From Feministe and Big Brass Blog on “what makes a woman a woman,” according to a certain bill. Read A Handmaid’s Tale, folks.
According to the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005 (Senate Bill 51 and House Bill 356, if you’re curious), it’s the ova and the uterus and nothing else. The Act, which has been criticized for its possible effects on abortion law, has been referred to committee in both the House and the Senate. It contains this excellent definition:
WOMAN- The term `woman’ means a female human being who is capable of becoming pregnant, whether or not she has reached the age of majority.
This definition of ‘woman’ was considered appropriate by both House and Senate. There are several interesting implications to this:
A. A female human being who is not capable of becoming pregnant does not qualify as a woman under this definition.
B. This definition implies that a woman is not, as any dictionary will tell you, an ‘adult female human.’ A thirteen-year-old female child is a woman if she has reached puberty. Fertility is the sole measure of womanhood, not maturity and the capacity to make one’s own decisions.
C. This definition could be used in other laws if this bill is passed and signed.
All of this reminds me of the definition of ‘woman’ in Margaret Atwood’s A Handmaid’s Tale, wherein infertile women were considered Unwomen.
Pretty damn disturbing. So what are we going to call menopausal and post-menopausal women? Disposable crones? So I suppose Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, isn’t a woman by this definition because she’s unmarried and childless, and probably menopausal or post-menopausal. I just love knowing that according to certain conservatives I’m just breeding-stock and an incubator, along with other women my age. We live in scary times indeed.
Pingback: conniemayfowler.com
That is so very, very creepy.
then a woman who has an ova and uterus removed no longer is a woman? what about the law that marriage is between a man and woman only are the immediately divorced or is there a clause that says if they once had an ova and uterus. I think this definition is to stop transgendered people from marrying.
It has everything to do with making women legal vessels for fetuses wihtout due recourse and nothing else.
Uh, excuse me, but just to make it very clear – I AM more than just a “reproductive” machine.
And did the female members of the House & Senate actually have no issue with this definition?
Nauseating, isn’t it?
If this gets passed, can women get a tubal ligation and join combat units in the military?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think there’s a few loopholes here . . .
Is it, in fact, possible for a woman who is twenty weeks pregnant to “become” pregnant? It seems to me that someone who is already pregnant would not be able to conceive, to “become” pregnant, and therefore is not a woman under the definition provided, and therefore is not subject to any part of this law. If passed, this law would only affect females capable of becoming pregnant, for whom it is moot, as one can’t have an abortion if one isn’t pregnant.
In addition, there are a couple loopholes in their definition of abortion. Their definition,
suggests that “removing a dead fetus” is one thing that terminates a pregnancy—that is, if the fetus is dead, the pregnancy is still in process. This means that, under this definition, terminating a fetus (without removing it from the uterus) is NOT terminating the pregnancy, and that the termination of a pregnancy by removal of a dead fetus is NOT an abortion. Therefore, any process where a doctor terminates a fetus AND THEN removes it from the uterus, is NOT an abortion.
The above definition also states that termination of a pregnancy in order to “increase the probability of a live birth” is not an abortion. If a doctor were to remove a live fetus from the mother, then this condition is satisfied and it is not an abortion, whether or not the fetus has any chance of survival or not.
And is anyone else as sick of hearing the phrase “unborn child” as I am? If it’s a child and the only difference is, it’s unborn, well why not deliver it, and then it will be a born child. Once it’s not one of “the unborn” anymore, the conservatives should stop caring about it, if their attention to the issues of already-born children (child care, health care, schools, etc) are any indicator. And if the “child” in question is not capable of survival on its own, I would imagine that some incarnation of that “futile care law” that Dubya signed as governor of Texas would come into play.
In any case, considering the fact that no one can legally be forced to provide blood or bone marrow transfusions or donate organs to another person, even if the other person needs it to live,
certainly no one should be forced to serve as an entire life-support system. If the Right wants all these “unborn children” to live, why don’t they invent a medical means to support those who the woman doesn’t wish to support, instead of enforcing pregnancy as punishment? (Whether for the crime of having sex or the crime of not wanting to be pregnant, I’m not sure.)
you might want to adjust your title to make it a bit more readable:
should a certain bill is allowed to be passed”?
By the above definition I’m a *thing.* Chemotherapy in 1991 means I’ll never produce a kid.
Good grief. Here’s betting not one woman in the House or the Senate *notices* that language or mentions it.
Jean
I’m assuming this is a “For the purposes of this bill” kind of definition, but its still stunning that they’d think it worth the effort to define “woman”. I’m curious what made them think the common law definition wouldn’t suffice.
While there are possible loopholes, I’d guess most courts wouldn’t honor them. Legislative record would be quite clear. Quite clear that the legislature are morons, but also clear what they really meant. Which again raises the issue of why they felt the need to come up with such a foolish definition in the first place. Given the odious nature of the law, one wonders just what they have in their heads to offer this definition.
