly neglect families that look like mine, now have the power to endanger women's health and criminalize our doctors for offering appropriate life-saving care."--Tennessee state Sen. London Lamar, as quoted in The Washington Post.

"Today is a dark day in our nation's history, and this decision is a devastating confirmation of what Black and brown reproductive justice organizers have been sounding the alarms about for years: This Court will stop at nothing to strip away our reproductive freedom and our fundamental human right to bodily autonomy."--U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, in a statement.

"Women of color, poor women, Black women are often the canary in the coal mine on these issues. Their experience really telegraphs where we are going with this."--Melissa Murray, New York University law professor.

Or, from another point of view, the latest ruling by the United States Supreme Court prevents Black and brown children from being aborted.

This past week, Star Parker, one of our syndicated columnists, reminds us that about one-third of all abortions in the United States are performed on Black women. Another way to say that, one-third of all children prevented from being born are Black.

We are also reminded of the writings of Justice Clarence Thomas in 2019 in a concurring opinion on an abortion case, in which he dedicated 12 pages in his opinion to repeating the awful history of eugenics in this country and around the world. He warned his colleagues that the high court's continued backing of Roe at the time might lead to abortion-by-racial-category and, in effect, eugenics. There was talk at the time that anti-abortion leaders should pass laws to challenge Roe not on privacy issues, but on discrimination.

According to The Washington Post, "Not all states report racial and ethnic data on abortion, but among those who do (29 states and D.C.), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that a disproportionately high share are women of color. In 2019, the abortion rate for Black women was 23.8 per 1,000 women. For Hispanic women, it was 11.7 per 1,000. And for white women, it was 6.6 per 1,000."

So, from a different point of view, could it be said that children of color could be disproportionately saved by the Dobbs ruling?

A good part of the country, and not just in a few high legal circles, seem to think so.

Read more from the original source:

Another point of view - Arkansas Online

On June 24th, the Supreme Court officially overturned Roe v. Wade the landmark 1973 ruling that made safe, legal abortion a constitutional right making good on the leaked draft that predicted the move back in May. In the week since, people have taken to social media to respond in horror and to share urgent information about how those in restricted states can still access abortion.

Many of those expressing their anger have also echoed a common sentiment: that if women are forced to give birth, men should be forced to get mandatory vasectomies. For some, the intention behind this is to show the absurdity of politically controlling another persons body and reproductive choices something that many only deem intolerable when applied to men. Or, as one Twitter user eloquently put it: The vasectomy debate is a hypothetical meant to illustrate that people view infringements on the bodily autonomy of women as neutral, while infringements on the bodily autonomy of men as human rights violations.

However, others appear to be more serious in their calls for mandatory vasectomies, urging those who create sperm and can get someone pregnant to go get a vasectomy. Part of the allure, the more sincere tweets allege, is that vasectomies are reversible, meaning a guy of any age, with or without kids, could use it like a temporary contraceptive.

Except, this isnt invariably the case. As well as not always being reversible and, in rare cases, failing at preventing pregnancy vasectomies arent as easy to access as you might think. Men face many of the same barriers as women seeking sterilization, including resistance from doctors based on the fact that they might change their mind, as well as an astronomical expense if they do decide to (and are able to) reverse it. Likewise, calling for forced sterilization of any kind misses the point in the argument for everyone having bodily autonomy. Importantly, vasectomies dont solve the abortion debate just as any form of birth control isnt an alternative for abortion, a vasectomy doesnt reduce the need for an abortion when one is needed.

In response to all this, Georgia Grainger, a PhD student at Glasgows Centre for the Social History of Health & Healthcare who researches the history of vasectomies, shared a Twitter thread explaining why shes going to lose her shit if she sees one more feminist suggest mandatory vasectomies for men, that vasectomies prevent abortion or that vasectomies are any kind of solution to this situation. Unsurprisingly, her thread got a lot of heat, both from anti-abortion and pro-abortion activists alike.

So, to delve deeper into the controversial debate and learn why mandatory vasectomies arent a solution I asked Grainger to expand on her thread, share the history of forced sterilization in the U.S. and highlight some of the conversations we should be having instead.

At one point, there actually were mandatory vasectomies for some men in the U.S. Can you briefly explain the history of that?

