Why the Indiana bill bothers me

The “unauthorised reproduction” bill from Indiana bothers me for one very specific and personal reason, as well as a whole host of more general political reasons that have been well covered elsewhere. Preventing unmarried women from conceiving by any means other than sexual intercourse can only encourage those unmarried women who, like me, badly want a child to conceive via sexual intercourse – in other words, to do what I did.

I’ve alluded only vaguely to the circumstances that led to my becoming pregnant, but the short version goes something like this. A long-term relationship came to an end, and the manner of its ending made it very clear to me that making plans that depended on my having a partner would only set me up for more disappointment. If I wanted to achieve any of the dreams or ambitions I had – including the dream of becoming a parent – I would have to do it alone.

I considered various means of fulfilling that dream, such as adoption or conception via a sperm donor, and realised most of them would be made unavailable to me – fertility treatment was beyond my budget, and I had a sneaking suspicion that my gender dysphoria would disqualify me as a potential adoptive parent. I finally settled on the old-fashioned method of having unprotected sex with willing men, in the belief that this was the simplest method.

Perhaps it was the simplest of the available options, but it was far from simple. To begin with, my desire for a more or less anonymous sperm donor led me to have sex with the kind of men who have unprotected sex with women they’ve just met and ask no questions. I put myself – and my baby – at risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, and although I’ve since tested negative, the guilty awareness that I was one of the lucky ones will not leave me. Not every woman who takes this route will be as fortunate.

Finally, I abandoned my pursuit of anonymity and turned instead to a trusted male friend. I got pregnant at the first attempt, but that was only the beginning of the difficulties. When I said, “I want to get pregnant,” he understood, “I want to move in with you and submit to your authority on all child-rearing matters,” and became frustrated and angry when my behaviour didn’t bear this out. The wrangling over this destroyed any chance of a continuing friendship between us, but worse, he is legally entangled in my life despite neither of us desiring this. Had I used an official sperm donor, he would have remained forever anonymous and legally unconnected with me and the child; since I did not, my baby’s father has a legal obligation to pay child support and a legal right to turn my life upside-down by applying for custody of a child he’s repeatedly told me he doesn’t want.

It’s hard to say whether I regret the choices I made. I certainly don’t regret the pregnancy, and I’m still looking forward to the birth of my baby. Is it regret to say that I would have preferred a clean, safe encounter with a turkey baster to the current tangle of uncertainties? Is it regret to counsel any woman in the position I was in last spring to think long and hard about the disadvantages of this supposedly simple route to parenthood?

I don’t know whether anyone, married or single, has a right to a child. I don’t know whether some barriers to parenthood are justified in the interests of the child, or who should have the authority to decide what’s in a child’s interest. But I do know that some people are desperate for a child. If one possible route to parenthood is blocked, they will switch, as I did, to an unblocked route, even though it might be more dangerous for them and for any children produced.

You might believe that a straight married couple make the best possible parents for a child. But that isn’t the question you should be asking. Single women and lesbian couples will be parents whatever you try to do. The question is whether they would make better parents if they were free from HIV and untroubled by legal entanglements with the biological father. Which do you think is in a child’s best interests?

Posted in Abortion & reproductive rights | 119 Comments

Lies, Hypocrisy and Same-Sex Marriage

A lot of people are lying or double-dealing about Same-Sex Marriage lately….

Anti-SSM Signature Gatherers Trick Voters Into Signing Petitions

The Boston Globe reports that anti-equality signature gatherers have used trickery to get people to sign the anti-gay-marriage initiative petition.

She said that when she signed the wine initiative, a woman who was collecting names told her that she needed to sign somewhere else, too. Only when she pressed, Sacks said, was she told that the second signature was for the gay-marriage question.

”I was so upset about the whole thing,” said Sacks, a freelance researcher who lives in Worcester. ”It was completely egregious. It was completely misleading. It was completely incorrect.”

The pro-gay marriage group MassEquality[…] said yesterday that they have received more than 40 complaints so far.

UPDATE: A new Boston Globe article on this issue.

Anti-SSM Leaders Cite Fake Medical Organization

The Canadian Conference on Catholic Bishops and The Bishop of Calgary are among the many anti-SSM folks to cite a group called “The American College of Pediatricians,” which claims that scientific evidence shows that children are endangered if they’re raised by same-sex couples. Boy, a group called “The American College of Pediatricians” must be official and scientific, right?

Actually, the “ACP” is an anti-gay front group with a single employee. It seems likely that they use a deceptive name in hopes that people will confuse them with an actual medical organization, the 60,000-member American Academy of Pediatrics.

