Monday, 31 October 2011

Abortion and the feminist club


Anti-abortion? Can you even be a feminist, doesn't it break some kinda rule or something?

It's contested, for sure. Personally, I think you can be anti-abortion and a feminist. If you don't like abortions, you don't have to have one - and you can still be active in challenging gender oppression which harms women.

Where there is a rule for me is around whether being anti-abortion means you try to restrict other women's access to controlling their own fertility, including access to abortion. I don't buy the claims to feminism of well-organised US groups which actively campaign to restrict other women's access to abortion and call it "pro-woman".

I believe access to safe, early abortion should be as straightforward as possible for all women. Not wanting to have a child is reason enough. It's reason enough that we don't want to have a child yet, or we don't want to have a child with that person, or we don't want to have another child yet or at all. All of those reasons are enough because every child should be a wanted child.

But I also believe that abortion ends human life, so the safer and rarer they are, the better. Women having multiple, serial abortions? Not typically an example of women living autonomous, empowered lives. I say this not to blame women - I'm not interested in that - but because if I imagine a world in which abortion is much less necessary for women to exercise full control over our fertility, that world feels like somewhere I'd like to be.

We'd need access to the full range of reproductive and sexual health options. All of us, all the time. And that includes information about pleasure, and tools for unravelling gender norms which perpetuate the risk of unwanted pregnancy. Far too many women are in coercive sexual situations with men in which negotiating contraception is problematic at best and impossible at worst.

We'd need access to reproductive and sexual health options, and information about pleasure and our bodies, and tools for unravelling gender norms which perpetuate the risk of unwanted pregnancy for everyone, not just for women. The cultural shift of responsibility for pregnancy resting with the people who created the pregnancy, not the person impregnated.

And after all that, if an unwanted pregnancy still happened, we'd need straightforward access to safe abortion. Because every child should be a wanted child.

These issues are intimately feminist, and intimately intertwined. Being anti-abortion at a personal level, to my mind, does not mean you cannot be active in campaigning or working to provide active reproductive choices for women. But the moment you step over into trying to stop other women's exercising reproductive choices? You're out of my feminist club.

***


This is part of a week of Pro-Choice Postings hosted here at The Hand Mirror starting on Friday 28th October 2011. For an index of all the posts, being updated as they go up, please check the Pro-Choice Postings index. And if you'd like to submit a post for cross-posting, guest posting or linking to please email thehandmirror@gmail.com.

Guest post: Let's have a look at those statistics

By La Ranita, cross-posted at ALRANZ's blog

The annual New Zealand abortion statistics were released on Friday. There are some in this country who would (and do) tell us that these statistics are a shocking reflection of all that is wrong in the world, that they show that women are promiscuous slatterns who have no concern for their actions because they can easily terminate any unwanted pregnancy. That young girls are being sent by their guidance counsellors for secret abortions at an alarming rate. That every abortion represents the loss of the next Steve Jobs.

Well, let's have a look at some other statistics shall we?
  • Of all of the abortions that occur worldwide each year, almost half are performed by unskilled individuals, in environments that do not meet minimum medical standards. More than 97% of these unsafe abortions occur in developing countries.

  • Ninety-two percent of abortions in developing nations are unsafe.

  • Worldwide, girls aged 15-19 account for one in four unsafe abortions – that adds up to five million each year.

  • Internationally, approximately 40% of women who have a clandestine abortion experience complications that require treatment.

  • An estimated five million women are hospitalised each year for treatment of abortion-related complications, such as haemorrhage and sepsis.

  • Worldwide, an estimated 68 000 women die as a result of complications from unsafe induced abortions every year – about eight per hour. This fatality rate (approximately 367 deaths per 100 000 unsafe abortions) is hundreds of times higher than that for safe, legal abortion in developed countries.

  • It is estimated that every year nearly 5.5 million African women have an unsafe abortion. As many as 36 000 of these women die from the procedure, while millions more experience short- or long- term illness and disability.                     (Sources: the Guttmacher Institute and UNFPA)

I don't know about you, but I know which set of statistics is the one that upsets me. Accessing a legal and safe abortion should not be shameful, it should bear no stigma, and it should not require negotiation of legal hurdles. It should be a basic human right.



***


This is part of a week of Pro-Choice Postings hosted here at The Hand Mirror starting on Friday 28th October 2011.  For an index of all the posts, being updated as they go up, please check the Pro-Choice Postings index.  And if you'd like to submit a post for cross-posting, guest posting or linking to please email thehandmirror@gmail.com. 

Sunday, 30 October 2011

On thinking...


Unless you follow pro-life blogs,* you may not have realised that pro-life New Zealand has linked a campaign called Just Think. They're super modern and aimed at youth, which you can tell because it's on facebook. Their basic campaign strategy appears to be women are quite dim and don't realise that if they don't have an abortion they'll have a baby.** You think I'm kidding? This is their poster:


[Text: You know, I used to think abortion was ok, and then something happened to me - I had a baby of my own.  So I haven't figured it all out yet... but why is that when I wanted a baby she was a baby...and when I didn't, she was something else?]

You'll notice that even in the text of an anti abortion poster a woman isn't allowed to be articulate enough to explain that she's anti-abortion.  It's just that babies and pregnancy confuse her.

On one level it's just a terrible, terrible poster, but I think it is also quite revealing about one of the conundrums of being 'pro-life' (heavy sarcastic quote marks).

30-60% of New Zealand women get an abortion (I've heard both figures - the lower one from more reliable sources -  either demonstrates my point).  If you believe that abortion is murder (which pro-lifers probably don't - but say that they do) then that figure is horrific.  You either have to believe that thirty per cent of women are murderers.  Or say "They know not what they do."

And because outright misogyny is damn unattractive, often even to other misogynists, pro-lifers chose to portray women as incapable of thought.  It's not that we're choosing to have have abortions - it's that we're being tricked and are too stupid to know what an abortion is.

The pro-choice position reflects the reality of women's lives: the number of women who have abortions, the fact that political belief about abortion is not a good predictor of willingness to have an abortion and the necessity of abortion for people who are pregnant and don't want to be.   Anti-abortionists won't even portray women as capable of making the decision to be anti-abortion.  We believe that women (and other pregnant people) are the best people to make decisions in their own lives.



