UNITED STATES-
by Yenny Delgado-
On May 14, 2019, twenty-five white men in the Alabama State Senate voted in favor of The Alabama Human Life Protection Act, an anti-abortion bill, that was subsequently signed into law by Governor Kay Ivey (white women, 74 years old). This law makes abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy, with exemptions allowed only if the woman’s life is threatened. Based on the state’s demography and access to basic healthcare, this law will disproportionately affect women living in impoverished situations.
To understand the current debate and rancor over Alabama’s law we need to go beyond reflections of Casey versus Planned Parenthood or even Roe versus Wade. At the heart of the matter, it is whether a woman has full autonomy and decision-making abilities over her decision to be a mother and assume motherhood. Through reflecting on the history of abortion in the US as well as government supported policy regarding family planning outside of the country — the difference between public versus private decisions becomes more entangled and less clear.
Historical References
Abortion has never been in the hands of women. In the 20th century, state law and policy has shifted with the rhythms of economic and military expansion, desire for cheap labor, and increased consumerism. The history of abortion illustrates that it was first priests, then doctors, and now legislators and judges — never women — who defined decisions and morality surrounding motherhood.
At the founding of the country until the end of the Civil War, there was always a difference in the access of healthcare between enslaved African women versus European free women. Throughout the colonial period and during the first years of the republic, enslaved women were subject to the rules of their enslavers and were flatly refused any options to terminate the pregnancy even though many of the pregnancies were the result of rape or sexual abuse.
Enslaved women were denied abortions primarily due to economic forces to continue the growth of capital for white men. These laws were not designed with the purpose of protecting the fetus or the woman; they were enforced primarily to protect the economic interest of the male owner. To ensure greater economic value and for hedonistic pleasure white men would rape enslaved women to expand their own commerce. Neither the slave-owner or government needed to provide anything to the women, no healthcare, child support or education.
In this society the newborn would be a slave and born to serve and enrich the country; without an opportunity to for life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. Arguments related to the protection of life were not considered as the prevailing belief at the time adhered to the strong ideology of white supremacy — in which enslaved individuals were considered three-fifths of a person per the Constitution in 1787.
Whether during the time of slavery or even to this day, the religion of business was one of the key drivers in preventing access to female self-determination in motherhood. To this day the country needs a growing population to maintain the economic and political system that is built on increased consumption. This would hypothetically place women as the principal power player but in fact, pregnant women are now those who now are trapped in a cage.
Access to abortion has been fraught throughout the history of the country, as well as access to family planning methods. How the US supports efforts abroad with regards to family planning in the poorest countries seems to be at odds with what is permitted in the country.
Contradictions in policy?
One of the biggest debates related to the Affordable Care Act signed into law on March 23, 2010, was the provision that mandated contraceptive methods and counseling should be provided under all health care plans. The uproar came not only from religious and non-profit groups but also from closely held for-profit corporations. The closely-held for-profits corporations (i.e. Hobby Lobby) sued for waivers against providing basic family planning benefits as a part of their health care package (birth control pills, injectables, or patches, condoms, diaphragms, IUDs)
While there was a fierce debate in the United States as to whether all health plans must provide contraceptive care when it comes to foreign aid from the US government and large not-for-profits this has not been an issue.
Out of money provided from tax dollars, The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) advances and supports voluntary family planning and reproductive health programs in nearly 40 countries. According to their own website, greater access to family planning ensure: protection of health, reduces HIV and AIDS, improves individual rights, reduces poverty and decreases abortions. As the world’s largest family planning bilateral donor, USAID is committed to help countries meet the Family Planning 2020’s goals which include contraception and the ability for women to have autonomy over their bodies and reproductive health needs of their people.
Here in the United States, all families with medical or health coverage do not necessarily have access to family planning coverages. Increasingly in states across the nation access to abortion is being limited by legislative bodies composed primarily of men. Inherently legislation about pregnancy and family planning have to do with the control of the body, and the individuals that would suffer from these laws are women, though most of the people making the decision are men.
However, in our society, a woman’s body is treated as public space. So, is maternity now considered a private option or a public obligation in the eyes of the Alabama Human Life Protection Act?
Patriarchy rules
In the metanarrative of society and the Judeo-Christian value system, the man is at the center of power, society, and culture. This understanding of society and nature manifest itself in the area of self-determination and motherhood, with the decision-making process in the hands of men. Legislative bodies composed primarily of men legislate on the morality of the body of women just as the priest did in the past. In this framing of society, women are left outside of the creative process and only serve as an instrument with no voice or vote regarding creation, serving only as an incubator.
After many battles in past decades, women mobilized against laws that seek control over a woman’s body. The results of these battles have provided greater autonomy for women in society and are now promoted as good policy by USAID around the world in assisting developing countries.
Laws such as the Alabama Human Life Protection Act are an effort to turn back the clock to when the government decided the path to motherhood for the benefit of others. However, this time women will rise up against this oppression as we are ready to defend our fundamental right to privacy and the power to control our own body. We will decide for ourselves when life comes through our womb and assume motherhood with responsibility.
The opinions expressed in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the ALC News