Column by Christi McEntyre: Every good thing
by Christi McEntyre
Sep 12, 2012 | 1541 views | 11 11 comments | 6 6 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Christi McEntyre
Christi McEntyre
slideshow
Missouri Senate candidate Tod Akin’s gaffe about “legitimate rape” a few weeks back did us all a temporary favor: he got the Republican Party to tone down the rhetoric, at least for a little while, on something very near and dear to my heart.

No, really, my reproductive organs are only about 12 inches away from my heart. I care a great deal about what happens to them.

So, apparently, do a host of other conservative politicians who have popped out of the woodworks in the past year or so. In fact, I’d say they care a little too much.

And in the wake of the Republican National Convention, I see the obsession with my ovaries coming to the forefront once again.

The left-leaning side has for some time thrown around the phrase “War on Women” to describe the bevy of anti-abortion, anti-contraception and anti-preventative care legislation that has been tangling up state legislatures all across the country over the past couple of years. I wouldn’t go quite that far, but I will say that there’s a dangerous political paradigm of patriarchy that seems to be catching on faster than the latest viral video.

Of course, sooner or later, I knew that Georgia would get its fair share of the controversy.

Which is why I must say that I was disappointed, but not overly surprised, to see that my fellow voters of Walker County overwhelmingly said yes to the so-called “personhood” referendum question on the Republican primary ballot on July 31.

The thankfully non-binding question reads: “Should the Constitution of Georgia be amended so as to provide that the paramount right to life is vested in each innocent human being from his or her earliest biological beginning without regard to age, race, sex, health, function, or condition of dependency?”

Translated into plain English, it says “Should Georgia’s constitution have an amendment tacked on to it which states that life begins at conception?”

The overwhelming conservative response to this is, of course, yes. It sounds like a way to prevent abortions and save lots and lots of cuddly, innocent babies.

I beg of you to reconsider. It’s actually a lot more complicated than that. This ballot referendum is exceedingly dangerous, and its implications go far, far beyond abortion.

On the surface, a referendum worded like this one is designed to gauge the general voters’ feelings about abortion. (It’s also worded to confuse the voter, but that’s a whole other issue.) Thankfully, this particular referendum is non-binding, and is meant as a litmus test of opinion rather than an attempt at public ratification. That doesn’t mean that the Georgia legislature has to abide by the prevailing public opinion, but it doesn’t mean that they have to not abide by it either.

So even though the majority of Georgians voted yes on the question, that doesn’t mean that the legislature will move forward with a “personhood” amendment. And even if the overwhelming vote had been no, they could still draft an amendment regardless.

No matter how the legislature treats the results, it is our duty as citizens to be fully informed, and to show our representatives that we are overwhelmingly opposed to such a ridiculous notion. Because the implications for such an amendment should it be drafted and pass the Georgia House and Senate are nothing short of ridiculous.

Ignoring the abortion bit for a moment, the added mention of age, health, function and condition of dependency are scary enough in and of themselves. Those words echo the Terri Schiavo case of the early 2000s, where a Florida husband’s attempts at a compassionate end to the life of his brain-dead wife were halted by numerous government interventions, including a last-minute piece of legislation by then-President George W. Bush. All this after the local court had determined that keeping Schiavo alive in a persistent vegetative state would have been against her wishes and ordered her feeding tube removed. Terri Schiavo was all but physically dead for fifteen years; it took nearly half of that time for her husband Michael to win the right to do what only a loving husband could, for she was clearly not coming back to him.

If the Georgia legislature passes an amendment worded like the referendum question, a man in Michael Schiavo’s case would be unable to even ask to do the right thing for his wife. A woman in Terri Schiavo’s case would be kept alive, indefinitely and ineffectively, at ever-increasing costs to her family, her hospital and her community.

Now, for the implications at the other end of the spectrum. Should Georgia’s constitution be amended as the referendum question suggests, then the population of Georgia could legally double overnight. Every pregnant woman would count as two people on a census.

Even fertility clinics could be shut down. Couples struggling to have biological children would just be out of luck. Fertility doctors don’t just make one zygote to implant in a woman trying to get pregnant – they make as many as they can, in order to increase her chances. (How do you think Octomom happened?) With the “personhood” referendum, every fertilized egg that dies or is disposed of by these clinics might legally be counted as murder.

Let’s stop for a minute to let that sink in. You and I could be counted the exact same, legally, as something microscopic, something that cannot survive on its own outside of a host, something that they cryofreeze, for crying out loud. You can’t cryofreeze a person. (Well, you can, but you just can’t bring him back. Sorry, Ted Williams.)