* I do it so you don't have to - and also because Andy Moore's youtube channel
has to be seen to be believed.

** I'm using 'women' t deliberately in this case to describe how they see their target audience.

Representation of women in TV campaign openings


I'm not going to be looking at broader issues about the addresses in the post, but am quite happy to have those discussions in comments.  Just wanted to focus this bit directly on the representation of women aspect.  I'm laying out these brief observations in the order that they have appeared on telly.

Friday night
National
Outline:  John Key giving a speech, getting applause and then taking questions from the astonishingly well behaved audience.  Whole 20 minutes of this.  Visuals only of audience &; Key in that context, nothing else.  Only people who got to say anything other than Key were the questioners, whose faces you couldn't see.
Representation of women:  Only known National person featured was John Key.  He would have been speaking probably 80%+ of the time.  Of the questioners two were men and four were women.  Guess who asked about the Global Financial Crisis and infrastructue and who asked about education, health and benefits?  Yep, the former for the men, the latter for the women.  The other question was about crime, and framed from a personal safety angle, and thus naturally asked by a woman.  

Labour
Outline:  Started with history of Labour, contrasting their achievements in Government since 1938 with National's, highlighting a lot of their key themes such as keeping state assets, looking after the vulnerable, being first in the world at various things.  Next section featured current Labour MPs talking about why they are Labour, how their backgrounds connect with their political values. Final section more policy focused, particularly on the differences between National & Labour, still featuring MPs (including Goff) doing the talking.   
Representation of women:  Voice over was done by a woman.  In the history section mostly Labour men featured.  Lots of archival footage that featured women as well as men, some with voice-overs or speeches which were male voices.  Of the Labour MPs featured there were 7 men (Goff plus his father briefly, O'Connor, Cunliffe, Nash, Robertson, Davis briefly) and 2 women (Sepuloni, Ardern).  Have no idea what proportion of time they all spoke for, but definitely more time for the men than the women.  Subjects covered quite disparate, didn't notice a clear gendered trend around subject matter for Sepuloni and Ardern versus the rest.  E.g. Cunliffe talked about tax, and so did Sepuloni.

Greens
Outline:  More traditional opening.  Featured co-leaders walking around Wynyard Quarter (mainly) talking about various policy areas and principles with some examples and vox pops from a variety of people.
Representation of women:  Only Greens featured are the two co-leaders, so that's an equal balance in terms of female/male.  However I did feel that Metiria got more speaking segments than Russel.  For the vox pops which were scattered through-out there were 10 women and 5 men.  Some of these individuals appeared more than once.  It seemed like there were more appearances from women than men, dd anyone actually count? NB:  I'm not intending to address other diversity issues thoroughly with this post, but the ethnic diversity was very clear, and one of the vox pops was in sign language.

Saturday night:
ACT
Outline:  Started with Brash talking to camera, then his voice over footage of him talking with small groups of people (one, two or three), then a group of ACT candidates talking around a table (very similar to 2008 iirc). 
Representation of women:  Brash dominated through-out.  With the footage of him with other people it really was almost entirely Brash and other men.  I am pretty sure I only saw one woman actually in conversation with him, although there was one shot with a lot of women seated behind where he and a man were talking together.  When it came to the candidate roundtable there were four men featured (Brash, Seymour, Whittington and Banks) and two women (Isaac and McCabe).  Brash, Seymour and Isaac got the most screen time I thought, McCabe definitely the least, with Banks getting surprisingly little too.

Maori Party
Outline:  Basically a recitation of value statements of the Maori Party, jumping back and forth between different people, including MPs, candidates and vox pop.  Ended with scrolling list of achievements. 
Representation of women:  Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia seemed to get roughly equal time to me, the other candidates featured were four men and one woman.  The cuts between people were very fast and I couldn’t keep up but it looked like it was pretty even between male and female, with the exception of the issue with more male candidates than female. Music featured both male and female voices.
 
United Future
Outline:  Peter Dunne talking through-out, either to camera or over clear animated footage illustrating his points.  People were represented throughout it by stick-figure types.  
Representation of women:  Only live person was Dunne.  A family was always represented by a man, woman and 2 young children.  In regard to income splitting used a pie chart in which the woman earnt less than the man.  Did have a picture with the woman going out to work (in a skirt suit).  When Dunne talked about their credentials as the "real outdoors party" it only seemed to be men in the outdoors.  Five pictures of old people, only one openly female and she was clearly engaged in childcare.

NZ First
Outline:  Winston talking, then voiceover from Winston over representations of stock footage to match the key problems he mentions.  Brief vox pops speaking to specific past NZF achievements – one middle aged man, one . 
Representation of women:  The vox pops featured one late middle aged man,  3 young women, one young girl, one young man.  The impression I formed of the stock footage was that it was not from NZ, probably from the USA, and thus did reflect some of the gender bias we see in media from there; e.g. most people were slim and white, men were shown doing manual jobs.

The Conservative Party:
Outline:  Colin Craig talking direct to camera through-out.
Representation of women:  None.

Alliance
Outline:  Woman voiceover.  Kevin Campbell talking through-out, directly to camera alternating with very fast moving footage of street/park scenes.  
Representation of women:  There was definitely a mix of men and women in the footage but hard to discern due to being sped-up.

Libertarianz
Outline:  Man and woman in front of fenced off Christchurch CBD. Chch, both talking to camera, with some short bits that were like Powerpoint slides of key points. Mostly talked about proposing a free enterprise zone for Chch.
Representation of women:  Pretty equal balance between the two presenters (both are candidates).  The woman did refer to the response to the Christchurch earthquake now being “a man-made disaster”.

ALCP
Outline:  Man and woman in first shot, alternate between them for talking, with other half of the screen dedicated to1989 styles graphics illustrating their point about decriminalisation of marijuana.
Representation of women:  Looked roughly equal between the male and female presenters (again, both are candidates) to me.

Lock-outs

Tonight Qantas management has locked-out its workers and grounded its plans across the world. The dispute itself is complicated, involving three unions, and lots of different issues.  But at it's heart it's about Qantas's desire to fire 1,000 people, and outsource the jobs, cutting wages and conditions.

