It’s hard out here for an abortion doctor.

Tags

abortion, abortion law, abortion regulation, abortion rights, anti-abortion, anti-choice, pro-choice, pro-life, reproductive health, reproductive rights

 

It’s not that I’m obsessed with abortion; it’s more that I’m obsessed with people not having their personal rights violated. It should be pretty clear by now to my two or three regular readers that I’m very pro-choice. And I do mean choice. Every pregnant woman’s situation is too individual, there are too many variables, I believe, for people to cast judgment on one another’s personal lives. Especially when that judgment turns homicidal.

In a recent article on NorthJersey.com, retired abortion doctor Robert Livingston recounted his experience as an abortion doctor in the 1960s—before 1972’s Roe vs. Wade made abortion legal. In Livingston’s account, he said he believes that it’s more dangerous to provide abortions now, when the procedure is supposed to be safe and legal, than the sixties. He said he managed to fly under the radar because he charged a low fee for the service ($400), and because of his discretion. He was able to buy equipment in neighboring New York, which had the most permissive abortion laws of the sixties.

Livingston said that he had been reluctant to talk publicly about his experiences for a number of years, largely because his own children, who all work in medicine, feared retaliation at their own practices. After the Akin fiasco, he said that he felt compelled to talk. Livingston said that his views were shaped when he was in medical school, when he saw 19 year-old woman die from a botched abortion that resulted in kidney failure because Lysol had been injected into her cervix. When he started his own practice, he moved into a space in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, which overlooked the local police station. He remembers his first abortion patient, an unmarried 40 year-old woman, who also had a uterine cyst the size of a baseball. According to Livingston, the situation wasn’t life-threatening, but it would probably have done more damage to her socially, because unmarried mothers were still seen as disgusting sinners fit for nothing but ostracism—as if they got pregnant by themselves.

Livingston said that he debated the decision to perform the procedure for a few days before proceeding. He said that after that, word got around, and that eventually averaged three abortions a week. While details weren’t provided, there is some reference to what can best be described as Livingston’s disgust at doctors victimizing their patients. He was located next to a busy restaurant, which made his after-hours patients able to come and go unnoticed.

Ironically, it wasn’t until after the Roe vs. Wade ruling that Livingston, along with another doctor, was indicted. However, a federal judge threw out the charge, calling New Jersey’s abortion ban unconstitutional. After that, Livingston announced that he was open for business. The Right-to-Lifers proudly showed up outside his doors almost daily for the rest of his career. He said that for the most part they remained peaceful. He and his staff did have to call the police once in a while if they believed that patients were being harassed, or if they were blocking the entrance. He eventually got a restraining order to push them across the street, but he said he almost never felt intimidated.

It’s ridiculous to me that today, when abortion is supposed to be safe and legal, there are so many who would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship to the point where abortion providers have to fear for their personal safety, and must also extend that fear to their patients. Earlier this year, when abortion restrictions were being debated before the state legislature in Atlanta, Georgia, the testifying physicians said that they had been warned of threats by lawmakers, and many said that they fear testifying ever again. Eventually, four of their offices were broken into, including two were set on fire while there were patients on the premises.

I have no problem calling those acts of terrorism, and neither should you. Those doctors were exercising their First Amendment rights, their rights as doctors, and their patients are entitled to safe treatment. That people would threaten violence or act out violently because people are exercising their rights is what makes me view this as domestic terrorism. It’s the same as destroying a groups house of worship because someone don’t like their religion. We must never forget that tolerance is a two-way street.

But it must also be said that there is still enormous resistance in this country of women developing autonomy over their own lives. If the people who seek to outlaw abortion were able to do it today, they would go after contraception tomorrow. This is the same mentality that allows religious police to harass women in malls in Saudi Arabia for wearing nail polish, and is behind the rise in acid attacks in Colombia. This takes me back to the picture at the beginning of this post, that most anti-abortion leaders are men—the gender that doesn’t get pregnant. Roseanne Barr once made a great joke that the reason so many men want to regulate our wombs is because they don’t come with remotes. And, really, that sums up the debate better than anything I could have come up with.

