Via F-Words and Eye on Boise, I learned that Idaho State Representative Bob Nonini has proposed a law “to outlaw the use of threats or physical force to dissuade a pregnant woman from giving birth.”
I emailed Representative Nonini, and we had this exchange:
ME: My question is, do you also feel that those who coerce women into not having abortions should be penalized?
NONINI: No, I do not believe that coercing a woman into not having an abortion should be penalized.
Kudos to Nonini for honesty; most politicians would have dodged the question.
Nonini isn’t alone in feeling that pro-life coercion is acceptable. In August, I blogged about Michigan’s “Coercive Abortion Prevention Act.”1 As I wrote then, the law itself seems benign, at least on the surface. What makes it twisted, is that the Michigan pro-lifers who pushed CAPA through the legislature, actively worked to defeat an amendment to this law, which would have left CAPA intact but also have applied the same rules and penalties to people who coerce women not to have an abortion. In other words, in both Idaho and Michigan, pro-lifers explicitly opposed making it illegal to use threats or physical force coerce a woman into giving birth.2
It’s not really being against coercion if you only oppose it when you don’t like its results.
Of course, pro-lifers are pro-coercion; being pro-life by definition means wanting the state to coerce unwilling pregnant women to give birth. But I think there’s another reason pro-life politicians won’t support real anti-coercion legislation: They want to protect anti-abortion activists. In particular, I think they didn’t want to make it possible for women to sue so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers for using fright and intimidation to compel women not to have abortions.
Pro-choice groups in more liberal states should propose “Coercion Prevention Acts” of their own — acts which would make it illegal for women to be “terrorized, frightened, intimidated, threatened, or harassed” to compel her to make any reproductive decision (not just about abortion or not-abortion, but also sterilization and not-sterilization). Unlike the pro-lifers, we genuinely don’t favor coercion — so we can make the laws fair and even-handed, prohibiting coercion in either direction. If the laws are passed, then good.
And when “pro-life” leaders oppose such laws – as I’m sure they would – then at least they’d be a bit further exposed as hypocrites. Plus, their vote against outlawing coercion would be a lodestone around their necks when it came time for reelection.
Pingback: DakotaWomen
This is just another example of how pro-lifers view women – for women to ever be happy they need to have loads of children. Unfortunately women are like children and sometimes don’t realize that having kids is in their best interest, so it’s up to the state and pro-lifers to force them to have kids.
This is my more generous interpretation. The less generous interpretation is “sluts should be punished.”
Wow, way to be more proactive than me.
Creepy and disturbing, but unsurprising, and at least this one’s honest, although I wonder if he simply didn’t realise that people might find his “sure it’s OK to coerce women” views offensive.
I consider myself pro-life, but I think coercion is bullshit. You can’t force anybody to do anything and still remain ethical.
I think we should stop referring to the mainstream anti-abortion viewpoint as “pro-life”, and start referring to it as “pr0-coercion”.
Similar lopsided policies already apply to low income women. Title X (the federal government programto provide family planning services to low income women) specifically states that anyone who coerces or endeavors to coerce someone to have an abortion or sterilization is liable to federal prosecution (which I believe is completely ethical) However, the stinky part is that if you flip that coin over there is no such threat of prosecution for anyone who coerces a woman to have a baby by witholding information regarding abortion services.
And now that Kerouac a known anti-contraceptive advocate is heading the program you can be sure we’re going to be facing more cuts to the program.
However, the stinky part is that if you flip that coin over there is no such threat of prosecution for anyone who coerces a woman to have a baby by witholding information regarding abortion services.
That’s not coercion.
Then it’s equally not coercion if anyone coerces a woman to have an abortion by withholding information regarding prenatal care, adoption services or social programs that would cover the cost of childbirth.
I prefer the term “faux-lifers” myself.
Then it’s equally not coercion if anyone coerces a woman to have an abortion by withholding information regarding prenatal care, adoption services or social programs that would cover the cost of childbirth.
Obviously.
Coercion is force or the threat of force. As in, the quoted sentence that opens this very post.
Although it’s true that’s what the quoted sentence deals with, the full text of both the Idaho and the Michigan proposed laws includes sanctions against non-violent means of coercion, as well.