As they are crying poverty it is worth pointing out that the CEO, Alan Joyce, received a 71% increase in his pay, and now gets $5 million a year.  Qantas's annual profit also doubled last year.

In Rangitikei, CMP meatworks demanded that its workers accepted a 20% pay cut.  It has locked out union members until they agree to this pay cut.  They have now been locked out for 11 days.

The recession gives employers power - and these lock-outs show that they're prepared to use it. The only way to stop employers doing what Qantas and CMP meatworks is doing - is not give in.  The collective .  By standing against companies, large and school, these workers are protecting other workers.  Because if their bosses succeed other companies will take note and do the same.

I haven't heard what solidarity Qantas workers are asking for, although I'll try to update this post if I hear anything.  But the CMP workers need money.  There are 100 of them, and they're trying to survive without wages. You can donate through internet banking here:

38-9007-0894028-08  NZCTU – Disputes Fund

If you're in Palmerston North you can also make donations of food at the union centre.

There's more to say - and if it continues I'll say more.  But the most important thing you can do this week to protect your wages and conditions (if you have a job) is to donate to the CMP workers lock-out fund.

Saturday, 29 October 2011

Quickie: 2010 Abortion stats out


ETA:  Here is the link to the actual 2010 stats, sorry I got a bit confused with the earlier version of this post. Here's ALRANZ's media release on the matter too. /ETA

Many thanks to ALRANZ for putting up online the Abortion Supervisory Committee's report on the 2010 abortion statistics.

I haven't had time to read it properly yet, but a quick scan shows the 2010 abortion ratio was the lowest since 1999.

In my opinion a drop would be good if it meant that more people had control of their fertility in a way that meant they could avoid unwanted pregnancies.  However it is a great worry if the drop is the result of problems with accessing abortion services, either because of logistics or because of societal pressures against abortion.

***


This is part of a week of Pro-Choice Postings hosted here at The Hand Mirror starting on Friday 28th October 2011.  For an index of all the posts, being updated as they go up, please check the Pro-Choice Postings index.  And if you'd like to submit a post for cross-posting, guest posting or linking to please email thehandmirror@gmail.com. 

Fetus fetish

Last year I gave a talk on abortion law reform at a local students' association.  There were about twenty people in the audience, if I recall correctly, and when we got to discussion time there were clearly two who were anti-abortion.  

Putting aside the fact that both of these people were young men, what really struck me was how strongly one of them in particular identified with fetuses.  I've come across the fetal personhood argument before, not least in five and a bit years of Catholic schooling.  But this experience, with this not unpleasant young man who clearly sincerely believed what he was saying, provided a real light-bulb moment for me; it's not just that some who are anti-abortion believe in fetal personhood, it's that some seem to sub-consciously identify as fetuses.

Now I haven't put that quite correctly, so forgive me if we have to work through this a bit in comments until I work out precisely what I mean.  I'm definitely interested in discussing 


What I observed was how fervently this young man seemed to feel personally the perspective he imagined a fetus might have.  I've seen others do it too, now that I have started looking for it.  He actually said something along the lines of "If I was a fetus I wouldn't want to be aborted."  

Not only does that seem to me an incredibly odd projection, but what does it say that someone thinks they can imagine what it would be like to be a fetus, and speaks from that perspective, yet cannot seem to put themselves into the shoes of a person, an actual person, much more like them than a fetus, who is pregnant and doesn't want to be.  

I still remember, vividly, the moment when I thought I was pregnant and in a situation where that would have been disastrous.  It was almost half my life ago.  I doubt I'll ever forget the sensation of the walls of the room closing in around me.  I felt trapped.  I just could not re-imagine my life with all the changes that a pregnancy, let alone a child, would bring, and so it really seemed as if it was an end to my life, as I could not see beyond that moment to even what I would do in five minutes' time.  The relief when the test result was negative made me realise I was holding my breath, in more ways than one.

And I recall the happy positive pregnancy tests too, tinged with nerves and all sorts of other emotions.  The sorrow of miscarriage, the fear of labour, the apprehension of becoming a parent, the shock of contractions, the weirdness of having operations that resulted in babies. 

All of these are human emotions that people feel.  For myself I've worked out that I could not have foretold exactly how I would feel in these situations, and I don't feel like I had proper empathy for these experiences until I'd had them myself.  But they weren't completely alien, far from it.  I'd felt shadows of all of this before in other contexts, at other times, and I have since too. 

Once upon a time, before I was a person, I was a fetus.  I've not yet had an unwanted pregnancy.  Yet I still find it far far far easier to attempt to put myself in the place of an unwillingly pregnant person than try to channel a fetus.  

***


This is part of a week of Pro-Choice Postings hosted here at The Hand Mirror starting on Friday 28th October 2011.  For an index of all the posts, being updated as they go up, please check the Pro-Choice Postings index.  And if you'd like to submit a post for cross-posting, guest posting or linking to please email thehandmirror@gmail.com. 

The only person looking out for me, is me.

A comment over at another post calling a pregnant woman a mother, and expecting duties and obligations to be fulfilled by the sheer action of conceiving made me want to write directly to this point.
Being a mother involves more than just pregnancy, just as being a father involves more than just inseminating someone successfully.
As a ‘mother’, I could choose to walk away from my child, and never nurture, care or put another thought into them. It seems rather unfair to all involved (and to mothers) to call me a mother.
The understanding of the writer was that the future child had put an obligation on the ‘mother’ simply by existing.
My understanding of life is that it is NEVER under a guarantee. My mother could have died in childbirth, leaving me without the care she has given me. I could have been born into a family who did not want me and mistreated me. I could have miscarried without any intervention.
No one DESERVES life. We either get it or we don’t, and throughout it we fight to make the best of ourselves, for ourselves.
Whilst I do feel very strongly about children’s rights and advocating for those who cannot advocate for themselves, I would not expect anyone to kill themselves, or put their own life aside in order to let a child live.
The hard and fast of it is that as unappealing and totally unclothed in “decency and morality” as it is, we all only have ourselves, and to expect someone to give their own life for someone else is more than our society should be able to ask of us, if there is a safe alternative.
I don’t expect much from this world, but I do expect the right to my own bodily autonomy, and the right to put myself above all others. Because no one else should have to.
Selfish though this is, this is what I expect.