 

1. North Jersey.com Retired N.J. abortion doctor speaks up, again http://www.northjersey.com/englewood/NJ_abortion_doctor_turns_from_defiance_to_caution.html?page=all
2. YouTube Saudi Woman Defies Religious Police: It Is None of Your Business If I Wear Nail Polish
3. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Doctors fear testifying at Capitol http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/doctors-fear-testifying-at-capitol/nQWcT/
4. The Washington Post Acid Attacks Reflect Rage http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/acid-attacks-rising-in-colombia/2012/08/03/e8c85528-c843-11e1-9634-0dcc540e7171_story.html
5. NPR Sikh shooting puts focus on hate groups at home http://www.npr.org/2012/08/10/158509315/sikh-shooting-puts-focus-on-hate-groups-at-home
6. BBC Egypt bomb kills 21 at Alexandria Coptic Church http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12101748

Advertisements

Cliff Allen, local hero

Tags

heroism, Rape, Sexual Assault, sexual violence

On the night of July 2, Cliff Allen was riding the bus in Toronto. He was not alone. There was also a 12 year-old girl and three men who appeared to be in their early twenties. Allen observed as the men made lewd, sexual comments to the girl. When the girl got off the bus, Allen noticed that the men were following her, so he followed them. After several blocks, he caught up to them, where they were ripping the girl’s clothes off in an attempt at raping her. Allen jumped in and punched a guy in the face. In the ensuing brawl, Allen remembers getting in another good punch and a kick to someone’s groin before the attackers eventually ran off. Because the girl’s top was destroyed, Allen literally gave her the shirt off his back and walked her home and gave her his contact information. On his walk back home, Allen, a diabetic, passed out from a blood sugar crash. He was eventually awoken by a local EMT and taken to the hospital. The next morning, he received a gracious call from the girl’s parents.

In my interview with Allen, I found him to be a sweet guy who was still pretty shook up from the events of that night. Allen also voiced his concern over Toronto’s lack of a substantial support structure for sexual assault victims. In closing he said, “Even if one rape a day is stopped, then there’s one less horror story. People should remember there is strength in numbers: we shouldn’t be afraid to help.”

Retraction and Analysis: the New Abortion Regulations in Michigan

Tags

abortion, abortion law, abortion regulation, abortion rights, reproductive health, reproductive rights, women's health, women's rights

In every writer’s life, there is that moment after publication or posting where they become fully aware of all the things they did wrong. In my case, it has been mostly typo-related. But I just hit upon my worst fear: not having all my facts lined up. Eek!!!

After reading a post on Jezebel about Michigan HB 5711,¹ I made the impulsive move of jumping on board with the outrage about all the “new and unnecessary” regulations on abortion. And so I made the post entitled, “Another day, another uterine invasion.” I justify my impulsivity this way: after the craptastic bills signed into law regarding abortion and contraception in Arizona and Kansas, I just assumed that all the state legislatures who are already entertaining deranged fantasies about transvaginal probe ultrasounds would be looking for new ways to up the ante.

Over at Motley News, the talented and wonderful Michelle made a couple of terrific posts counting the ways that the Huffington Post and Jezebel got many things wrong.² Upon reading those pieces, I realized that Gasp! I just passed along that same misinformation!

Thankfully, Michelle has been kind enough to allow me to pass along her discoveries and to set the record straight. First off, as Michelle points out, it’s worth noting that Jezebel is the bigger offender here, and that’s the source that I cited in my previous post, so they will be the focus of my wrath. (Just picture me shaking my fist and growling as I say, “wrath.”)

First of all, it has to be said that Michigan is actually two abortion related laws, HB 5711 and HB 5713. HB 5711 is an update of existing laws pertaining to the regulation of abortion procedure—the mundane stuff pertaining to zoning laws, facility licensing, as well as defining terms like abortion, fetal remains, miscarriage, etc., as well disposing of fetal remains.³ HB 5713 is the bill introducing new restrictions on abortion, but first I want to cover HB 5711.

The first point to debunk is this: “For starters, all abortions after 20 weeks would be criminalized…” Actually, that isn’t mentioned at all in HB 5711. Michelle said she couldn’t find the ban for herself in the bill, and I read it and I couldn’t find it either. On the same topic, Jezebel also opined, “There is a very narrow exception made if the mother’s life is at risk, but simply her health and/or future fertility is not reason enough to allow an abortion.” Actually, the bill maintains existing rules allowing attending physicians to perform abortions if they people the mother’s life is in jeopardy. What seems to be causing confusion is that the bill defines “fetal death” as the death of a 20-week+ fetus, or weighs in at a minimum of 400 grams. The definition also defines a stillbirth as a fetal death.

