some evidence for parentism
December 11, 2009
A while back, I wrote a little bit on “parentism,” which I defined as “consisting in discriminating against people on account of their parental status, or in individual actions and attitudes or institutional arrangements that favor persons of a particular parental status unjustly.”
Here’s some evidence for the phenomenon: you can buy a box of kid paraphernalia for the purpose of convincing your coworkers that you have a kid and are therefore entitled an important perk of parenthood – skipping out of some work while looking sympathetic instead of like a deadbeat.
The ridiculous thing here is not that someone sells this kit, or that people buy it. What’s ridiculous is that it is even needed in the first place. Some people value things other than spawning. Shocking, I know. Please learn to respect this in the way that you want them to respect your life choices.
Stupak might reduce abortion insurance coverage, but not accessibility
November 18, 2009
A new study from the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services reports that “the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange.”
In other words, though the immediate impact of the Stupak amendment will be limited to the millions of women initially insured through a new insurance exchange, over time, as the exchanges grow, the insurance industry will scale down their abortion coverage options until they offer none at all.
Do people not understand that abortions will remain legal and available even if this change occurs in the insurance industry? And that third-party payments for abortions have probably driven the prices up? And that if everyone who wanted an abortion were choosing her own provider and paying out of pocket, then the price of the procedure would probably drop? And maybe even it would be cheaper to just pay for an abortion than to buy a policy that covers abortions?
Just sayin’.
unintended consequences: Stupak Amendment & miscarriages edition
November 11, 2009
One of the most interesting things I have read about the Stupak Amendment is this:
Will the Stupak Amendment Affect Insurance Coverage for Miscarriages? I Think So
Sadly, the author experienced a miscarriage recently. In her case, as sometimes happens, the fetus had yet to be expelled. She was put in the difficult position of either waiting for that to occur naturally, or choosing either a chemical abortion or D&C. Each had different risks and costs. The author, like many women who miscarry, chose to undergo the procedure.
Although the fetus is this sort of case is deceased, there is some question (and dispute) as to how the procedure to remove it is typically described medically, or how it is supposed to be documented. It may be described as an abortion. If so, then the Stupak Amendment (which I wrote about earlier this week) would forbid public funding of these procedures even in the case of miscarriage.
It is doubtful that even the most ardent of pro-lifers intended to limit access to post-miscarriage medical care. The mainstream feminists who claim that generous reproductive care, including abortion, is a non-negotiable when it comes to health care reform are using this unintended consequence as evidence that the government should generously fund care but stay the heck out of decisions between a woman and her doctor.
However, that position is not politically viable right now. And, I was taken aback at the naïveté of one commenter who wrote to the OP: “Your eloquent post points out the problems when legislators do not adequately consider complex issues.” The legislators are trying to consider complex issues, but no result will ever be satisfactory to everyone, and there will always be unintended consequences. If they try to write in miscarriage exceptions to Stupak, the pro-life contingency will object that such measures will be used to cover up actual abortions with miscarriage paperwork. Or, women will start trying to induce miscarriages themselves at home, so that the care afterward will be covered by their publicly funded health plans.
There will not be any no strings attached public funding of reproductive health care anytime soon. Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, take a look at how legislative bodies have always functioned in the past, and take a guess as to whether you will be happy with how they handle bungle this one.
thoughts on NOW and the Stupak Amendment
November 9, 2009
Disclaimer: I haven’t been following the health care stuff too closely, because it is exhausting, but this particular aspect interests me.
The National Organization for Women is very upset because the Stupak Amendment passed and is part of the health care bill that passed the house the other day. According to the NYT, the Amendment “would impose tight restrictions on abortions that could be offered through a new government-run insurance plan and through private insurance that is bought using government subsidies.” According to the LA Times,
The compromise amendment, offered Saturday by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), in effect bans abortion coverage by all plans that are purchased using taxpayer dollars. Abortions could still be obtained by policyholders who pay their entire premiums without government assistance or by individuals receiving federal subsidies in the event of rape, incest or danger to the mother’s life.
Since the Amendment was included in the bill that was passed last night, NOW sees this as a “bill that strips millions of women of their existing access to abortion.” More from NOW:
NOW calls on the Senate to pass a health care bill that respects women’s constitutionally protected right to abortion and calls on President Obama to refuse to sign any health care bill that restricts women’s access to affordable, quality reproductive health care.
NOW is so into universal health care, but then they act all surprised and indignant when the political processes which govern the birth of any such scheme return a result which – surprise! – reflects the preferences of the sizable pro-life constituency in this country. Just imagine: If you (or your constituents) thought that abortion was murder and therefore the very antithesis of health care, you would vote to minimize directly or indirectly state-funded abortions, too.
Furthermore, it’s unwise for NOW to keep pressing the point that the Amendment keeps women from using “their own money” to access abortion care. It’s not clear whether NOW is counting federal assistance as “their own money” (I think they are). But, even if they’re not, it’s important to remember that this hugely expensive (don’t even try to deny it) plan does lots and lots of things with money that belongs to other people. So while women seeking abortions may be prevented from spending their money in that way, there are tons and tons of taxpayers who are also prevented from spending their money in ways of their choosing. The “their own money” point does not support opposition to this particular bill, it supports opposition to expanding the government’s role in health care in the first place.
Finally, obviously this Bill is not itself an amendment to the constitution and it does not abridge the right to have an abortion. True, it would not in theory respect a right to have an abortion on the government’s tab, and thereby on the tab of pro-choicers, but no such right exists. The Stupak Amendment seems to be the logical extension of the Hyde Amendment, which has long prohibited the funding of abortion using federal Health & Human Services monies. Since now a more expansive health care program is on the table, a more expansive abortion funding policy is needed.
