I Am Roe and I Have Questions for the Candidates
I am Roe.
Not the Roe in Roe v Wade, but the nameless, faceless Roe that all women became after the U. S. Supreme Court's latest and largest rollback of Roe v Wade, Gonzales v Carhart . One has only to contrast Justice Anthony Kennedy's 2007 majority opinion dismissing women's brains, consciences, and even their health, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent in which she said protecting reproductive rights isn't about "some vague or generalized notion of privacy" but of "a woman's autonomy to decide for herself her life's course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature," to see that the abortion issue is at its core about women and women's place in the world.
So on the 35th anniversary of a decision that should have guaranteed women's human rights to make their own childbearing decisions without a bazillion legislators and a bunch of fundamentalist preachers weighing in, I and all women are rapidly becoming nameless and faceless Roes, the pseudonymous name used to represent a whole class of people in intrusive and volatile cases. In this case, clearly second class.
I can't talk about Roe without mentioning the precedent from which it flowed: Griswold v Connecticut .
Griswold legalized birth control in 1965 based on the right to privacy--"the right to be left alone"--on matters as personal and private as sex and family formation.
It's clear as a bell that privacy alone, though valuable, isn't strong enough to guarantee reproductive justice in the future. It's absurd to continue fighting an incrementally losing battle for Roe in its current state.
According to Jeffrey Toobin, author of The Nine, Justice Ginsburg is "a fervent believer in the [Constitution's 14th amendment] equal protection" as the basis for gender equality, including reproductive rights. "Since pregnancy happens only to women, she believes it's simply discrimination against women to ban a medical procedure a woman wants." This would be a much more durable legal framework and a dramatically different approach for the next president, Congress, and the future Supreme Court.
I am Roe.
I'm aware that Roe's plaintiff Norma McCorvey, who never had the abortion and ended up giving the child up for adoption, was "born again" 23 years later (after working for many years at women's clinics where abortions were performed and living, then rejecting, her life as a lesbian) and now opposes abortion. But for every Norma, I've known dozens of women who were against abortion until faced with an unintended or dangerous pregnancy. I have even seen women picket against abortion one day and come into the same clinic the next day seeking abortion for themselves or their daughters because "my situation is different".
Yes, it is different for each woman, a difference that defines her life and her future profoundly, and the future of the children she already has or wants to have too. That's exactly why women must have both the freedom and the responsibility to make their own childbearing decisions.
Toobin warns, "One factor and one factor alone will determine the future of the Supreme Court: the outcome of the presidential elections."
The elections will determine the future for all of us Roes. That's why a mortally wounded Roe v Wade's 35th anniversary requires the candidates to answer my questions in full. Facile answers to "Are you pro-choice or anti-choice?" and "Do you support the Roe v Wade decision?" or "Do you believe the Constitution includes a right to privacy?" don't suffice any more.
I am Roe and I have these questions for presidential candidates:
1. Do you agree that reproductive rights are human rights? (If your answer is "no", do not pass go, do not collect my paltry campaign contribution, and no two-stepping explanation will bail you out.)
2. If your answer is "yes", tell me what you'll do to lead America to secure a more durable policy and legal basis for reproductive self-determination. Specifically:
a) Will you urge Congress to pass, so you can sign, the Freedom of Choice Act: guaranteeing women the right to decide for themselves whether to have a child or not?
b) Will you urge Congress to pass, so you can sign, the Prevention First Act to provide greater access to family planning services that prevent unintended pregnancies and abortion, and the Responsible Education About Life Act to end unhealthy abstinence-only sex education and support medically accurate, comprehensive sex education?
c) Will you urge Congress to overturn the Global Gag Rule, that strips funding for family planning overseas from any organization that provides or even speaks about abortion, by passing the Global Democracy Protection Act?
d) Will you work to make abortion not just safe, legal, and rare, but also accessible? Will your health plan, including Medicaid if it's still around, cover abortion as part of women's health care?
e) Will you articulate the public health, legal, and moral imperative for these measures in your campaign speeches and State-of-the-Union addresses?
f) Will you bring the Federal judiciary into balance by appointing judges who will uphold reproductive rights as human and civil rights under which women are entitled to equal protection?
While I'm at it, I'll ask similar questions of candidates for Congress and state offices.
If you'll ask the questions too, insist upon full answers, and vote accordingly, I promise you that whether Roe has 35 more anniversaries or not, our daughters and granddaughters will have a chance to grow up with the blessings of liberty, equality, and justice.
Follow Gloria Feldt on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Heartfeldt
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Yes, the question is: Do we enslave women against their will, or don't we?
EVERYTHING comes from being able to control reproduction for women. It's such an all-encompassing issue, nothing else compares. All flows from the ability to control this one reality.
Interesting, if unrealistic post. A real fact: before Roe v. Wade became law, the leading cause of death for females in their childbearing years, defined as ages 15-44, in New York was from botched, back-alley or self-induced abortions. People often do not and cannot make rational decisions about how and when to engage in sexual activity. We are hard-wired to reproduce and when hormones are raging, we act on our impulses. As for life beginning at conception, this may be technically true, but it wasn't until the 19th century that the Catholic church decided that abortion was a sin. Unfortunately, the present Supreme Court has 5 Catholic males (a majority) who serve for life, and although it may be politically imprudent to get rid of Roe v. Wade in its entirety, it will be "nickeled and dimed" to death. I would like to see more pro-choice justices in the entire court system.