The next is, “Oh, it’d also make it a crime to coerce a woman into having an abortion.” Like Michelle, I don’t see that as a terrible thing. Under HB 5711, a woman seeking an abortion would have to sign a document declaring that she is pursuing the procedure willfully and lawfully, that she is giving authorization to specific (to-be-named) medical personnel to perform the procedure, that she is not being coerced, that she has been fully informed of the gestational age, that she has received a written description of the procedure to be performed, that she has received a parenting and prenatal care pamphlet, that she has been fully informed if the potential risks and complications of the procedure, that she has been fully informed of the potential risks and complications of continuing the pregnancy, that she has contact information of applicable medical personnel if any complications were to arise as a result of the abortion procedure, that she has been given the opportunity to ask questions of the medical staff and that her questions have been answered adequately, and that the written  information she has received has all been clear and legible. The bill also makes it clear that document is to be available in English, Spanish, and Arabic.

The question I have is how to really enforce the anti-coercion measure. If a woman is being coerced, it’s pretty easy for her to just sign a paper that says, “I am not being coerced,” and proceed with the abortion. In the Jezebel piece, they did say, “make that definition vague enough and you might be able to start prosecuting doctors for being overly enthusiastic in telling patients that it’s totally safe to get an abortion…” The topic of coercion in this bill is dealt with in the context of domestic violence. It’s left rather open-ended, and really left to the medical staff own judgment as to whether they believe a patient is a potential victim. What the bill does lay out is the procedure for medical staff contacting the authorities if they believe that coercion is afoot. The bill also stipulates that the staff must have information on protection from domestic violence available to any patient that requests it, and also to inform any patient they believe may be a victim of domestic violence that this information exists.

The newer parts of the bill also go into detail regarding the illegalities around the coercion of minors, as well as the liability issues regarding doctors having high rates of post-procedural complications. Again, I don’t see anything unreasonable on this at all.

One thing I’m confused about is the 24-hour waiting period. I’m not sure if one already exists in Michigan or if this bill is introducing one. Based on the wording of the bill, I’m under the impression that a waiting period already exists, and I do trust that if I’m wrong someone will tell me. For the record, I think these waiting periods are just their own brand of coercion—that they’re trying to make abortion as inconvenient as possible. And the idea of a “reflection period” is absurd and paternalistic.

Another big thing that Jezebel gets wrong is this: “This lovely bill would also require that health centers that perform more than six abortions in a month be equipped with surgery rooms, even if they don’t do surgical abortions.” What the bill actually stipulates is that “a private practice office  described in this subsection…must be licensed under this article as a freestanding surgical outpatient facility if that facility publicly advertises outpatient abortion services and performs 6 or more abortions per month.” (Capitalized quotes are the newer parts of the bill.) In other words, it’s a licensing issue, not a change in building codes that, as implied by Jezebel, would require massive renovations.

Their next mistake is: “A doctor needs to be present for medication abortions, and no telemedicine is allowed, so doctors won’t be able to use technology to prescribe medication abortions from afar or even prescribe the morning-after pill.” HB 5711 simply doesn’t deal with that at all, and neither does 5713.

And finally, “And, just for good measure, the bill also puts in place elaborate new regulations for the disposal of fetal remains.” That’s half true. Now keep in mind, when we’re talking about the disposal of fetal remains, we’re talking about biomedical waste—you don’t dump that stuff just anywhere, whether it’s a kidney stone or a fetus. In HB 5711, the patient has the right to determine the disposal of fetal remains—donate them to science, cremation, or burial. However, the bill makes it very clear that the doctor is under no obligation to discuss this with the patient.

I don’t see anything inherently wrong with this; however, the bill does raise a couple of questions that it doesn’t answer. In regard to cremation, the fetal remains must be burned separate from other medical waste; however, the fetal remains can be incinerated en masse. My first thought on that is that it just it just made incinerating medical waste a little more expensive, so who is expected to foot the bill? The doctor? The Patient? The taxpayers? I wish I had an answer.