Let me tell you something about fertilized eggs. They die all the time, naturally. The vast majority of all human fertilized eggs pass out of women’s’ bodies without anyone being the wiser. It is only rarely that they implant, that they latch on and start to grow, and it is only then that pregnancy begins. There is no pregnancy test in the world that can tell if a woman is carting around a fertilized egg, because there is chemically no difference whatsoever in her body. Only after implantation occurs do the levels of human growth hormone – what pregnancy tests look for –increase at all. And even then it takes a few weeks for them to reach measurable levels.

Let's put it this way: if any and all fertilized eggs are "persons," then most sexually-active women are unknowingly committing "murder" each month.

That's just plain ridiculous.

Still, although potential census changes and a ban on fertility clinics are sad and unnecessarily silly, they are not life-threatening. Other potential implications are.

Women suffering from ectopic pregnancies – fertilized eggs that implant in the fallopian tubes instead of in the uterus – which are incredibly dangerous and in fact occur in approximately 1 out of every 50 pregnancies, could be out of luck, as the emergency surgery necessary to remove the embryo and save the woman’s life could no longer be legally performed.

Stem cell research, which creates life-saving medical breakthroughs from cells taken out of human fertilized eggs? Forget about it.

Oh, and of course, women couldn’t legally get abortions anymore. Would that stop them? Please. Prohibition didn’t stop drinking; it just drove it underground. Should such an amendment happen, then those women who don’t drive across the state line to get the care they need will resort to more dangerous methods – home remedies, coat hangers, throwing themselves down stairwells. Logically speaking, this could easily drive up the number of emergency room visits, not to mention their cost to taxpayers. And for those women who go on to bear their unwanted children, it’s not unfair to say that a good many of them will be drawing more and more welfare to compensate for unplanned-for, unsupportable offspring.

Stop me if I’m wrong, but none of this sounds like what the Republican Party wants.

Now, do I expect any sort of state constitutional amendment to actually happen? No, of course not. Other states – Colorado, Ohio, Mississippi – have already tried it and failed. And that’s perhaps the worst part: not that the legislature is asking something so ridiculous, but that they’re wasting their time, and ours, on such a nonsensical notion as “personhood.” If legislators want to help their constituents, if they are truly concerned about the health and well-being of infants and children and hope to see abortion rates go down, then they should be doing the exact opposite of asking such silly referendum questions and attempting to de-fund Planned Parenthood. They should be encouraging better sex education. They should be passing legislation to help provide better access to contraception. They should be making it easier for women and men to be better informed, better prepared and better able to postpone having children until such time as they are ready to do so.

I urge you to adamantly oppose any future attempts by the Georgia legislature to enact any sort of “personhood” amendment. Show your representatives that you find their obsession with women’s’ bodies a ludicrous waste of time.

I don’t mean to disrespect anyone’s convictions, but a fertilized egg is not a baby. A baby can live and breathe on its own, outside of a host. Babies can be held and cared for and taught. They are the ones who need protection, not the myriad of fertilized eggs, most of which never come to fruition anyway. Children who are born to too-young or un-ready parents, or to a woman coerced into carrying to term an infant that she didn’t want, that she is financially or emotionally unable to care for – those are the ones who need protection.

In a recent TED (Technology, Entertainment and Design) talk given by Melinda French Gates, the wife of the technology mogul described time she spent with a women’s group in the slums of Nairobi, Kenya. The words of one impoverished mother as she was describing her need and desire for birth control, stuck with her. “I want to bring every good thing to this child before I have another,” the woman said.

If and when I ever have children, I want them to come from a place of love and readiness, not accident and obligation. I want to be prepared – physically, mentally, emotionally and fiscally – to give each child “every good thing.” All children deserve at least that much respect. And, contrary to the caustic comments by one Missouri senate candidate, so do the women who bear them.

Christi McEntyre is a reporter with the Walker County Messenger. She can be reached at cmcentyre@walkermessenger.com or (706) 638-1859.



Comments
(11)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
LocalCrackpot
|
September 13, 2012
I'm amazed at how Haughty people that support infanticide can be. You care about the rights of gays and minorities if they can get out of the womb without being murdered.Homework people: Google Margaret Higgins Sanger (September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966). She founded planned parenthood and was a devout racist and Elitist. You also confuse atheism with actual Ant-Christian bigotry...
Frankenchrist
|
September 13, 2012
I don't recall anyone saying they support infanticide here. I do however see people in favor of birth control, a woman's right to birth control, and her right to choose and her healthcare opetions. I would submit to you that I, an atheist care about more people, more subsections of people by race, color, heritage, sex, creed, religion, and any other box you can place people into, than you Cracky.