Folks-
Have you read the proposed bills? The wording at the start of “definitions” states “in this title” – meaning they ONLY apply to this bill or law should the bill become law. Even if the bill becomes an amendment to the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 201 et seq.), the definition only applies to the specific title about the Unborn Child Pain Awareness section. The PHSA has other act specific definitions (such as “state”).
Hence,
A. A female human being who is not capable of becoming pregnant does not qualify as a woman under this definition. – TRUE..under this definition because a woman who cannot become pregnant would (at least directly as far as I can imagine) not be subject to the requirements of the act.
B. This definition implies that a woman is not, as any dictionary will tell you, an ‘adult female human.’ A thirteen-year-old female child is a woman if she has reached puberty. Fertility is the sole measure of womanhood, not maturity and the capacity to make one’s own decisions…Again, only for the purpose of the act. The act makes no reference to this definition have any application or standing outside the title.
C. This definition could be used in other laws if this bill is passed and signed….Well, any definition COULD be used in other laws. That’s not a significant observation. If one means will, instead of could, again, read the proposed text.
Kyra – I think you’re wrong about the loopholes. The operative word in this phrase – The term ‘Woman’ means a female human being who is capable of becoming pregnant – is capable. If a woman is pregnant, she has demonstrated the capacity (Capable – first entry from dictionary on my desk – Having capacity or ability;) to become pregnant. There is no guarantee she will again (or as you note, become at that moment). It’s not about becoming, it’s about being able – and if a woman is pregnant, she’s certainly shown an ability to become pregnant. I think you should read the definition of abortion closer as well (“with an intention other than”).
Of course most pro-choice people will object to this bill as the intent is to make getting an abortion harder. But if you’re focusing your energy and emotions on the definition of “woman”, you’re really taking your eye of the ball. That draft language states “To ensure that women seeking an abortion are fully informed regarding the pain experienced by their unborn child. ” I suspect if the writers used a general definition of “woman” , then others would complain about how the act covers people whom the act will never affect directly.
Just a suggestion – focus on the merits (or lack of if you believe) such as whether Congress can mandate into law “findings” as opposed to complaining about a definition that is specific to the proposed legislation. When one omits certain text (such as “in this title” in the case), whether on purpose or just inattention to detail, the argument becomes less compelling.
Well, yeah, but if they use this definition in this particular bill, it stands to reason that they might use the same definition in other bills.
Steve, both issues can be focused on as abhorent and wrong. It’s things like this that squeak by, where people are suddenly faced with them 5 years later and saying ‘how the, when the, what the hell is this?!!’ No definition that I’m aware of defines a man soley by his reproductive capabilities, and in saying that, regardless of intent or clarification, that in and of itself establishes women as being subject to discriminatory laws.
Actually, I was wondering about this definition because it does seem like strange wording. Since all pregnant persons will be women (barring “Junior”-like medical developments), why bother to define “woman”? It kind of looks to me like they were trying to make sure that pregnant minors were still included and considered “women” rather than “girls,” and were just very sloppy about it. But why not just use the term, “pregnant female” or “fertile female”? Or just, “female,” instead of “woman”? What is the point of contorting the real meaning of “woman,” when other terms are more accurate? Am I missing something here?
As distasteful and indeed, ridiculous, as this definition is, it scares me much less than the actual body of the bill.
But I wonder, would they ever define actually define “man” as, “male capable of impregnating a female”? I can just imagine the Viagra-spam subject lines now…
Oh, and just to clarify, by all means add “offensive” and “infuriating” to “distasteful” and “ridiculous.” Didn’t mean to downplay that, just to say that I am more disturbed by bill itself and mentality behind it (beyond just the “woman” definition).
Then the definition for “pregnant female” could be “a member of the species homo sapiens with a embryo or fetus attached to her uterus”. Simple, neat, self-explanatory.
The bill may say that the definition is only applicable for this law, but it’s still disturbing, for all the reasons that have been listed already. And, in bills, they generally don’t create a definition that isn’t already accepted as the meaning of the word. I’ve read several bills, and while there may be other instances where they created a definition that really and truly was only found in that bill, unless they were creating a new term, I don’t remember seeing any.
And there’s no real reason why the bill wouldn’t need to use a different definition of woman, one that didn’t define our gender solely based on the ability to become pregnant.
Well, yeah, but if they use this definition in this particular bill, it stands to reason that they might use the same definition in other bills.
No Linnet, it does not. It’s a narrow definition crafted by the writers. Both parties in Congress employ hordes of lawyers on their personal and committee staffs because the members don’t want legislation struck down over technicalities about the meaning, scope, and applicability of terms.
And, in bills, they generally don’t create a definition that isn’t already accepted as the meaning of the word. –
This statement is not true. Start with Title 1, Chapter 1, Subparagraph 1 of the US Code. It defines persons – “the words “person”? and “whoever”? include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;” but subparagraph 8 adds to this definition “shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development. ” Do a search on just the US Code of “persons” or “secretary” – you’ll get a sense of why writers often use specific definitions for certain narrow sections of legislation. If you’re into mind numbing search, look at Title 21 or Title 42 (which this legislation would amend) for all kinds of narrow definitions.