That brings up to HB 5713 which introduces new abortion legislation under the catchy title, “The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act.”⁴ It begins by expanding the definitions of what it means to coerce a pregnant woman into having an abortion, and also specifically lays out that knowingly committing violence against a pregnant woman is, um, more illegal than it was before? Here’s the thing, assault is illegal anyway, but this bill wants to remind us that assaulting pregnant women is also illegal. It also lays out the fines for engaging in any of the aforementioned activities, with potential prison time to be determined by the court. Also, anyone inflicting harm on a pregnant woman causing an end to the pregnancy would be charged with a separate offence, regardless of the stage of the pregnancy. The bill also opens the door for the mother to sue her assailant for wrongful death.

The next substantial part of HB 5713 goes on to describe the possibility that fetal pain exists around 20 weeks of gestation, therefore all abortions after 20 weeks are to be banned outright, due to the belief that this is when fetal pain can be measured. There is some exception regarding medical emergencies pertaining to the saving the life or preserving the health of the mother, but makes clear that this exception does not include emotional/mental distress. There are no exceptions for stillbirth, however, that may fall under the heading of protecting the life of the mother. Anyone violating this statute will be charge with a felony, face 15 years in prison or a $7.5 million fine.

One thing that HB 5713 does that really bothers me is securing inheritance rights for the fetus, providing legal guardianship ad litem prior to birth. In other words, the state can take possession of a pregnant woman’s body. Let me explain: in 2004, Pennsylvania mother of six, Amber Marlowe, was pregnant with her seventh child. When she went into labor, she was told by doctors at Wilkes-Barre General Hospital that she should deliver by a caesarian section. Marlowe decided against the doctors recommendations, and went to another hospital, where she delivered vaginally and complication-free, just like her previous children. In the meantime, Wilkes-Barre General had their lawyers secure a court order to get legal guardianship of Marlowe’s unborn child, which would have resulted in a forced caesarian surgery if she had returned to that hospital.⁵ There have been a few other similar cases, and it’s worth looking up Pemberton vs. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center.⁶

The bill also includes a “wrongful birth” statute, where the parents cannot sue the attending physician for their child being born with disabilities that, if the parents had been informed of prior to birth, would have terminated the pregnancy. I guess this means that doctors would be allowed to withhold information from expecting mothers if they believe that information might result in an abortion. (Again, this is one of those things where I’m not 100% on my interpretation, so if anyone has more expertise to share with me on this topic, go for it.) In all honesty, giving doctors liberty to lie to patients just sounds dangerous on its face, I don’t care if we’re talking appendectomies or abortions.

Bizarrely, HB 5713 also includes some random statutes against cruelty to animals and torture—nothing specific, just general torture and cruelty, with no definitions spelled out. Not that I’m in favor of those things, but it’s like they found their way into the bill from some cut & paste mishap, because then we’re right back into pondering ways to regulate the womb.

In all honesty, this HB 5713 is kind of a half-assed attempt to curb late-term abortions. It’s worth nothing that almost 90% of all abortions take place within the first twelve weeks.⁷ When we get into later-term abortions, this is when we’re dealing with painful decisions pertaining to fetal anomalies, or the life of the mother is at risk. So the real obligation of the pro-life movement, it would seem, is to make an already risky and painful decision even more risky and painful. When there are people running amok who would use legislation to dictate lifestyle, the best thing we can do is arm ourselves with knowledge, in other words, getting our facts straight before we shoot our mouths off. If we don’t, they’ll only use our distortions against us later.

1. Jezebel: Michigan’s Extreme Anti-Abortion Bill Leads the Nation in Batshittery http://jezebel.com/5916818/michigans-extreme-anti+abortion-bill-leads-the-nation-in-batshittery
2. Motley News & Photos: Michigan’s Abortion HB 5711 is NOT as bad as Jezebel and HuffPo make it out to be http://motleynews.net/2012/06/09/michigans-abortion-hb-5711-is-not-as-bad-as-jezebel-and-huffpo-make-it-out-to-be/
3. HB 5711: http://legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billintroduced/House/htm/2012-HIB-5711.htm
4. HB 5713: http://legiscan.com/gaits/text/650409
5. MSNBC: What are mothers’ rights during childbirth?: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5012918/ns/health-womens_health/t/what-are-mothers-rights-during-childbirth/
6. Wikipedia: Pemberton vs. Tallahassee Memorial Regional Center:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemberton_v._Tallahassee_Memorial_Regional_Center
7. Guttmacher Insititute: Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States: http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Another day, another uterine invasion.