Friday, 28 October 2011

Your morality is in the way of my rights.


One of the key arguments that are being thrown at me about abortion is that it "isn’t just about me".

No, it isn’t. However I cannot think of anyone other than me who should have the decision making ability in this situation. The choice to carry, birth and raise an entire human IS MY CHOICE and it should not be illegal, or unsafe to terminate, if I should choose to, just because YOU don’t like it.








I'm well aware that some of these comparisons will piss people from both sides of the debate off. It is meant to make you think.

Let it.

***


This is part of a week of Pro-Choice Postings hosted here at The Hand Mirror starting on Friday 28th October 2011.  For an index of all the posts, being updated as they go up, please check the Pro-Choice Postings index.  And if you'd like to submit a post for cross-posting, guest posting or linking to please email thehandmirror@gmail.com. 

The Limits of Abortion as a Health issue


Earlier this year we had a blogswarm for world health day "Abortion is a Health Issue Not a Crime."  I never finished my post, partly because I am have deep reservations about "Abortion is a Health Issue" (which is what the post ended up being about).  I'm posting it today as part of a week of pro-choice posts in the run up to the release of NZ's abortion statistics on the 28th.  I'm posting three posts this week, and I realised they have a theme - the importance of keeping "Trust women, and all pregnant people"* at the centre of any struggle for any abortion rights.

*********

In 2004, a woman in New Zealand was told she was not allowed in abortion when she was diagnosed with a heart condition in the 21st week. She was told it was too late in the pregnancy and that she did not meet the criteria. She died after the baby was still-born.  Of course access to abortion is a health issue - women die when they don't have access to abortion. Abortion is a health issue, because women die when they don't have access to safe abortion.

But abortion is not only a health issue or even mostly a health issue.  Abortion is about autonomy, freedom, survival and social relationships.  The slogan "Abortion is a Health Issue" suggests a strategy which narrows the lens and focuses our struggle for abortion away from these wider issues.  Now I'm uncomfortable about this because autonomy is the core of why I support abortion rights.  But on top of that I think this strategy may have fish hooks - the discourse of 'health' may not be as useful for us as it first appears.

First off, abortion as a health issue appears to be an area where anti-abortion people are actively taking the abortion struggle. Incrementalism - the anti-abortion tactic of making things just a little bit worse -  is based on a facade of treating abortion as a health issue.  Whether it's 'informed consent' (those are heavily sarcastic scare quotes in case you can't tell) or states putting in ridiculous regulations about the height of the ceilings in the abortion clinic.  Anti-abortionists are actively interested in fighting abortion as a health issue.

On one level this is quite a strange position for anti-abortionists to take - because the science is really heavily not on their side. The only reason they manage to even engage with health is they take conveniently ignore that by the time someone is seeking an abortion they are choosing between continuing pregnancy and abortion - and abortion is safer than bringing a pregnancy to term.

I may think that anti-abortionists are have to be some combination of: lying, deluded, misogynists, who are incapable of argument, reason, empathy, compassion or logic.  But they have a goal, and there has to be a reason they do the things that they do (besdies the fact that they're lying, deluded, misogynists, who are incapable of argument, reason, empathy, compassion or logic).  There are some areas that they deliberately try to avoid: the reality of women's experiences, women's autonomy, and who should be the decision-maker.  They know these are losing strategies for them and they will just say 'but what about the baby' to try and distract from the fact that they don't want to talk about any of these things.

But they are prepared to talk about health? Why is that?

By talking about abortion and health we're bringing in a discourse that already exists, and those discourses can serve anti-abortionists purposes as much as ours.  Take their incrementalist demand for parental notification/consent for under 16 year olds.  At the moment abortion is treated as exceptional within the health system.  For other medical decisions children are legally treated as unable to consent, and parents have to give their consent.  Those who are trying to punish young girls, can use normal health practice and rhetoric about involving the family, and parents' responsibility for children's health to support their cause.**


The existing discourse about health serve anti-abortionists purposes as much as they serve ours. They can play on the idea that 'health' means there is one right decision and that people are not well equipped to make decisions about their own health. Discourses of health in our society are not about autonomy and liberation. They are moral discourses that are based on an ideal way of being. In order to be healthy you must do some things (exercise, eat certain foods) and not do other things (smoke, eat other foods). In health discourses people are not treated as competent decision makers, but people who have to be persuaded to adopt a limited array of behaviours.


Women can go through the process of being certified as needing an abortion under the mental health provisions in this country, and not realise it, and not realise how restrictive the laws are. One of the reasons for this, is because we're so used to gatekeepers to get access to health procedures, diagnoses, and pharmaceuticals, that talking to so many doctors seems normal.

The existing models and meanings for health are not the sort of abortion services I am fighting for. As Anna Caro points out: "The whole way our medical system’s set up seems antithetical to anyone’s autonomy." The slogan of last year's pro-choice demo was 'No More Jumping Through Hoops'. But for many people jumping through hoops is part of engaging with the medical system (The End is Naenae has an example of how much work, and how many gate keepers there can be to get what you need. Amanda W has a great post on second shift for the sick).


There were many brilliant posts written as part of the blogswarm. I think talking about abortion and health is a really important way of connecting with some people we need to connect to.  But focusing on abortion and health is an incredibly risk strategy.  I wished we lived in a world where discourses of health were always discourses of autonomy and liberation - but we don't. So we have to always keep the autonomy and liberation of women (and all pregnant people) at the centre of our demands around abortion.

* 'Women, and all pregnant people' is a phrase I'm trying out. I'm struggling to talk about abortion in a way that acknowledges that not all people who get pregnant identify as women and also acknowledges that the politics of abortion are about misogyny and the struggle for freedom of women as a class.  I welcome ideas and feedback

** I think there are two answers to that - .  The first is that children should have control over their own health care before the age of 16 and the law in general should change.  And the second is that abortion is specifically different from other health care.  However, I think this demonstrates the problem of trying to argue abortion as a health issue.  Either you are also trying to change the nature of the health system - or you're also arguing that abortion should be treated differently.