And thanks for the tip about Googling Sanger. She had some bad ideas about light and dark skin (but acted fairly) and eugenics, but is truly a heroine of US history. I recommend her so everyone as well.
LocalCrackpot
|
September 13, 2012
Heroine? -

"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with

social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most

successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal.

We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro

population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if

it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

-- Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255

Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith

Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in

Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth

Control in America . New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976.
samwise1
|
September 13, 2012
The Personhood amendment doesn't ban anything because it hasn't been passed. IF it ever is, then it will have gone through the process of having both sides pick it apart and put back together something all sides "agree" upon. It won't ban birth control. Period.

As to Frankenchrist's comment, I will only say:

And some PEOPLE WHO WORK still vote DEMOCRAT! Talk about masochistic!

iomike
|
September 13, 2012
Amen. The GOP doesn't care about you if you make $35k a year. They want your vote, but they won't vote in your benefit.
classicliberal2
|
September 13, 2012
"The Personhood amendment doesn't ban anything because it hasn't been passed. IF it ever is, then it will have gone through the process of having both sides pick it apart and put back together something all sides 'agree' upon. It won't ban birth control. Period."

There's no point in pretending as if this is some sort of theoretical thing. Any iteration of a "personhood" amendment that declares an embryon at the moment of fertilization to be a person--and that's what they all do, because that's the point of them--ban birth-control pills and IUDs, and there's no way around that. Colorado has had such an amendment before it twice, Mississippi once, Floridians have it before them this year, and it has been introduced at the federal level repeatedly. All of them do the same thing, which is why they always fail--most efforts to get them on the ballot in various states, in fact, never even get the required number of signatures to move the process that far. As I noted before, their advocates are typically quite open about this, as well.

Any such amendment bans birth-control pills and IUDs, bans embryonic stem-cell research, bans (in effect) in vitro procedures for the infertile, and would, if enforced, require, as a constitutional matter, a murder investigation of every reported miscarriage. At the other end of things, as Christi notes above, it also removes your own ability to make end-of-life decisions--even living wills you create that say you don't want to be kept artificially alive on machines would be rendered invalid. Your spouse couldn't make that sort of call for you, either. This, again, is intentional, and supporters of the amendments are generally quite open about it.
rearden1
|
September 12, 2012
It isn't your organs anyone who is pro-life cares about. It's about saving life. That's all. To suggest that Republicans, conservatives, or anyone else just wants to wage war on women is simply either ignorance or willful lies designed to demonize the party that wasn't seen screaming "no" to having God in their platform. So to Classicliberal2, your lying again. You lie a lot, an awful lot. War on Women goes way to far. It's a fiction designed to try and make monsters out of people who only want to see the slaughter of life unable to defend itself stopped.

The real war here is the war on the unborn. Millions and millions killed. Yeah, that's something worth fighting for. But by making it all about you... well, that only works for people who don't think it through... like classicliberal2.

Oh, and the same goes for the lie that birth control like the pill would also be banned. Preventing pregnancy... nothing wrong at all with that. Slaughtering the life already created is, however, morally wrong. I could be a rabid atheist and I would still get at least that...

But in the name of doing what you want, being able to avoid responsibility for your actions, you strip yourself of basic humanity in your willingness to kill unborn children.
classicliberal2
|
September 13, 2012
FACT: The "personhood" amendment DOES ban both birth-control pills and IUDs (which are, by far, the most common means of birth control). Both make the lining of the uterus inhospitable to inplantation. When the amendment was up for a vote in Mississippi, the "Yes on 26" coalition behind it not only admitted this, but said that was part of the goal of the amendment. That's a big part of why it so spectacularly failed in even one of the most ass-backwards right-wing states in the union.

The "War On Women" is part of a larger developing problem the U.S. has--the rise of a very strong fascist element in its politics. Not "fascism," as in the multi-purpose political curse people throw around at anything they don't like without any understanding of the word, but the real thing:

http://lefthooktheblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/americas-fascism-problem-part-2-war-on.html
classicliberal2
|
September 12, 2012
Such "personhood" amendments would also ban most birth control (IUDs and the pill), and would, as a constitutional requirement, mandate a murder investigation into every reported miscarriage.

You do a good job, Christi, but you're wrong to suggest "War On Women" is a tad too far, as descriptions go. If anything, it understates matters.
Frankenchrist
|
September 11, 2012
And some women still vote Republican! Talk about masochistic!
LocalCrackpot
|
September 13, 2012
Some women don't believe in killing babies.
Postings are not edited and are the responsibility of the author. You agree not to post comments that are abusive, threatening or obscene. Postings may be removed at our discretion.