Tags

abortion, Michigan, women's health, women's rights, women's safety

Another day, another uterine invasion. Thanks, Michigan!

Per Jezebel: http://jezebel.com/5916818/michigans-extreme-anti+abortion-bill-leads- the-nation-in-batshittery?tag=roe-v%27-world

Partial pull: “The 60-page bill was introduced just last week by Republican Representative Bruce Rendon and contains all matter of horrors. For starters, all abortions after 20 weeks would be criminalized—no exceptions for victims of rape or if the fetus has a severe anomaly, like…missing a brain or a spine…There is a very narrow exception made if the mother’s life is at risk, but simply her health and/or future fertility is not reason enough to allow an abortion. Well, how very pro-life indeed. Oh, it’d also make it a crime to coerce a woman into having an abortion…This lovely bill would also require that health centers that perform more than six abortions in a month be equipped with surgery rooms, even if they don’t do surgical abortions…Women need to be screened to be sure there’s no “coercion” going on. A doctor needs to be present for medication abortions, and no telemedicine is allowed, so doctors won’t be able to use technology to prescribe medication abortions from afar or even prescribe the morning-after pill. And, just for good measure, the bill also puts in place elaborate new regulations for the disposal of fetal remains.”

But it’s not like there’s a war on women or anything. The GOP just wants government so tiny, it fits in our uteri. Or maybe just a uterine tracking device so us gals can be accessable by remote control, and just cut out the middle-men already.
[Storms off in a huff.]

It’s been a bad day for a woman’s right to privacy.

Tags

domestic violence, women, women's rights

I had been working on a piece about the current compromises to a woman’s medical privacy. Some of this is because of technology, but mostly it’s because there are some really intrusive bastards out there who believe women (and their doctors) can’t be trusted to make their own decisions regarding their health. I wanted to take a little more time with it so I could be more detailed, and I’ll probably get back to it later, but today two things happened that forced me to speed things up.

The first thing that I found utterly disappointing was that in Arizona today, Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed into law what has been referred to as the “Show Me Your Whore Pills” Law¹: that any employer that identifies as a religious organization would be able to fire female employees for using prescription contraception, and would be able to deny contraception if they felt like it. If said woman is one of the 58% of all women who use prescription contraception for health reasons², she’s got to open up her medical records to her employer and prove it. And did I mention that an employer can terminate an employee for using prescription contraception? Oh, I did? Well then, it’s worth mentioning again, because this whole this is just one big stupid idea. I can’t help but be reminded of the Lewis Black’s riff on how the Republicans are the part of bad ideas, and the Democrats are the party of no ideas.

What I find truly strange about this bill is all the new variables that open up. If a woman works for a big company, who are they expected to open up their medical records to? The CEO? Human resources? Their immediate supervisor? Therein also lies the potential that some suit the woman has never met who gets decide on her healthcare and her employment status based on their own morality. This law, in the hands of evil people, has the capacity to create a new kind of Gattaca-like sexual harassment. Not to mention a new market for extortionists and blackmailers.

The other big piece of bad news is the stripping down of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) as it passed the House today. All the provisions that offered protection to immigrant women, women on Native American reservations, LGBT men and women—POOF! Gone! I guess to the House Republicans, women from other lands aren’t really women, or women whose ancestors were here before all those white guys, nor women who like women. Ok, I got my sarcastic hyperbole out of my system, so now I’m going to let the fabulous Valerie Jarrett explain what this really means³:

“The passage of the Violence Against Women Act nearly two decades ago was an historic moment for America’s women and girls. The law gave women new legal protections that help ensure their safety… The bill [the Senate] approved would address the high rates of domestic violence committed against Native American women, ensure that LGBT victims have access to services, and make college campuses safer places to live and study… Unfortunately, the bill being considered in the House of Representatives today would do the opposite. It…rolls back existing protections, leaving women less safe. For example, if this bill were to become law, abusive partners would have an easier time using immigration status as a tool to control and further abuse victims. It would make it harder for immigrants to cooperate with law enforcement to prosecute criminals. It would eliminate confidentiality that allows many women to leave their abusive relationships, without fear of retaliation. In other words, the bill going through the House right now would leave more women at risk.”

