Reproductive Rights

A recent editorial in The Oklahoman attacking the Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice is a disingenuous, snarky piece of sophomoric drivel that deserves some basic refutation and a collective response.

Titled “Feminists for double-standards” (April 25, 2013), the editorial is filled with enough weird, overly wrought false comparisons and red-herring claims to make any decent English instructor cringe in embarrassment for its writer, who obviously needs to go to a writing lab for remedial help.

The overall thesis of the piece is difficult to discern. It seems to be that OCRJ members, who rallied at the Capitol this week during Pink Wave 2013, are feminists who contradict feminist tenets. The editorial never directly criticizes the group’s focus on bringing attention to Oklahoma’s draconian anti-abortion laws or legislative proposals that threaten the rights of women to control their bodies. It even agrees with a comment made by Martha Skeeters, OCRJ president, about the state’s high female incarceration rate.

What’s the point? If The Oklahoman wants to argue that state lawmakers should control women’s reproductive capabilities then by all means it should do so, but why simply attack a group that thinks otherwise with misleading claims that it somehow contradicts itself on some philosophical level about women’s rights? Again, what’s the point, especially since the editorial’s overall argument is not really an argument but more of a twisted maze of false, self-proclaimed epiphanies? It’s a make-believe, gotcha commentary without any real gotcha.

The editorial begins by making the claim that essentially OCRJ members are “self-proclaimed feminists” who embrace “double standards.” Note that it doesn’t focus on OCRJ’s work or the point of the rally. The point seems to be to undermine OCRJ's credibility in some manner, not to argue against its positions.

The main evidence provided for the dubious and just plain weird double-standards claim is that in her remarks Skeeters argued in favor of alternative sentencing for many imprisoned women in Oklahoma, which leads the nation in female incarceration. The editorial actually agrees with Skeeters’ overall point, but finds her “logic bizarre.” Isn’t that bizarre in itself?

Speaking of bizarre logic, here’s the editorial’s big point: “If women can be trusted to make their own decisions and live with the consequences when it comes to having an abortion, shouldn't the same standard apply to women who decide to break the law?” That’s supposedly a double standard, though not in any traditional sense that anyone can really understand.

It’s difficult to even parse the false comparison. I’ll try. Yes, women can be trusted to make their own decisions. It’s not a question, ever, of “if” or “when” or “how.” How does that belief somehow contradict the belief that the state has a ridiculously high and embarrassing female incarceration rate? What’s the “same standard”? Let’s be very clear: An abortion is NOT a crime, and Skeeters is not arguing that women who do actually commit criminal acts should not face consequences. She’s just arguing for sentencing that would allow more incarcerated mothers to live with their children.

But, the editorial screeches in the arrogance of stupidity, “. . . why stress the separation of mothers from their children when incarceration also separates fathers from children (not to mention the permanent separation that abortion creates)? Should the law treat criminal parents differently based on gender when each commits the same crime?”

Note, again, that the writer is not actually talking about OCRJ’s main mission of fighting for reproductive justice and rights for women. The writer is making red-herring claims about double standards to make snarky asides, such as “not to mention the permanent separation that abortion creates.” (Note the italics. It’s a code.) Skeeters is not arguing that fathers should not also be given alternative sentencing to be with their children, and, of course, what about single mothers or pregnant women who are incarcerated?

And, of course, men don’t have reproductive organs, and OCRP’s mission is to fight for reproductive rights for women.

The editorial then criticizes Skeeters for supporting sex education classes in our schools. “Skeeters' comments,” according to the editorial, “suggest she's fine with politicians intruding on private parental decisions regarding their children's learning about the birds and bees, but not similar efforts regarding citizens' abortion decisions.” Again, the false comparison and weird logic is simply staggering. Sex education classes help prevent abortions. That’s one of the points of sex education classes. It’s the Oklahoma right-wing religious folks who are the hypocrites when they try to criminalize abortion at the same time they fight against sexual education classes in our schools. That’s the real double standard.

The editorial, and so many like it in The Oklahoman, can make this a suffocating place in which to live. OCRJ is a group with a clear mission that is standing up to express its political viewpoints against a tidal wave of right-wing hypocrisy in this place. They do so in a peaceful, heartfelt and intelligent manner, and this is what they get from the state’s largest newspaper, which won’t even engage them on the real issues. If The Oklahoman wants to send women to jail for having abortions, then it should argue the case and leave the logic and the critical thinking to the grownups in the state.

A bill that could potentially allow state employers to deny their employees health insurance coverage of contraception and abortion services has been passed overwhelmingly by an Oklahoma Senate committee.

The measure’s 9-0 approval by the Senate Business and Commerce Committee Thursday and the specific attack on birth control show just how radical and extremist the Oklahoma Legislature has become. Supporting efforts to make prescribed contraception less available is yet another dangerous precedent in the continuing conservative war against women and their reproductive health here.

Senate Bill 452, sponsored by Clark Jolley, pictured right, an Edmond Republican, is a simple, one-page bill that states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of state or federal law, no employer shall be required to provide or pay for any benefit or service related to abortion or contraception through the provision of health insurance to his or her employees.

Of course, federal law—the Affordable Care Act (ACA)—does require coverage of birth control unless the employer is a religious organization, and that makes it unclear just how much impact the bill would have, if signed into law. Still, if the ACA were ever repealed or reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court, the religious fundamentalists might prevail. Oklahoma already has a law that disallows insurance coverage for most abortion cases.

Let’s be clear: The bill would codify into law basic job and gender discrimination.