***


This is part of a week of Pro-Choice Postings hosted here at The Hand Mirror starting on Friday 28th October 2011.  For an index of all the posts, being updated as they go up, please check the Pro-Choice Postings index.  And if you'd like to submit a post for cross-posting, guest posting or linking to please email thehandmirror@gmail.com. 

Guest post: Auspicious 'Abortion Statistics Day'


By Dr. Morgan Healey, ALRANZ President, Cross-posted from ALRANZ’s blog
 

The planned release of abortion statistics by Statistics NZ on Friday (28 October) is an annual event (delayed for several months this year by the terrible tragedy of the Christchurch earthquakes). The usual response is for anti-choice groups to either expound upon the atrocity of the loss of human life or call into question the laws upon which these abortions are being performed (and for flavour adding in medically inaccurate claims that abortion has long-term physical and psychological implications). On the other hand, there are the pro-choice groups like ALRANZ, who use the release of this data each year as a call for law reform.  We usually point out the fact that New Zealand’s current abortion laws criminalise women and are archaic and out of date (a point which I heartily endorse).

However, I want to challenge this paradigm and offer a different way of conceptualising and discussing abortion. Instead I want to take these statistics as an opportunity to postulate the following – what if X number of abortions were understood not as failures on the part of women to control both their own fertility through the use of contraception and their sexuality through abstinence, but instead as women exercising a fundamental human right to control their reproduction? What if we (as a society) considered X number of women not as terminating X number of lives, but instead strived to appreciate the complex, symbiotic relationship which exists between women and foetus and allow that no woman takes the termination of a pregnancy lightly (or does so without ample consideration).

I honour the sentiment of Anne Furedi, Chief Executive of BPAS, when she disputes the phrase that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. While calling on the absolute necessity of the first two, she queries why abortion should or could ever be rare. This is not to discount the need for comprehensive sexuality education and access to free, widely available contraception. Instead, I think the latter must go hand in hand with safe and legal abortion services as part of a full suite of sexual and reproductive health services. However, it is to wonder why abortion is constituted as anything other than a viable and reasonable option when a woman finds herself with an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy? Rare only serves to perpetuate the idea that there is something inherently wrong with the entire concept – and by extension the woman who goes through with the procedure. What this accomplishes is not a reduction in abortions but punishing women for their sexual and reproductive decisions.

Ultimately I think abortion is rarely the issue, it is what it represents – the right of women to bodily autonomy and their freedom to exercise that – and also how it is socially constructed – the desecration of human life at the hands of a would-be mother. Abortion is nothing more than a medical service. It may represent the woman who made the decision to terminate a pregnancy or the medical practitioner who agreed to perform the procedure or dispense the necessary drugs, but it is not the culprit. Abortion is a means to an end, not the demon some wish it to be. So why does society vilify it? Why the constant calls for the need to reduce numbers? To insist upon the most onerous procedures before access is granted? And, what is so terrifying about a sexually active woman taking steps to ensure that she can control the timing, spacing and number of children in whatever manner meets her needs?

I don’t have the time or inclination to digress here into a feminist treatise dedicated to answer these questions. I think it would be much more productive if New Zealand society began to ask similar questions of itself. I have used this auspicious abortion statistics day as a way of rethinking the historical interpretation of these numbers and posed more than a few questions as food for thought. 

Perhaps it is time that New Zealand society started a new dialogue around the topic of abortion. I think it is important that the release of these statistics be used as an impetus for beginning these discussions. I encourage everyone reading to familiarise yourself with the current law and start a conversation on abortion with friends, families, lovers, whanau, local community groups, politicians, doctors, nurses and anyone who will listen. I want the annual abortion statistics day to be one where people stop to consider what it would mean to make that decision and reflect upon whether or not the current law (or any law) adequately meets the needs of women’s reproductive experiences.  

In parting, I leave you, reader, with the final two questions: Is it criminal that X number of women took responsibility for their own reproductive health? Is it right that these women had to cede their decision-making ability to two certifying consultants, who verified that they meet one of the grounds in the Crimes Act? I certainly could not answer affirmatively to either. If you couldn’t either than it might be time to become more involved in the movement for change. 



Note: Info about the 2010 abortion stats from Statistics New Zealand will be up on ALRANZ’s Web site as soon as they are available. Visit: www.alranz.org

***


This is part of a week of Pro-Choice Postings hosted here at The Hand Mirror starting on Friday 28th October 2011.  For an index of all the posts, being updated as they go up, please check the Pro-Choice Postings index.  And if you'd like to submit a post for cross-posting, guest posting or linking to please email thehandmirror@gmail.com. 




Pro-choice Postings Week - Index

Today the 2010 abortion statistics for Aotearoa New Zealand will be released.  They usually get released in June, for the previous calendar year, but due to the Christchurch earthquakes this year they were delayed.

Often there can be a bit of a flurry of abortion-related posting around the release of the stats.  We thought we might make that explicit, by having a week of abortion-related posts by bloggers here, and featuring a number of guest-posts too;  hence Pro-Choice Postings Week.

The theme is really just to be pro-choice.  We'll consider as a guest post any pro-choice submission (not necessarily a blog post, e.g. pictures, art, cupcakes) by anyone who would qualify for our NZ Women Bloggers blog-roll.  This means any woman either in Aotearoa New Zealand or writing about our country from overseas (e.g. expats).

I know Maia's promised a few posts, and I'll be contributing some too.  The other bloggers may or may not contribute according to their own Reasons.  I've got a couple of guesties promised (hint hint hint to those wonderful women!) and hopefully more will surface now that this is out there in the world.

If you want to cross-post or make a submission please just email us on thehandmirror@gmail.com, we'd love to hear from you.  This post will act as an index for the week, so do check back to this page from time to time to see any new additions.  Also happy to add links to relevant posts elsewhere too that go up over the course of the week.