Thanks, Val! The italics are mine, and that, for me, is probably the scariest part: It would eliminate confidentiality for women trying to leave abusive relationships. When I read that, I felt my face morph into the sort of expression that a puppy has upon discovering their reflection in a mirror for the first time: am I seeing what I think I’m seeing? Is my face going to freeze this way? What could possibly be the motivation behind this? Well, it turns out, it’s pretty damn sinister.

Timothy Johnson, a former vice chair of the North Carolina Republican Party who was convicted of domestic battery in 1996, signed an anti-VAWA letter as part of a group curiously named Concerned Women for America⁴, which read: “…Further, this legislation continues to use overly broad definitions of domestic violence. These broad definitions actually squander the resources for victims of actual violence by failing to properly prioritize and assess victims. Victims who can show physical evidence of abuse should be our primary focus.” So, none of this namby-pamby emotional distress—women only need protection when they’ve had their toes or their nose broken, or punched in the breasts, or had furniture broken over their backs, which is the exact beating that Johnson dished out to his now ex-wife, Ofelia Felix-Johnson. In 1998, Johnson was arrested again for beating her and their son (charges were dropped because Felix-Johnson failed to make the court appearance). By 2009, they were divorced and she was living in Nebraska, when he ran for his vice chair seat on the North Carolina Republican Party. In his campaign, he forged a letter, claiming that she said:

“I have been made aware that my ex-husband is a candidate for the job of Vice Chairman of the North Carolina Republican Party which I whole heartedly support and were I a resident of that state I would vote for him. It has also come to my attention that people in the Republican Party are trying to use potential issues from our marriage in an attempt to smear Tim’s reputation and chances to win the race. When we took our marriage vows, we like so many including President Reagan, former speaker Newt Gingrich or even John McCain hoped that the union would last. Differences sometimes occur and words and actions may happen which require a separation; however, the love and regard for the people involved doesn’t change. My ex-husband has met his obligations to me and our children, our relationship is cordial and I support whatever positive endeavors…Tim may choose to engage in.”

However, in an interview with Mountainx.com in 2010, she said, “I absolutely did not say that. This was not done with my consent, and I didn’t even know about it. I didn’t appreciate him putting my name out there when I had nothing to do with it.”⁵ So, in addition to being a convicted wife-beater, he’s also a big, fat liar. Just the sort person I want my members of Congress to listen to when making big decisions that will impact millions of people.

But wait! There’s more! And it gets freakier: one of the other signatures on the letter signed by Johnson is Peter Cook, director of Stop Abuse and Violent Environments (SAVE). Despite their very nice name, SAVE is actually a lobbying front for a Russian mail-order bride business. (I told you it got freaky!) SAVE’s treasurer, Natasha Spivack, is also the founder of Intimate Encounters, which she began in 1993 to arrange marriages between Russian women and U.S. men. According to the Huffington Post, one of their marriages went horribly wrong⁶:

“One of the Russian brides matched by Encounters International sued the firm, claiming that she was beaten by her American husband, that the company failed to properly screen candidates and neglected to tell her about a law allowing immigrants to escape abusive marriages without fear of automatic deportation. A jury decided in favor of the Russian bride and awarded her $434,000 in compensatory and punitive damages. The case was affirmed upon appeal.”

Spivack claims that the bride was actually committing immigration fraud and was never actually beaten by her husband. She cites this as the reason for lobbying for the dropping privacy protections of immigrant victims of domestic violence. In her statement on SAVE’s website, she describes a conspiracy of VAWA advocates and money-hungry immigration attorneys out to extort American.⁷ Okay, I totally buy money-hungry lawyers, but everything else she claims seems rather far-fetched to me. If it turns out this the only coupling that went sour for Spivack in her nearly twenty years of international matchmaking, that’s actually a damn good track record. Not to mention, in twenty years on the job, professional hiccups are inevitable. It’s not, to me, a legitimate reason to abolish the privacy protection of the women who really need it. My point is that aside from what appears to be an isolated incident, Spivack presents no other rationale.