The quoted sentence was “to outlaw the use of threats or physical force to dissuade a pregnant woman from giving birth.” Threats of force and physical force are already illegal, but there are threats which fall short of the use of physical force which are currently legal. What the argument falls down to is whether these should be made illegal.
I think Nonini may have a point. Performing an abortion is illegal without the woman’s consent – it’s an assault. So coercing someone to give consent is worrying because it legitimises something which would be a serious crime. The reverse isn’t true. There isn’t a direct parallel between “coercing someone to have an abortion” and “coercing someone to not have an abortion”.
Some rape laws probably parallel this, (some forms of) coercing someone to have sex are a crime – thanks to feminists – but the reverse isn’t true.
Withholding information being corercion?
Because we all (most of us) know that women are as smart as men, are they not they be equally capable of finding the information needed to have an abortion? Giving information seems like it is just being kind and assisting them in finding out about abortions. Assisting them with something they can do themselves.
Pingback: Official Shrub.com Blog » Blog Archive » I’m not going to be judgmental, I’m just judging you.
To which Robert replied: That’s not coercion.
I think you ignore the fiduciary relationship between clinician and patient, where patients trust the information (which is a form of service) they receive from their providers. Giving the weight of the clinician’s position in providing health information while witholding some information is a form of coercion, especially since the use of information is *not* neutral. That is why state licensing bodies can suspend clinicians when they withold information (at least in my state).
Real life experience, a nurse practitioner working at a clinic (for obvious reasons I can’t disclose where this occured) withheld information to abortion services from a patient and was only caught when the patient came back to the clinic with complications and it was after an extensive review that we discovered that the woman’s life would be in jeopardy if she got pregnant again. When we asked the patient, she said she was told by the nurse that there was some risk but she would most likely be fine. When asked, the nurse said she always encouraged all her patients to continue pregnancy by automatically registering them for prenatal care because that was her religious belief and anything to the contrary was wrong. The nurse was suspended but not prosecuted. Now given that the patient had to have a hysterectomy done to save her life and subsequently having to take hormone therapy for the next [redacted] yrs, can someone please explain how this does not constitute a form of coercion?
I think you’re conflating availability of information with access to information. Remember, I am talking about poor women (who I should mention) are also predominantly women of color. If you were a woman living in a rural area in Mississipi, Alabama or even parts of Central California (a fairly reproductive services friendly state) and you got pregnant for the 10th time and knew you wouldn’t survive having another one, how else would you go about finding this information? If you did find the information, how would you be able to get services when the nearest clinic providing abortion is in the next state or at the least 2 counties away? Which brings me back to the issue I was talking about – the people who will be most affected are poor women and women of color.
Just so you know, like most of my colleagues I am of the strong opinion that anyone who coerces a woman to have an abortion or to get sterilized should be prosecuted, not just because of the history of the use of coercion to circumvent the rights of poor women and women of color but because it is fundamentally unethical…. But I am at loss to the manipulations that fail to provide the same protection when information provided is incomplete.
Crap! I stupidly added the number of years on hormonal therapy. Amp, can you please delete the number of years?
[done]
P.S: Research on the impact of withholding information can be found at the Guttmacher Institute website.
I think you ignore the fiduciary relationship between clinician and patient, where patients trust the information (which is a form of service) they receive from their providers.
I don’t ignore it. I’m simply not willing to take a perfectly descriptive word like “coercion” and freight it down with a dozen other unethical things that manipulate behavior.
Real life experience, a nurse practitioner…withheld information to abortion services from a patient…When we asked the patient, she said she was told by the nurse that there was some risk but she would most likely be fine. Now given that the patient had to have a hysterectomy done to save her life and subsequently having to take hormone therapy for the next [redacted] yrs, can someone please explain how this does not constitute a form of coercion?
Because coercion is force or threat of force. Lying isn’t coercion. “If you get this abortion, I will stalk and kill you” = coercion. “You don’t need an abortion, you’ll be fine” = lying.
bI think Nonini may have a point.
For any reason other than the urge to play Devil’s advocate?
Robert,
You’re only applying the strict definition of the word. The way it is being interpreted and implemented “to force or to manipulate a patient into making a decision by a)denying access to other necessary services b)unlawlfully threatening to reveal patient information to third parties and c)denying access to information about comprehensive services. ”
I should also mention that this definition has only been recently expanded to cover more than the strict definition of coercion.