Mandatory vasectomies in the U.S. began in 1899 with [a physician named] Dr. Sharp, who began vasectomizing inmates at the Indiana Reformatory in Jeffersonville. At first he thought it might change their behavior to make them less likely to be violent or sexual kind of like castrating a dog for behavioral problems because they didnt fully understand the impact of hormones yet. For the record, a vasectomy doesnt impact testosterone production at all, whereas castration [which removes the testicles and is a totally different procedure] does. But even castration doesnt make people less violent, as far as were aware, so none of it really worked the way Sharp thought it would.

However, after beginning these sterilizations for behavioral reasons, the rise of the ideology of eugenics that bad traits (like criminality or mental disability) could be bred out of people led to vasectomies being used for that in early 20th century America. Thinking that men (and women) in prison or institutions for disabled people must have undesirable traits that shouldnt be passed onto future generations, states began to bring in legislation to authorize eugenic sterilization: vasectomies for men, and tubal ligation or hysterectomies for women.

In total, 30 states had legislation for eugenic sterilization [at first, this was for prisoners and those in institutions, but after World War II, poor people and minorities were targeted, too]. Some had involuntary eugenic sterilization, where doctors could perform it without the patients consent, while others had voluntary eugenic sterilization, where patients were often promised shorter prison times or other benefits if they consented. But as many of those sterilized had developmental or mental disabilities, how much they could consent is unclear.

In 1927, the Supreme Court upheld the case Buck v. Bell which has never been overturned allowing non-consensual (compulsory) sterilization of the unfit (disabled people) in Virginia. Approximately 64,000 Americans were sterilized for eugenic reasons by 1963, with 39 percent of those being men given vasectomies. A disproportionate amount of those sterilized were people of color, with Black and Latinx people in particular being sterilized in huge numbers. Though this practice isnt well-known, disabled people can still be sterilized against their consent in 31 states not through old laws that have not been repealed, but through current and sometimes recently enacted laws.

Why, then, are mandatory vasectomies not a solution to the current abortion situation?

While I completely understand the anger of having our bodies controlled, I see a lot of people calling for mandatory vasectomies as a response, suggesting that men could have their vasectomies reversed when they want to be a father or, sometimes, when they prove theyre capable of being a father. These calls are usually not serious although Ive seen some people say they are completely serious and are instead to show how absurd abortion bans are.

However, there are a few issues I have with them. First is that they spread false information that vasectomies are just long-acting reversible contraceptives (like IUDs). This isnt true. A lot of vasectomies cant be reversed. But, beyond that, many men have been forcibly vasectomized throughout U.S. history as far as I understand, the estimates are over 30,000 men in the 20th century.

So mandatory vasectomies arent really a useful tool to show how absurd the abortion ban is, as theyve already been used legally for over a century in America. Many people calling for them arent aware of this aspect of U.S. history, because its not widely taught. So I think this is a really important time to educate people on the fact that what theyre satirically calling for has happened in recent U.S. history.

How did people respond to your Twitter thread criticizing calls for mandatory vasectomies?

Ive had hundreds of people tell me theyve learned a lot, and that they didnt know about the involuntary eugenic sterilization programs in U.S. history. Ive had some people say that even with that knowledge, theyd continue calling for mandatory sterilization, which is absolutely their choice, but I think the number of people saying they didnt know about it and would no longer use that argument really demonstrates why this kind of education is necessary.

Ive been surprised that some feminists were angry at me for, as they put it, centering the discussion on men. I can understand that anger especially at a time when there is so much anger to feel but Im only sharing my research specialism, which does happen to be about mens contraceptive choices, as well as responding to posts already centering men by suggesting we force vasectomies. Im not trying to make this about mens feelings at a time when I believe womens feelings and experiences should be forefront; instead Im trying to educate people about the reality of forced sterilization, and how its not as unlikely a scenario as people might think and that it has historically been used to disproportionately affect people of color and disabled people.

What do you think of the skyrocketing interest in vasectomies post Roe v. Wade being overturned?

Ive seen a lot of men talk about how this development has encouraged them to book their vasectomy consultation, which I think is fantastic. Vasectomies are a relatively low-risk option, and are as reliable as other contraceptive options. I definitely recommend that any men who dont want children, or who already have as many children as theyd like, think about whether a vasectomy is an option for them, and talk to their doctor about it.