One last thing: There is someone out there who gets it: Wisconsin Rep. Gwen Moore (D). Speaking on the House floor this morning she recounted her own personal experience⁸:

“…In this motion, we’re simply trying to reestablish…in this bill, that we’re hoping the majority…will greatly enhance the safety of all women. This motion simply protects the victim’s identity to avoid retaliation, even the loss of life, and make sure it’s not weakened as compared to current law. Now, we’re going to be told the Manager’s Amendment does that, but it does not. Under current law, abused women are able to seek help and come forward to authorities under the condition of confidentiality. But H.R. 4970, as an amendment, does many things…For example, it delays the protection for battered victims by staying adjudications before pending investigations or prosecutions are completed. It creates a negative inference against the victim if law enforcement did not open an investigation, or prosecutors fail to prosecute the perpetrator…I can tell you that…current law provides a very delicate balance between the due process rights of the accused and the confidentiality of accusers.

“The fact that the bill was amended in this way [stimulates] me to remember an incident in my own life, where the best of rights was tipped in favor of the abuser…I got into an automobile with a man I thought was a personal friend to go get some fried chicken. And he pulled in behind some vacant buildings, raped me, [and] choked me almost to death. And when I went to the hospital, I was encouraged, by an advocate—this was in the 1970s, long before there was a VAWA, long before there was a Rape Shield Act.*…I took him to court, and indeed, I was put on trial, because…I had to prove that I was a victim, that I was not being fraudulent in my accusations…They brought up how I was an unwed mother with a baby—that maybe I seduced him. They talked about how I was dressed…they carried me through all kind[s] of bureaucratic hoops and changes and ultimately, he was found to be not guilty. Although I did everything I was told to do in terms of prosecuting this.

“I cannot stress the solemn nature of this issue*…the most dangerous time for a woman is when she is trying to escape her perpetrator, when she’s trying to do something about it, when she’s trying to turn her life—hers and her children’s—around. And when the perpetrator is given the tools that this bill gives him, to have an abuser’s rights prevail over the rights of the victim, she will have the cell phone in her hand, but she will lose her life anyway, because she cannot escape this man. The Manager’s Amendment does not fix this.”

(The Manager’s Amendment that she is referring to was added during House deliberation to fix the confidentiality problem, which it clearly doesn’t.⁹)

So, this watered-down, messed-up bill has passed the House and faces a likely veto by President Obama. This puts us in a very weird position. Do we want a crappy VAWA or none at all?

In closing, I can’t help being reminded of the Sleater-Kinney song, “#1 Must-Have:”

The number one must have

Is that we are safe

Watch me make up my mind

Instead of my face

I guess that says it all, doesn’t it? I believe that privacy is one of the things that keeps us safe, and when that’s compromised, our health and safety is compromised.

 

1. Veracity Stew: http://veracitystew.com/2012/05/16/jan-brewer-signs-contraception-interrogation-law/#.T7Pyp-KkQ2g.facebook
2. Guttmacher Institute: http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/11/15/index.html
3. Valerie Jarrett, Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-jarrett/republicans-violence-against-women_b_1520613.html
4. Right Wing Watch: http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/top-vawa-opponents-partnered-convicted-wife-beater-and-group-tied-mail-order-bride-firm
5. Mountainx.com: http://www.mountainx.com/article/28849/Ex-wife-N.C.-GOP-vice-chair-fabricated-my-endorsement
6. Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/08/violence-against-women-act_n_1500693.html?ref=politics
7. Stop Abuse and Violent Environments (SAVE): http://www.saveservices.org/statement-by-encounters-international/
8. Gwen Moore Recounts Personal Story of Domestic Violence during Motion to Recommit on VAWA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP5WGOcHHnQ
9. Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/16/485341/wasserman-schultz-vawa-directive-boehner/

* I want to clear up something because I think it’s important: there is no “Rape Shield Act.” Many states have rape shield laws which protect a victim’s identity from the public, allowing them to file charges as “Jane Doe” or “John Doe.” However, if the victim’s true identity appears in court documents as a matter of public record, the media is protected under the First Amendment to publish the victim’s name if they wish (per Florida Star v. B.J.F.) without civil recourse, but most media outlets do not as a courtesy unless charges are dropped.

**In this ellipse, Rep. Moore makes a reference to a particular case, but the sound quality is off in that part, and I’m not getting everything, so I’m just jumping to what I can hear.