Howard Dean Thinks Being Anti-SSM Is Only Objectionable In Republicans

The Washington Blade notes that Howard Dean has been ripping into Governor Arnold for his vetoing of same-sex marriage. But Dean himself is anti-SSM in the same way Arnold is, saying that Vermont’s existing civil union laws – which are very similar to California’s existing domestic partnership laws – should be good enough for queers. How can Dean call Arnold a homophobe for supporting the exact same status quo that Dean himself favors in Vermont? What a hypocrite!

More Anti-SSM Lies About The Netherlands

This post on the Brussels Journal website makes it sound as if polygamous marriage has been legalized in the Netherlands – causing it to be linked to by SSM opponents far and wide: “Victor de Bruijn (46) from Roosendaal ‘married’ both Bianca (31) and Mirjam (35) in a ceremony before a notary who duly registered their civil union.”

But Lee Badgett, an economist at the University of Massachusetts who has studied the impact of SSM in the Netherlands, says the translation isn’t honest:

This article is ridiculous. Don’t be fooled—Dutch law does not allow [legally recognized] polygamy, including legal recognition for this kind of threesome. The Dutch registered partnership law (see below) very clearly does not allow this kind of partnership. The blogger whose link you quote mistranslated (deliberately, I suspect) the Dutch word “samenlevingscontract”, which is a private cohabitation contract that this threesome apparently signed, as “civil union” and “marriage”. But “civil unions” don’t exist in the Netherlands…the correct legal term is registered partnerships (the proper translation of the Dutch term).

From Book 1 of Dutch Civil Code (translated by Ian Sumner and Hans Warendorf):
Article 80a.

1. A person may only be involved in one registered partnership with one other person whether of the same or of opposite sex at any one time.
2. Persons who enter into a registered partnership may not at the same time be married.

“Bi-Positional” Mayor of NYC Praises SSM in Public, Opposes It In Court

And NYC mayor Mike Bloomburg, who vocally courted the queer-friendly vote (which is pretty essential in New York City) and stated his support for same-sex marriage, has been quietly fighting SSM in court.

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 9 Comments

"Unauthorized Reproduction"

Via Feministing and Booman Tribune, this bill gives me one more reason to be embarrassed about my home state, and very worried about the future of Hoosier women’s reproductive rights (like me–duh), and the rights of same-sex couples trying to become parents.

Republican lawmakers are drafting new legislation that will make marriage a requirement for motherhood in the state of Indiana, including specific criminal penalties for unmarried women who do become pregnant “by means other than sexual intercourse.”

According to a draft of the recommended change in state law, every woman in Indiana seeking to become a mother through assisted reproduction therapy such as in vitro fertilization, sperm donation, and egg donation, must first file for a “petition for parentage” in their local county probate court.

Only women who are married will be considered for the “gestational certificate” that must be presented to any doctor who facilitates the pregnancy. Further, the “gestational certificate” will only be given to married couples that successfully complete the same screening process currently required by law of adoptive parents.

As it the draft of the new law reads now, an intended parent “who knowingly or willingly participates in an artificial reproduction procedure” without court approval, “commits unauthorized reproduction, a Class B misdemeanor.” The criminal charges will be the same for physicians who commit “unauthorized practice of artificial reproduction.”[…] (emphasis mine)

A little more info on the bill via The Journal Gazette (FortWayne.com).

[…]There are two parts to the draft legislation ““ the first dealing with some irregularities in central Indiana regarding surrogacy and adoptions. But the part of the bill raising eyebrows involves assisted reproduction.

It defines assisted reproduction as causing pregnancy by means other than sexual intercourse, including intrauterine insemination, donation of an egg, donation of an embryo, in vitro fertilization and transfer of an embryo, and sperm injection.

The bill then requires “intended parents” to be married to each other and specifically says an unmarried person may not be an intended parent.

A doctor can’t begin an assisted reproduction technology procedure that may result in a child’s being born until the intended parents of the child have received a certificate of satisfactory completion of an assessment required under the bill.

The assessment is very similar to what is required for infant adoption and would be conducted by a licensed child placing agency in Indiana.

Some of the required information includes the fertility history of the parents, education and employment information, hobbies, personality descriptions, verification of marital status, child care plans, letter of reference and criminal history checks.

A description of the family lifestyle of the intended parents is also required, including individual participation in faith-based or church activities.

The legislation appears to affect some married couples, although the rough draft is unclear at times. Miller said the draft will be cleaned up before a vote.

The bill does not apply to assisted reproduction in which the child is the genetic child of both of the intended parents ““ i.e., the sperm is from the father and the egg is from the mother.

But married couples that need one or the other would still have to go through an assessment process and establish parentage in a court.[…]

And Senator Patricia Miller’s defense–I guess–of the bill….

[…]”We’re not trying to stop people from having kids; we’re just trying to find some guidelines,” she said.