In chronological order, earliest at top:

Friday:
Dr Morgan Healey - Auspicious 'Abortion Statistics Day'
Maia - The Limits of Abortion as a Health Issue
Scuba Nurse - Your morality is in the way of my rights 

Saturday:
Julie - Fetus fetish
Julie - Quickie:  2010 Abortion stats out 

Sunday:
Maia - On thinking...

Monday:
La Ranita - Let's have a look at those statistics 
Luddite Journo - Abortion and the feminist club

Tuesday:
pohutu - Abortion as an Act of Love
anjum - talking to pregnancy counselling services
Julie - On being a pro-choice mother

Wednesday:
smkreig - Why minors deserve a choice as well
Maia - What does it mean to be pro-choice and support disability rights?
Luddite Journo - Abortion and politics
AnneE - Twisted logic

Thursday:
Maia - Pro-choice means opposing welfare 'reform'
Julie - Improving the law and access for abortion



Wednesday, 26 October 2011

Things that probably should not be made out of cupcakes #4

A red & brown tennis racket made out of individual cupcakes iced together, surrounded by cupcake tennis balls.

Tuesday, 25 October 2011

Head of the District Court

Judge Jan Doogue is the new head of the District Court. I've been following her career, which began in the Family Court, for a number of years.

Judge Doogue became a Family Court judge in 1994, just before the Domestic Violence Act 1995. Her legal decision-making almost immediately led to applause from Men's Rights groups, as she made it onto the "court decisions which help us" page at Menz. According to Menz, Judge Doogue:

ruled that the move by custodial mother from Auckland to Wellington, as primarily catering for the mother's, and not for the children's psychological needs. Doogue J emphasised that the children had already been through the trauma of parental separation from father.

No mention of why the mother had sole custody - so we don't know if domestic violence was a factor in this situation. And the disturbing implication that a mum wanting to live somewhere she has support is not important for her children.

In 2001, Judge Doogue released her thoughts on psychological abuse, in which she equates custodial parents (mostly mothers) who have "concerns" (unexplored) over access with non-custodial parents with "inter-parental conflict". At no point does she acknowledge that psychological abuse is one strand of domestic violence - underpinning physical violence, sexual violence, financial abuse and isolation tactics - according to the law in Aotearoa.

But Justice Doogue's most controversial foray was her address to a Child and Youth Law Conference in 2004, when she challenged the "social experimentation" of the Domestic Violence Act:

Research and experience supports the proposition that in New Zealand some children are being deprived of contact with a parent who has been alleged or judged to be violent when that is not in their best interests.

Considerable reliance has been placed on "Supervised Access" as being a panacea to balancing a child's rights to be safe and a non-custodial parent's right to access. This sometimes results in either inappropriate outcomes for children or unacceptable disenfranchisement for parents.

Judge Doogue went on to say:

At this point social science cannot support the assumption that any access, even supervised access with a parent who has been violent, is necessarily in a child's best interests. But nor does it support the assumption that access to a parent who has been violent is necessarily detrimental to a child's best interests.

This is back to the bad old days. Actually, there's a multiplicity of evidence that having contact with a violent parent, even if the violence is directed "only" towards adults, is bad for children. And still more evidence that courts too often do not appear to ensure the key determinant of access after a violent relationship ends is children's safety.

The Family Law Section of the NZ Law Society said the views expressed in this speech had no basis in fact at all. The available research showed the DVA was working quite nicely in court according to judges and lawyers, but noted some implementation concerns lingered in making sure it's protections were available:

"Overwhelmingly the people who were interviewed as key informants for this research and those who responded to the surveys, consider the Domestic Violence Act 1995 to be a good piece of legislation that achieves its objectives."

The media, however, were all over Justice Doogue's speech and Men's Righters loved it.

More recently, Judge Doogue's sentencing in the Tony Veitch case passed clear judgment on the man who pled guilty to breaking his partner's back in multiple places:

"You need to be held accountable for the harm done to the complainant, and to promote in you a sense of acknowledgement of that harm ... to denounce your conduct and deter others from similar offences."

"I dismiss any suggestion...that her behaviour that evening was provocative. Nothing she did justified what you did that night."

However, Judge Doogue's kindness in sentencing Mr Veitch to a bit of community work and some small change (for him) also came with the "mitigating circumstance" that this was a one off, unpremeditated assault. Seems odd when the original charges ran over three years of violent assaults, and these were only dropped at trial, as part of the deal the lawyers did to resolve this more quickly.

I've not followed Judge Doogue in the District Court, but I will be watching this space. She recently handed a non-custodial sentence to a 24 year old man who groomed a 15 year old on Facebook and then sexually abused her.

Final word from Chris Finlayson:

"Judge Doogue has the breadth of legal experience, skills and leadership abilities required for the Chief Judge position,” Mr Finlayson says. “I am confident that she will make a significant contribution in the office.”

Sunday, 23 October 2011

Rugby World Cup grieving

So you know when you're in the place you go to have your hair cut, and two of the women who work there (both recent migrants to Aotearoa from parts of the world which do not play rugby) spend the time they are washing your hair talking about disappointing French back-play?

Or you get a status update (yes, I do check occasionally, my poor neglected Facebook friends) from the stroppiest of your sports-hating feminist mates about how much they are looking forward to the final?

I'm not going to bore those who hate rugby with why I love sport. I'm certainly never going to excuse the cultural supports to violence which rugby provides.

But I think this tournament has allowed many people living here to enjoy identifying with all the rugby-playing countries they are affiliated to through whakapapa. My Newtown street is covered in Manu Samoa and Tongan flags, I have friends with Irish and Welsh flags flying proudly, and of course the Silver Fern is everywhere. Given how full of hate flag waving can be, our ability, as a country, to hold these complex belongings is something to be deeply proud of. I remember living in Lewisham, London, during one football Euro Champs, Turkey beating England, and the Turkish laundromat around the corner being trashed beyond repair because clearly being both Turkish and English was impossible.

This tournament, on a very personal level, has also allowed me to grieve for my sports-mad mother, who died in July, in beautiful ways. My first sports memory, aged seven, is my Mum jumping on top of our sofa, screaming "Batty, Batty" at the top of her voice while rhythmically clapping her hand to her thigh, during a famous All Blacks victory over the British Lions at Athletic Park. Mum lived without full motor control of her left hand side, in constant pain - watching her move atypically like that started my love affair with sport.