One has to wonder how many of Jolley’s Edmond constituents are currently using some form of prescribed contraception. His district includes the University of Central Oklahoma. That question becomes even more important considering that Jolley credits one of his constituents, Dr. Dominic Pedulla, a physician, as the inspiration for the legislation.

Pedulla basically claims birth control is bad for women, according to the Tulsa World. Okay, that’s what Pedulla thinks, but what about all the women in Edmond who use prescribed contraception? Don’t they get a say? I guess they don’t matter to Jolley, who was recently reelected.

This is how The World quotes Pedulla:

Part of their [women’s] identity is the potential to be a mother. They are being asked to suppress and radically contradict part of their own identity, and if that wasn't bad enough, they are being asked to poison their bodies.

How does allowing access to birth control translate into women “being asked to suppress and radically contradict part of their own identity”? Who exactly is doing the asking? How are women being asked to “poison” their bodies? Who exactly is asking them to do that? Poison?

It should be noted that “The Pill,” which became legal in the U.S. in 1960, has been proven to be one of the safest drugs in world history (if not, then why haven’t we discovered its major medical problems yet), and it’s often used to treat some medical conditions, such as polycystic ovary syndrome.

Pedulla is described as an Oklahoma City cardiologist and a women’s health researcher in The World story, a physician morally opposed to contraception and abortion, but Internet documents readily available in a basic, cursory search fill out his background a bit more.

Pedulla is president and chief physician of The Oklahoma Vein & Endovascular Center in Oklahoma City, which specializes in removing varicose veins. He is the founder of the Edith Stein Foundation. Its mission statement: “To advocate the dignity of women through fostering a non-contraceptive culture.” This is from Pedulla’s profile on the foundation’s site: “A devoted husband, Dr. Pedulla is the father of nine children. Fittingly, his favorite saint is St. Joseph.” All of Pedulla’s children “received a home schooling education from their father,” who is described as a “devout Catholic,” according to one site.

The point here is that Pedulla’s efforts to make birth control less accessible to Oklahoma women seem simply an extension of his scandal-plagued Catholic Church’s archaic and universally ignored teachings on contraception, not the result of any credible science or medical research.

Two Democrats, state Sens. Jerry Ellis of Valiant and Earl Garrison of Muskogee, joined with seven Republicans to pass SB 452. All those voting to approve the bill, just like Jolley and Pedulla, are men. The full Senate could now consider the legislation.

The so-called personhood movement is back in Oklahoma.

State Rep. Mike Reynolds, an Oklahoma City Republican, pictured right, has introduced House Bill 1029, which, if signed into law, would begin legal rights at the moment of conception, threatening women’s basic reproductive rights, including access to birth control.

The anti-abortion measure, dubbed the Personhood Act of 2013, is similar to the one that failed to get a vote last year in the Oklahoma House. In addition, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled last year that the language in a petition drive to allow a statewide vote on the personhood issue was unconstitutional.

Here’s the pertinent language in the bill:

A. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Personhood Act of 2013".
B. The Oklahoma Legislature finds that:
1. The life of each human being begins at conception;
2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being; and
3. The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.
A. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Personhood Act of 2013".
B. The Oklahoma Legislature finds that:
1. The life of each human being begins at conception;
2. Unborn children have protectable interests in life, health, and well-being; and
3. The natural parents of unborn children have protectable interests in the life, health, and well-being of their unborn child.
C. The laws of this state shall be interpreted and construed to acknowledge on behalf of the unborn child at every stage of development all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of this state.
D. As used in this section, “unborn child” or “unborn children” shall include all unborn children or the offspring of human beings from the moment of conception until birth at every stage of biological development.
E. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as creating a cause of action against a woman for indirectly harming her unborn child by failing to properly care for herself or by failing to follow any particular program of prenatal care.
F. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as applying to spontaneous miscarriages.

Note the ambiguity in section E. What exactly does “indirectly” mean in this context? How would a zealous anti-abortion prosecutor or judge define this term? How do you define it? Note the lack of any reference to birth control. Could birth control be construed as a premeditated action against a fertilized egg under this bill or new, companion legislation in the future? That’s not so far-fetched. How would the bill affect medical protocols surrounding female eggs and sperm with in vitro fertilization procedures?

Last year, an anti-personhood rally at the Capitol, which I attended, drew hundreds of participants, mostly women, and was probably at least one reason the House leadership didn’t allow a vote on the issue. Reynolds’ new bill is expected to face the same type of organized opposition. Some political observers expect other personhood bills to be introduced as well.

The personhood movement is simply another way anti-abortion zealots are trying to restrict access to reproductive rights. Even if this bill or a similar bill passes in Oklahoma, the obsessed anti-abortion crowd will not stop its efforts to completely regulate women’s bodies, which it sees as a function of a government operated solely on its contradictory value system.

The personhood movement crosses a line that all people concerned with their health and bodies should consider. Should we allow right-wing religious ideology to dictate our medical definitions and care? No, of course not. According to Reynolds' legislative profile, he is "an Ordained Deacon and a member of Southern Hills Baptist Church."

It’s uncertain if a personhood bill can pass in Oklahoma, but Republicans do hold a veto majority in both the House and Senate and most politicians, even some Democrats here, are afraid to vote against anti-abortion measures because of what they perceive as negative political costs. Gov. Mary Fallin, a Republican, would also be aware of the political costs if she plans to run for reelection or for another office in the future.

It’s important to note a similar personhood amendment was actually voted down in Mississippi in 2011.