She did concede it would stop single people from using methods other than sexual intercourse but said “all the studies indicate the best environment for a child is to have a two-parent family ““ a mother and a father.”[…]

Hm. I wonder if this is the kind of thing Margaret Atwood would write about. (Jill over at Feministe has a little more on this.)

Posted in Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc., Elections and politics, Families structures, divorce, etc | 15 Comments

Amp is a Sell-Out

Here’s one of the reasons I didn’t have much time to post last month: An illustration job done for Commerce Magazine, a Portland business mag. This is the first time I got to do a full-page, full-color magazine illustration, so that was fun.

Posted in Cartooning & comics | 6 Comments

Damn that Patriarchal Breast Cancer!

Twisty of I Blame the Patriarchy, a jewel of the feminist blogosphere (if jewels can be nasty, witty and tough), has been diagnosed with breast cancer. If you’re a fan – and I imagine most “Alas” readers are, or should be – go over and wish her well.

And after that, read the first of what I’m sure will become a series featuring Twisty skewering the cancer-treatment establishment. In this installment, Twisty learns that she is insufficiently cancer-upbeat.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc | 1 Comment

Homeless Women In Portland Losing Shelter Space

I just recieved this via email… I encourage all my Portland readers – and, heck, anyone else who is interested – to email Mayor Potter and Erik Sten. And if you have a blog, please consider giving this post a link, because it might help. Unlike many politicians, Tom Potter and Erik Sten actually do have better sides that can be appealed to, so a deluge of emails might do some real good.

(And yes, obviously this email is a couple of days old. But the issue – the need for Portland to convert some of the existing unused shelters to emergency space for homeless women, as immediately as possible – has not gone away).

HOMELESS WOMEN’S ACTION ALERT!

TELL MAYOR POTTER AND ERIK STEN IT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO DUMP MORE HOMELESS WOMEN ON THE STREETS THIS WEEKEND!

With the city pulling its funding from the Salvation Army’s Harbor Lights Program, beginning tomorrow night, October 1, an additional fourteen homeless women will be dumped on Portland’s streets. As of tomorrow, the city will be providing an unbelievably low THIRTY shelter spaces for homeless women (and this figure includes the twenty remaining cots at Harbor Lights, where women are provided with neither meals, nor showers and must leave each morning at 6:30 a.m.). Compared to the number of homeless women on the streets, this is a drop in the bucket. In addition, there are currently FAR fewer emergency beds for single women than for men!

PHONE, E-MAIL AND TEXT MESSAGE Mayor Tom Potter and Erik Sten TODAY and tell them it is unacceptable for more homeless women to be dumped on the streets of this city. While the ultimate goal is affordable housing for all, until that goal is achieved, the City must provide adequate emergency housing. If Portland can open its heart to the recent Katrina evacuees (as well it should) why not to displaced persons in our own city?

Mayor Tom Potter
Phone: 503-823-4120
E-Mail: mayorpotter@ci.portland.or.us

Erik Sten
Phone: 503-823-3589
E-mail: erik@ci.portland.or.us

UPDATE: Check out this excellent related post (including the text of an email sent to Potter and Sten) over at Malice Aforethought.

Posted in Feminism, sexism, etc | 13 Comments

Monday Baby Blogging: Hanging Out With Daddy

Upside Down Baby!

Here’s Sydney being carted around by her dad Matt. Odd how happy she looks in this photo – when Matt picks me up by my ankles, it just pisses me off. Some people just have weird tastes.

Continue reading

Posted in Baby & kid blogging | 6 Comments

Who is Harriet Miers?

I’ll admit it. While getting ready for class this morning and watching Bush’s press conference on CNN, when he officially nominated Harriet Miers to be O’Connor’s replacement on the Supreme Court, the first thing I said was, “who the hell is she?” That’s right, I had no clue who Harriet Miers was until this morning around seven o’clock. Shame on me. Just as I didn’t know who Chief Justice Roberts’ was until after Bush nominated him. Apparently she’s a trailblazer for women-attorneys down in the Lone Star State. A very commendable thing in that regard in my opinion. But I am both really anxious and just dying to see her paper-trail, her memos, letters, etc. There’s always a paper-trail. There’s already some blurbs on the news and blogosphere of her being “too loyal” to Bush and his administration’s ideology. Well nearly all potential justices share the views of the president who nominates them–duh. Still, I can’t wait to see the paper-trail. I doubt she’s this completely “blank slate” the news pundits keep repeating. And I wonder what the Dems will do this time around.

Posted in Supreme Court Issues | 33 Comments

Bigotry and Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage

In email, an occasional “Alas” reader wrote:

Being called a misogynist, or a racist, or a homophobe, or — to take an example from the right — an America-hater, a man-hater or an anti-Christian bigot, is not really “criticism” or debate but an attempt to place the opponent beyond the pale of debate.