However, the increased interest in mandatory vasectomies is upsetting, because it demonstrates how little people recognize that, historically, restricted reproductive rights for women have also come alongside restricted reproductive rights for marginalized men. Yes, the men on the Supreme Court are unlikely to ever be subjected to mandatory vasectomies, but there are thousands of men across the U.S. who a lot of the conservative right-wing would probably be quite happy to vasectomize, and I dont think we should encourage them even as a rhetorical device.

What conversations about vasectomies, birth control and abortion should we be having instead?

Something that a lot of women dont realize is how difficult it can be for men to even access vasectomies. Were used to being told that were too young, will change our minds and other patronizing things when we ask for permanent sterilization options, and I think its easy to assume that men wouldnt be told that, but they are. Ive heard from countless men whove tried to get a vasectomy but were told they had to be over 35 if they didnt have children, or over 30 if they did, and that theyd have to have their wifes permission, or, if they werent married, they wouldnt be approved for one.

So, along with better provision of contraceptive options for women and fewer restrictions on access to them, we also need to be making it easier for men to take responsibility when they want to. We need reproductive choice for everyone.

I know you dont have a ton of abortion access where you are either. How does it feel watching the events in America unfold? Whats it been like in the U.K.?

Its difficult to watch. Im from Northern Ireland, which has never had legal access to abortion; recently abortion itself was decriminalized there, but theres no actual health-care provision for it (no abortion clinics, doctors, etc.), so pregnant people still have to travel to England to get an abortion. Theres also been an uptick in anti-abortion protests in Scotland where I live now alongside an increase in right-wing attacks on LGBTQ+ rights.

Though not as severe as the shift in the U.S, I think our anti-choice, anti-queer campaigners are being encouraged by the developments in the U.S, and are seeing it as their time to be louder here too, which is scary. It demonstrates how international these ideas and trends are, and how important it is for us to learn from and support one another. A lot of campaigners in Europe especially in Ireland and Poland have spent decades campaigning for abortion rights and providing illegal-but-safe abortions, so theres a lot of knowledge and strategies there for American campaigners to pull from as well. Theres solidarity on this side of the Atlantic for American women right now, as we know the struggles all too well.

Brit Dawson is a London-based journalist who mostly writes about sex, women's rights and sex work. She is also the staff writer at Dazed.

Read the original here:

A Vasectomy Historian on Why Male Sterilization Won't Solve the Abortion Problem - MEL Magazine

In this op-ed, Anja Herrman explores why disabled people should be centered in the fight for reproductive rights.

While my generation has, up until now, always had the right to a legal abortion, not all of us were able to exercise it. On June 24, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, allowing states to legislate away abortion rights. But for disabled people like me, Roe was never enough, as the government has long legislated our reproductive health away. As many of us now rally for the restoration of our rights, we must center the voices of disabled people. Were still fighting for the kind of freedom that most Americans take for granted.

The United States has a long history of trying to control people with disabilities. In the early 1900s, supporters of the eugenics movement advocated for the forced sterilization of anyone they believed to be unfit in order to preserve good bloodlines. Who was fit or unfit? Largely, anyone who wasnt a wealthy, white, nondisabled person. The eugenics movement was supported (even encouraged!) by the U.S. government. In 1927, the Court decided in Buck v. Bell that the government was within their rights to sterilize people declared disabled, because three generations of imbeciles are enough. This abhorrent repudiation of disabled people's humanity is one of the most shameful in our countrys history but its far from over. A recent report by the National Womens Law Center found that 31 states (and Washington DC) explicitly allow the forced sterilization of disabled people. Laws like these destroy the idea that disabled people should be able to make these choices for ourselves and instead allow others to manipulate our bodies.

Though Im young, I have always seen parenting in my future, but this possibility may be denied to me because of my disability. In the U.S., a parents disability is sometimes considered in determining custody cases. When he was a judge on the DC Court of Appeals, now-Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh decided in Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia that DCs statute allowing the principality to forcibly perform an abortion on an intellectually disabled individual was constitutional, thus denying a disabled woman a chance at being a mother. Tarlow shows how the fight against Roe has never been about babies, but about control. Kavanaugh voted to overturn Roe.

This isnt to say that a disabled person cant also be forced to become a parent. Disabled people are much more vulnerable to sexual assault than their nondisabled peers. Now, in a post-Roe world, this means that I could be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy resulting from assault to term.