Every game I've watched this Rugby World Cup, I've thought of Mum. Missed her explaining the history of every anthem before the game, because nationhood fascinated her. Missed her excitement at wonderful play, and her teasing my father about his one-eyed Cantabrian pride. She would have loved all the upsets - Tonga beating France, Ireland beating Australia, and perhaps most of all, Canada, her country of birth, beating Tonga.

This Rugby World Cup has been a route in to grieving with my father. He is bereft, in so much agony I just want to hold him until it's gone. He is living on automatic pilot, as best he can, while he tries to imagine and live life without the person he loved for more than 43 years. The best times Dad and I have had over the last couple of months have been watching rugby games "Mum would have loved that." The space of the games has allowed my emotionally reserved father to talk about the gap where Mum used to be without being more open than he can manage.

I'm sure it's not what the International Rugby Board had in mind, but it's made this RWC poignant and special for me.

Friday, 21 October 2011

Adventures in icing #4958

Three cupcakes iced to look like balls of purple wool with two white knitting needles sticking out of the top of each one.
For Nikki and Maia.

Jan Jordan and Wellington Rape Crisis

is having a fundraising evening, with the opportunity to hear one of New Zealand’s most internationally respected academic feminists, Dr Jan Jordan, talk about sexual violence. Specifically, Jan is going to talk about the ‘discovery’ of rape as a social problem in the 1970s and some of the changes and positive responses achieved in the last 40 years.

As a criminologist with vast experience in improving and assessing state responses to sexual violence – including the only study in the world to measure attrition for all those reporting rape to the state over a period of 2 and a half years – there are not too many more impressive people to listen to about sexual violence. Simply put, Jan Jordan is a legend.

So $25 buys you a glass of wine, some nibbles and an international quality speaker. For an organisation which supports survivors of sexual violence to move towards thriving after surviving.

When: Wednesday 2nd November, 5- 6.30pm

Where: ‘The Lounge’, Southern Cross, 39 Abel Smith Street.

RSVP: Spaces are limited, please RSVP by Monday 31st October to Liz at 04 801 8970 or lizw@wellingtonrapecrisis.org.nz or click here to book and pay online. ALL WELCOME.

Thursday, 20 October 2011

Wellington Women's Boarding House

Homelessness for women is more common than we think. At least, that’s if we think outside the “street homeless” box that might be where most of us first go. I screened homeless women for the largest supported housing provider in London for two years. We had 50 safe houses, and constantly had a waiting list. The women I interviewed were not living rough. They were coming out of prison, sleeping on floors, being offered a bed if they would have sex with the man whose house it was, staying in Refuges or crisis homeless accomodation. I didn’t meet one woman, in two years, who came out of a homeless or mental health hostel who had not been sexually assaulted by a male service user there.

The Homeworks Trust, an Auckland based charity specialising in issues around housing for women says homelessness is a significant social issue for women in Aotearoa. We know we have a home when:

•We have a space of our own that is considered to belong to us *
•It is secure: we know that “home” is going to be there when we get there
•We can come and go when we choose to and decide what we do in the space and how it will look
•It is safe
•We are free from physical, sexual and emotional abuse

These criteria are not met, too often, for women in Aotearoa, because on average we earn less than men; single-parent families are significantly poorer in Aotearoa, most of which are headed by women; and women and children are the disproportionately victimised through domestic and sexual violence. Add in racism impacting on housing choices, inadequate social housing, and non-existent choices for women with impairments, and the picture is even grimmer for some women.

Homeless women need housing services that take into account gender – the needs of women to heal after violence, the needs of women to be able to live free from violence. Generic homeless services, the vast majority of services in Aotearoa, are typically set up around the needs of homeless men.

Which is why the Wellington Women’s Boarding House is such a special place. It’s been constantly full, of women between the ages of 17 and 84, since being set up in 1992, prioritising short-term accomodation for those on low incomes.

If you’re interested in voluntary work around homelessness and women, the women who run the Boarding House, all volunteers apart from a live-in manager, would love to hear from you. They are keen to have women with diverse skills and backgrounds involved, in a wide range of capacities, so if the idea appeals, get in touch with Philippa at piphartsmith@gmail.com by 28 October.

*This isn’t the post for talking about home “ownership” as a plank of capitalism. Another day. I’m reading Homeworks Trust as meaning rented or owned accomodation by this phrase.

Wednesday, 19 October 2011

Things that probably should not be made out of cupcake #3

Cupcake with yellow buttercream icing, topped with a packet of Marlboro cigarettes made out of fondant.

Tuesday, 18 October 2011

Repost: A Feminist Issue


It is four years today since the events I described in the first part of this post.  The grumpy sleepy baby is now six.  I got his name for this story from the Latin word for frog, which used to be his nickname; now he is old enough to object and explain the ways he is not like a frog: "Am I green? Do I croak?" Everyone else in this story is older too - and different, although not in such easily quantified ways.

But the prison is still there.  There was a visiting hour this morning.

******

When I knocked on the door at 7.15 that morning Anura was still asleep. Anura, aka the frog, is two, and his godless father was in prison. It was the first day any of us could visit Thomas,* and I wanted him to be able to see his godless son.

The visit didn't start until 8.30, but Rimutaka prison is half an hour's drive from Wellington and I was told to get there half an hour early. So Anura's mother woke him up, and I strapped a grumpy, sleepy baby into his carseat. We talked about the visit on our way up, me and Anura. "We're going to visit Thomas" I said; "Yeah" he said". "He's in prison" I said; "Yeah" he said. But mostly I just drove.

I'd heard that you could take property (which is corrections lingo for stuff) into the prison while you were visiting. I had my bag of baby stuff in one arm and my bag of prisoner stuff in the other as we went from the visitor's carpark to the gatehouse. We were a little late, and he was walking really slowly so I slung him on my hip, with my two bags. "Takahe" said Anura - although actually it was a Pukeko.