Bills that narrowly define a group of people, organization, or the characteristic, trait, attribute of something include definitions specifically because the sheer volume of codes and laws generally means a definition exists. Only females can get pregnant and this legislation is about someone seeking an abortion. I do agree, KMarissa and Maureen, that given most of the language speaks about pregnant woman, the inclusion of “capable of being” seems superfluous. The writers could have simply shorten the definition or used “pregnant woman” instead of “woman” in the opening.
Kim – I agree you can have disgust toward multiple parts of this proposed legislation depending on your beliefs, but still maintain the thought that focusing on the narrowly construed, for this act only, definiton is a phyrric tactic. But I think your next statement is a non-sequitur. Men and women are not the same in terms of reproductive capabilities so just because a narrow definition does not (I’m not sure, but I’ll take it as fact) exist for men, does not mean one for women is discriminatory. After all, the Preganancy discrimination act applies only to, well, pregnant women (actually, to women with childbirth or related medical conditions as well). That has a narrow scope of “women, but only in this specific act.” And surely, you would not want to argue that if we did define men in some cases by reproductive capabilities, that logic should necessarily carry over to women.
Perhaps somewhere there is a definition of at least white man, because Title 25, USC contains this restriction – “No white man, not otherwise a member of any tribe of Indians, who may after August 9, 1888, marry an Indian woman, member of any Indian tribe in the United States, or any of its Territories except the Five Civilized Tribes in the Indian Territory, shall by such marriage after August 9, 1888, acquire any right to any tribal property, privilege, or interest whatever to which any member of such tribe is entitled. “
Point taken on the definition of persons as corporations. I guess I’m just more used to seeing the definitions that seem as if they’re from commonly held usages of the word.
Why can’t the definition be as simple as “a person with X chromosome”? Oh my, does it offend anti-evolutionists to face the fact that humans are genetically created creatures? Now, of course we don’t want to offend people (votestock)!
Seriously, someone should assassinate your president ^_^
Steve is right. All bills have extensive definitions sections that don’t necessarily have anything to do with “reality.” All it means is that Congress’s lawyers have drafted everything in exhaustive detail, so that it is crystal-clear that the bill applies to this and not that. There is no reason whatsoever to think that this definition of “woman” would be used elsewhere.
Moreover, the definition makes sense for this bill. The bill is the “Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act of 2005.” What the Act requires is that “[b]efore any part of an abortion involving a pain-capable unborn child begins, the abortion provider or his or her agent shall provide the pregnant woman involved, by telephone or in person, with the information described in paragraph (2),” namely the information that the fetus might experience pain and that the woman has the option of choosing anesthesia.
Now look at the definition of “Woman”: “The term `woman’ means a female human being who is capable of becoming pregnant, whether or not she has reached the age of majority.” All that this means is that the Act applies to minors.
If this definition weren’t in the bill, some abortion provider somewhere would probably argue that “I didn’t have to get informed consent, because the law only says ‘woman,’ whereas a 12-year-old isn’t a ‘woman.'” At least, that’s what Congress’s staff lawyers think might happen. So they write the definitions so as to preclude that possibility.
Why can’t the definition be as simple as “a person with X chromosome”??
well, all people have X chromosomes, so that wouldn’t help.
in fact, there are even men who have two X chromosomes (in the pattern XXY), so a genetic definition is not helpful. (as any transexual could also tell you.)
since the bill is about fertility, a functional definition seems appropriate. the lawyers have a convincing argument here than narrow definitions for narrow laws are completely expected.
…And even apart from all that, the “XX” definition would include female neonates. Are they women?
Pingback: havecoffeewillwrite.com » A THIRD GENDER…?
It’s a narrow definition crafted by the writers. Both parties in Congress employ hordes of lawyers on their personal and committee staffs because the members don’t want legislation struck down over technicalities about the meaning, scope, and applicability of terms.
How does that preclude the same definition being used in another bill?
“The term ‘woman’ means a female human being who is capable of becoming pregnant, whether or not she has reached the age of majority.” All that this means is that the Act applies to minors.
No, actually, that’s not all it means. A very big chunk of that statment means “walking incubator.” There are a great many ways to say “this applies to underage females,” all in perfectly respectable legalese, without ever referring to reproduction.
It’s naive to think that this definition comes with the implicit guarantee that it will not and cannot be used to harm women in general and transgenders in particular.
Well said, Pauline.
Considering how many people have told me that rejecting pregnancy is rejecting one’s fate as a woman or rejecting womanhood itself, I don’t buy that this is simply the result of people who can’t write a definition for shit. There is an agenda here, one that seeks to define women who do not or cannot become pregnant as lesser.
Have you seen this – and this?
Armed Fetus Mug
$12.99
Unborn Baby Ornament – US Troop Model
Protect our troops – from the womb to the war. What if the fetus you were going to abort would grow up to be a soldier bringing democracy to a godless dictatorship?
Our price: $ 14.95
– source: Jesus’ General
As related to abortion the definition is OK.