Free choice, there is no other way, in a free country you don't have to answer to anybody for what you want. It shouldn't even be open for opinion.If you are trying to force your beliefs on others thats not freedom.
Great article and great questions . . .thank you for posting . . . our next president must supprt pro-choice and all your questions . . . anything less would be lead to more pain and suffering by women and their unwanted children.
there will always be illegal abortions. always.
EDUCATION, EDUCATION, EDUCATION!!
ACCESS, ACCESS, ACCESS!
BIRTH CONTROL, BIRTH CONTROL, BIRTH CONTROL.
When a young girl or boy begins puberty, they should be given ALL the information they need to make educated decisions about what direction they want to take in their lives. This includes Sex Educaton, not just abstinence only classes.
A person is considered an adult at 18. Puberty beginns anywhere from age 9-13. This gives only 5-9 years to fully educate young, hormone raging boys and girls as to what is happening to their bodies. These classes should include self esteem building, as well.
If those who apose abortions, were committed to ending the need by imploring that young teens receive the most comprehensive sex eduacation before the age of adulthood (18) I truly believe the need for abortion would continue todecrease substantially.
When a young person is uneducated about such a normal human function as sex, it breeds ingnorance, which breeds young teens with unintended pregancies.
Sadly, there will always be a need for abortion. It is a very difficult and emotional choice, but it must continue to be a medically safe procedure, while the education of our young people is enhanced, and supported.
I have read "Blackmun,J-Opinion of the court",which I suppose can also be called "The Opinion for the Majorety,"several times,and have often wondered how many people on both sides of this issue have done so.
I admire it greatly for it's well thought out content and it's courageous addresing of the question of when life begins.
I have often pondered;we are living in the era of the digital revolution,we send space probes many many millions of miles into space and communicate with them,through radio waves and other scientific means,We have discovered,and utilize miochondrial(sp)DNA.We probe into molecular biology,disected atoms,and on and on!
Yet no one has even come close to physicaly identifying this thing called "the soul".
With this total lack of confirming scientific evidense,describing ,verifying,the existance of any such thing,why do people,especialy males,persist in this mythological fantacy,that we,somehow can determine or even come close to defining "the beginning of life".
What is equally disconcerting is why are females,even in this ,so called age of enlightenment,still forced to bear the burdrn of this benighted foolishness,and face the ever present danger of being forced to live with little more status than that of brood sows!
NO ONE I know of wants to have an operation and that includes abortion which is a big operation.
The subject of abortion is treated like its something women really look forward to its only the MEN who can save us from having it done by invoking laws that somehow make them feel they are doing God's work. Of course God never told us WHEN life begins nor does the Bible even mention abortion. Of course these same people will have nothing to do with financial or the commitment at all and they don't even have to know the person they want to deny the freedom of choice to .
Well said - but - I would like women not to take Roe for granted. We fought hard for abortion 40 years ago. I remember how women died because of botched abortions.
I always thought, denying women birth control and abortion is a control issue, not a moral one. If you control a woman's reproductive rights, you control her destiny.
I have encountered many women who were given money by the father of their unborn child to get "rid of it!"
We women should never forget that our body is OUR temple. It is ours to keep and care for. NO man should have a say what we do with our temple.
Funny, isn't it that "Roe" is now pro life!
"Roe" is now endorsing Ron Paul. Ron Paul is against the murder of any individual. But dealing with this terrible situation should be left to the individual and their doctor. The Federal Government should not get involved either way.
Read his words. Don't believe the lies.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/
Ron Paul 08
Are you aware that in some languages "roe" means "eggs"? Kinda gives the whole discussion a really strange twist. "I am eggs." "Eggs vs. Wade."
ms. feldt,
thank you for a truly insightful post. the questions you asked are excellent and all deserve to be answered. as an active voter, i find it so incredibly frustrating that candidates are completely unwilling to commit to specific issues and ideas. it's even more frustrating that, given the opportunity to call bullsh%$, the media NEVER steps up and calls these candidates out on their ridiculously vague answers. they are much more interested in dumbing down this election by focusing on whether america is "ready" for either a black or female candidate--all of which is absolute rubbish.
women's reproductive rights have been quietly attacked the last decade, with the help of the media that has decided it's no longer interested in talking about it. we need this issue to become an issue again. we need these candidates to make their position clear on women's reproductive rights before we can properly choose a candidate to represent us. thank you for bringing this to light.
Excellent article, excellent questions. Like many folks, I'm sick and tired of men deciding what women can do with their bodies. For that matter, I'm sick and tired of someone else's religion determining what women can do with their bodies. I think if it wasn't for religion, women would be able to choose to have an abortion or a baby. The folks who are against women having abortions in case of rape and incest? All religious nutcakes.
Odd, though - I may not know the christian bible all that well, but I can't remember reading anything in there that Jesus said about abortion. Of course, back then, women were nothing more than baby factories, and having scads of babies ensured that at least one or two might live. Some folks never got the idea that conditions in the first century aren't applicable in the twenty-second.
Thank you for this post. It's too bad not enough folks are interacting (by commenting) with the issues you bring up. Issues facing women are significant but often overshadowed by more "sexy" issues like race. I am a woman of color and I understand the implications of both gender and race (among a plethora of other identities). But just as the CNN Democratic Debate illustrated tonight; the idea of being a woman in this country is merely a footnote to the dissertation of our political and cultural awareness.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