When we got to the gatehouse it was clear that I wouldn't be able to take anything in - everyone was putting everything they had into lockers. So I did too and we were the last to go through the metal detector. "One at a time" the guard said - so I sent the baby through first. Neither of us set off the metal detector - I'd worn my black pants rather than my jeans to make things easy. After searching my bag he let me take my nappies and a museli bar down to visiting. I wouldn't let Anura walk to visiting, but carried him instead - I wasn't going to cut into our hour.**

When we got there the guard made me go back and leave my bag in the entrance way. I could see everyone else hugging their prisoner, but I couldn't see Thomas. The guard told me that they would get him and I should sit down.

Visits at Rimutaka were in a prefab - bigger than the ones at school - but the same basic shape. In one corner was a small fenced in area - like it should have been for children to play in, but there were no toys.

Then Thomas was there in a bright orange Guantanamo bay jumpsuit and I was hugging him and he was OK. The next fifty minutes weren't how we'd normally talk, and not just because the guards would come over and tell him to put his feet on the floor. Although when Anura got bored (even a prison visit hour is a long time for a two year old) he came over and grabbed my face - just like he would have in any other conversation (although he's a better talker now so when I wasn't paying attention to him yesterday he just said "Stop Talking").

Prison visits are too short - they tell you it's over and you try and get one last hug, and say one last thing, and then another last hug, and then it really is over.

The prisoners were taken away and we were sent to the entrance way. They don't let you out of the visitors centre right away. While waiting in the I got a nappy from the bag they hadn't let me take in. Anura had needed changing for a while. I put my hand under his head as he lay down and changed his nappy just outside the door to the visitors centre - there was nowhere else.

Once they let us out we walked back to the gatehouse at two year old pace - he wouldn't be carried.

But in the end, my experience was as borrowed as the baby. When I was waiting to visit the following week,*** I noticed a woman who visited every day. Later she pointed me out to a friend - "She's with the terrorist" and glared at me. I don't know what her problem with me was, but I would think part of it is that I was so obviously there temporarily.

I saw people I knew when visiting, and I wasn't surprised to see them, although they were very surprised to see me. I don't belong to any of the groups whose existence is criminalised or for whom jail is a life hazard. I visited five times in four different prisons before I saw other pakeha visiting pakeha.

So I don't want to talk as if I know anything about having people you love in prison - because twenty-five days is nothing - people are on bail for months and are sentenced to years in prison. There are families and communities, poor and non-white families and communities, where people in prison isn't a horror or an aberration, but a fact of life.

I kept coming back to how much I had, when working to support people in prison. Most important was that there were heaps of us doing this together. I was in a good position for other reasons I had a car, I didn't have a job, I didn't have a child, English is my first language. While I love my friends who were arrested, their disappearance did not change the fabric of my life. I wasn't trying to live without their income, or what they did around the house.

Despite all this trying to support people in prison took everything I was able to give. Even prison visiting - which was the high point of my weeks - is work, doubly so if done with a two year old. The work of having people in prisons, and keeping families and communities functioning while they're away, is done by women. Female visitors outnumbered male visitors three or four to one. It was mothers, sisters, daughters, girlfriends and friends who were there, with or without kids, to do what needed to be done.


The week after I first visited Rimutaka, I visited Arohata - the women's prison. I'd gone to the prison half a dozen times already, to drop off books, letters, newspapers and visitors forms; I knew the prisons were different. At Arohata they weren't set up for supporters. At Rimutaka there were signs, forms and boxes for anything we might want to do. At Arohata they weren't as rigid, but after a week they wouldn't let us drop any more newspapers off, because they'd never seen this number of newspapers.

I got to Arohata half an hour early - just like I did at Rimutaka. When I rang the bell they told me that visiting didn't begin for half an hour and I'd have to wait outside. About ten minutes later another woman came, she was Maori and there to visit her mother. She'd come down from Palmerston North and we talked a little bit as we waited. I leaned against the fence, and she sat on the grass. She was pregnant, and needed to pee. I wanted to fight for her to get in and get a proper seat, but I'd already spent long enough in the prison system to know that it would just make me tired and get us nowhere.

Theoretically women prisoners on remand have much more visiting time than male prisoners on remand. Visiting time was in two hour blocks, rather than one hour blocks. All visiting time is cut into by the slowness of the prison system, but at the men's prisons they at least seemed to be expecting visitors. At the women's prisons they didn't even realise we were coming, until visiting time began.

As I said, from 12pm Monday 15 October to 4.01pm Thursday 8 November my happiest hours were spent prison visiting. While I was visiting I knew that they were really there, and that they were still them and fears that I couldn't even acknowledge dissipated.

But visiting at Arohata made me so sad, sad and angry, because the other female prisoners didn't seem to get visitors. The woman I'd waited on the grass with was the only other visitor the day I was there, and when other friends had visited the day before, none of the other remand prisoners at Arohata had got visits.

There are fewer remand prisoners at Arohata than there are at Rimutaka (18 vs 81 in the 2003 prison census).  There are only three women's prisons in the country, so women as far away as Gisborne would be held in Wellington. But even taking the numbers into account there were five times as many visitors over two days at Rimutaka, than two days at Arohata.

I don't think that I can extrapolate out total support from two days of visiting, but there's other evidence that implies this is a pattern. Three times as many women as men had custody of children immediately before they were locked up (35.5% vs. 12.1%). For men, almost 80% of the children were looked after by their partner or ex-partner. Whereas for women less than 25% of children were looked after by their partner or ex-partner (full figures here). Instead it's immediately family, larger whanau or CYFS.

Women do the work when men go to prison, and when women go to prison there isn't necessarily anyone to fill the gap.


I'm not pointing out anything new when I say this makes prisons a feminist issue. The invisible work women do is even further from the public eye when it is to serve an institution designed to hide and conceal.

There are different ways of knowing. I've believed in prison abolition for years, but I believed it different on Tuesday 16 October when I stood outside barbed wire fences and thought about people on the other side. And I knew that prisons were a feminist issue when I changed a nappy at the entranceway to a prison visitors centre.

* I have a car, and in a crisis situation I like nothing better than I really long to-do list, so I'd gotten myself approved first.

** That's the guard's job

*** A visit that never happened - but the way the corrections department at times seems deliberately set up to make your life worse is a topic for another post.