As we rally around abortion rights, its crucial that we center disabled people to achieve real justice. To truly accept and include disabled people like me, there needs to be a recognition that abortion isnt the only thing we need to have true control over our reproductive lives. Instead of letting me make my own reproductive health choices, lawmakers have become far too comfortable with policing bodies like mine.

As a disabled teen, I deserve to be able to make choices about my body and my future. Im asking pro-choice advocates to see the value of including disability in our fight for change. If disabled people dont get a seat at the table, then future generations wont truly have the right to choose. Its time to get the government out of disabled peoples uteruses once and for all.

Let us slide into your DMs. Sign up for the Teen Vogue daily email.

Want more from Teen Vogue? Check this out:

Read the original post:

Disabled People Never Had Full Autonomy Over Our Reproductive Rights - Teen Vogue

The Jazz Age was flourishing, thanks in part to new Prohibition laws. In Seattle, the so-called Jackson Street nightclub and speakeasy scene took off, spreading from Pioneer Square to the Central District and eventually birthing more than a generation of great music and musicians. But while the races exuberantly mixed in the after-midnight hours at clubs like the Black and Tan, nationally and locally reactionary racial politics took hold. By day, the segregating redlines in the city were steadfast and racist covenants spread.

Politically, the white middle class yearned for normalcy, which brought a sequence of conservative Republican presidents, including Calvin Coolidge, Warren G. Harding and Herbert Hoover, all of whom carried Washington state. But normalcy for many people meant a return to aggressive white supremacy. In some cases, Washington led the way.

The Ku Klux Klan revived in the 20s. Once mostly limited to the South, it found new enthusiasts in the white middle class of the far West and Midwest. The KKK took over towns and state houses, including for a time Oregons. Anti-Black, anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic and anti-modernity, theKlan became a powerful force that paraded openly in the streets and rallied tens of thousands of people to witness late-night cross-burnings in places like Issaquah, Yakima and Renton.Some events attracted 30,000 or more people.

Seattle author Timothy Egan has written a book about the 1920s Klan revival, A Fever in the Heartland, due out next spring. Some five million Americans joined the 1920s KKK. In 1924, the Democratic delegations from Washington, Oregon and Idaho together unanimously opposed a plank in the partys platform that would repudiate Klan violence.

New anti-immigration laws targeting Asians were passed to keep America white. The Northwest had been founded on race-based policies that impacted who could settle here and who could homestead. In 1921, the Washington Legislaturepassed the first law since statehood aimed at cracking down on Japanese immigrants by revoking their right to lease or rent land. A Washington Congressman, Albert Johnson, shepherded a bill through Congress, the Immigration Act of 1924, that essentially halted all Asian immigration. Johnson called it a bulwark against alien blood. These kinds of bills had strong support from both the KKK and the general public.

The year of the immigration act also saw the election of a conservative Republican governor in Washington, Roland Hartley, an Everett politician and timberman who broke with the progressive wing of the GOP. Historian Dave M. Buerge has written, The 1924 campaign was a particularly grotesque one in Washington politics, with the Ku Klux Klan fomenting hatred against blacks, foreigners, Jews, and Catholics. Government intervention in private life during the war had fostered a backlash.

Hartley capitalized. He was anti-labor, anti-tax and anti-government when he couldnt control it with his autocratic ways. He slashed funding for the state highway department and for public schools, and he almost drove the University of Washington into the ground by cutting its budgets and seizing control of its board of regents. He bullied and name-called his enemies, though Im not sure anyone today would be insulted by being called a pusillanimous blatherskite.

Not only was Washington a leader in opposing nonwhite immigration and hounding people of color with legal restrictions and burning crosses, it was also an early adopter in 1909 of eugenics laws which took choice away from some Americans by installing a system of involuntary sterilizations. In 1921, the state Legislature tookan even harsher stand against the unfit with a broadened list of who could be forcibly sterilized, including the feeble-minded, insane, epileptic, habitual criminals, moral degenerates, and sexual perverts. Such laws received U.S. Supreme Court sanction under the Buck v. Bell decision of 1927 when Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes infamously declared that three generations of imbeciles is enough to justify sterilizing women as it turned out,mostly poor Black women. Nearly 700 Washingtonians were sterilized under state law until the practice ended here in the 1940s. More than 2,600 in Oregon were sterilized until the early 1980s.

Read this article:

The rise of reactionaries in the wake of the 1918 flu pandemic - Crosscut