No doubt, she’s right some of the time; we’ve all seen these concepts brought up in an attempt to shut people down. (For example, legitimate criticism of Israeli policy being met with accusations of anti-Semitism). But some policies really are rooted in bigotry, and we shouldn’t accept rules of discourse that forbid us from saying so.

So, for example, if someone wants to call an essay I write “man-hating,” I think that’s a potentially fair critique. Maybe my essay was genuinely unfair to men; maybe I was stating views that are only coherent if unstated misandrist premises are accepted. Assuming the person was critiquing my analysis, rather than just calling me a bigot, it’s more logical for me to respond by showing that my piece wasn’t actually anti-male, rather than complaining that my critic is trying to shut me up.

Let’s look at the example of same-sex marriage.

There are some overtly homophobic arguments against same-sex marriage. The argument that gays are diseased perverts, for example, is often brought up by the less-classy opponents of SSM.

However, there are some arguments that are not overtly homophobic. For instance, one of the more sophisticated, liberal arguments against SSM can be summed up like this:

  1. If SSM is allowed, society will be less able to affirm the importance of being raised by two bio-parents.
  2. This will likely result in more heterosexual parents either never marrying, or marrying and then divorcing.
  3. This will cause harm to children.
  4. Therefore, we should not allow SSM.

Another common argument against SSM is that it would create a slippery slope, leading to such alleged problems as multiple-marriage and cousin-marriage.

Niether of these arguments are overtly homophobic, and I don’t think you have to be a homophobe to find these arguments credible. However, I think that there’s a hidden, unquestioned homophobic premise behind both these arguments, without which the arguments would not be coherent. Especially when these arguments are made by people who agree that anti-queer bigotry is wrong, pointing out implicit homophobia should not be forbidden from reasonable discourse.

Let’s restate the above argument:

  1. If wives are allowed to own property independently, wives will be freer to leave their husbands, undermining the institution of marriage.
  2. This will likely result in more heterosexual parents divorcing, or not getting married in the first place.
  3. This will cause harm to children.
  4. Therefore, we should not allow wives to own property independently.

No one today thinks it was a mistake to change marriage to allow married women to own property in their own name, to keep their own last names if they wanted to, or to make wife-rape a crime. These are all changes in “marriage” that arguably weakened the institution, much more clearly than allowing SSM would. The difference is we all agree that forcing women to remain unequal is unacceptable, not even to help protect marriage on the margins. Marriage would just have to be protected on other grounds.

No one would support laws that kept blacks, or Jews, or women, in legal inequality in order to protect marriage. No one would argue that they should have never have allowed interracial marriage, because the lives of interracial couples should be sacrificed to protect the rest of us from the horror of multiple-marriage or cousins marrying. We’ve reached a social consensus that blacks, Jews, women, interracial couples, etc. all have enough value as human beings that to reduce their lives to tools used to protect the rest of us from a dubious harm to marriage, or from a slippery slope, is unjust.

In contrast, SSM opponents implicitly assume that it is acceptable to force queers to remain unequal, in order to “protect marriage as an institution” in an unproven and marginal fashion. In doing so, they endorse a devaluation of same-sex couples that they would never endorse were they talking about blacks, or Jews, or women. That assumption – unstated and not even consciously thought about – is homophobic. And anyone who opposes SSM but also considers themselves opposed to bigotry against queers, should seriously consider this contradiction in their views.

Just as dispensing with women’s rights to protect marriage on the margins would be a misogynistic policy; and just as dispensing with racial equality to protect marriage on the margins would be racist; dispensing with equality for same-sex couples in order to protect marriage on the margins is a homophobic policy.

It’s true that sometimes “homophobia” – like many other words – is misused as a way of “placing opponents beyond the pale of debate,” as my correspondent said. But – unfortunate as that is – it should not be used as a reason to put genuine and reasonable concerns about homophobia beyond the pale of debate, either.

[Edited a bit to tighten up the prose.]

Posted in Same-Sex Marriage | 67 Comments

The Recent Commented Posts list is back! Thank you, Michael!

As you can see on the sidebar, we have a recently commented posts list again! All thanks and credit go to Michael Moore (no relation), of Following Edge. Thank you, Michael!

Michael has made a plug-in that is much more efficient than standard “recent comments” plug-ins, because it does not search the entire list of “Alas” comments every time someone loads an “Alas” page. This is important, since there are currently 42,318 comments in the “Alas” database (and counting).

There’s still fiddling to be done. [UPDATE: The fiddling has been accomplished! Michael has very kindly formatted his plug-in just the way I want it… :-) ]

But that’s all besides the point – the point is, we have recent comments again! Thank you, Michael.

Continue reading

Posted in Site and Admin Stuff | 5 Comments