(Of course, I am still ardently pro-choice, and always will be. But nothing regarding positions on the state funding of abortions follows merely from that).
Editing to add: Megan McArdle has some cogents thoughts on this matter in this post: The Health of the Nation
madeleine albright thinks I’m going to hell
October 29, 2009
The other day, I saw a Madeleine Albright quote in my Twitter timeline. I don’t know if this Time magazine interview is the original source, but this is the quote (bold):
What advice do you have for women who want respect from their male colleagues? Dana Philbin, CHICAGO
Women have to be active listeners and interrupters—but when you interrupt, you have to know what you are talking about. I also think it is important for women to help one another. I have a saying: There is a special place in hell for women who don’t.
I would guess that she didn’t mean anything by this other than to express condemnation of the bitchiness (for lack of a better term) that is sometimes reported specifically amongst women in the workplace, and that sort of thing. And maybe there was a time & place when most women really did have shared interests, simply qua women (such as suffrage). But if we’ve learned anything at all from third wave feminism, it’s that women are in many ways more diverse than they are similar (race, class, religion, etc). As such, I don’t think I really have any obligation to help my “sisters” simply because they are women, and that is what this quote prima facie suggests. So I guess I’m going to hell. The special part of it for people who think (gasp!) that moral obligations regarding who we ought to help are not straightforwardly related to coincidences of gender.
is cultural libertarianism entailed by political libertarianism?
October 28, 2009
A couple of months ago, I had a debate with a libertarian friend over whether cultural libertarianism is correct/good/necessary/whatever. At the time, I was sure that I was what you would call a “cultural libertarian feminist,” as specified in the Liberal Feminism entry on the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a reputable source). Recently, Kerry Howley wrote an interesting piece on cultural libertarianism over at Reason (“Are Property Rights Enough?”), and there have cropped up a variety of responses to it there and elsewhere in the blogosphere. I really wish I had the time right now to wade through all of it, as there is a ton going on. But for now I’ll focus on what I find the most pressing question for people interested in this issue:
Is it somehow inconsistent for a libertarian to care about freedom from government control and coercion but not to care about freedom from socio-cultural control and coercion?
or, to rephrase:
Is cultural libertarianism logically entailed by political libertarianism?
I find this important because it seems as if Kerry says yes: that libertarians who think freedom is just a political matter involving freedom from the state are either just ignoring or implicitly condoning freedom-limiting social structures such as the patriarchy. But cultural libertarian feminism, as I understood it from the SEP article, didn’t seem to be that strong of a position. A claim that political libertarians must care about culture on pains of logical inconsistency is apparently not a necessary feature of cultural libertarian feminism. Read the rest of this entry »
Cargo, your lip gloss insults my intelligence
August 23, 2009
If you are not familiar with Sarah Haskins and her video series, “Target Women,” you should be! She does a great job of hilariously exposing the absurdities of advertising that, well, targets women.
In the Sarah Haskins spirit, I have to share with you my unhappiness with this product, Cargo Classic Lip Gloss.
Ordinarily, I would not spend a whopping $22 for lip gloss. But, it was for the wedding, and came with a bunch of other stuff I wanted in a package deal, so I ended up with it anyway. What makes this particular lip gloss so special is its “Timestrip technology:”
“Timestrip™ is a strip that remembers when a product was first opened and alerts you when it is no longer wise to use it. Simply insert the Timestrip™ into the cap and it is immediately activated. As the months go by the Timestrip™ window gradually turns red and, when the entire window is red, it is time to replace your gloss.” Read the rest of this entry »
state control of abortion: funding, or failing to provide?
August 21, 2009
I am genuinely confused by this recent Feministe post, Michele Bachmann: radical pro-choice feminist?
The author offers two pieces of information that she seems to believe are contradictory.
1. A quote by Michele Bachmann:
“That’s why people need to continue to go to the town halls, continue to melt the phone lines of their liberal members of Congress, and let them know, under no certain circumstances will I give the government control over my body and my health care decisions.“
2. A video of Michele Bachmann speaking. Basically, she calls for the government to quit funding Planned Parenthood, which provides alot of abortions.
Now, I understand how this is a weird picture if you add a further piece of information:
3. Michele Bachmann is quite radically pro-choice (and that is why she wants Planned Parenthood defunded)
But in the absence of 3, there is no contradiction, and so I don’t really understand the shock value of the original post as presented.
I guess it comes down to this:
If you oppose state control of health care (and thereby abortion), and you think that “control” consists in, or is promoted by, many-strings-attached state funding, then definitely retracting federal funding from Planned Parenthood is the right thing to do.
But I can only assume from the post that the Feministe author thinks that state control of health care amounts to the state refusing to help provide those services promoting reproductive choice for women – i.e., abortion. (Remember, the Bachmann speech wasn’t about outlawing abortion, even if she actually wants to, but merely about defunding it).
Which seems like a better way of understanding “state control of health care/abortion” to you? Or am I totally missing something here?
Edited to add: A very similar story also appeared over at Feministing. Someone, please explain this to me? I don’t get it.
feminism, abortion and universal health care
August 14, 2009
So, I’ve been warming up on this blog for a while now, so I figure it’s time to start linking to other blogs that I read. Today’s subject is a post over at Feministe, “one of the oldest feminist blogs designed by and run by women from the ground up.”
Just as background, let me say that I am both pro-choice and a feminist (in some sense, but that is a topic for another time). But, I am against universal health care, for complicated reasons including, but not limited to, that health care is a need and not a right, that it would stifle medical innovation, that it would violate doctors’ right to contract freely, that it would not be able to control costs, and that it is morally worse for the government to engage in care rationing than for a private insurance company one has voluntarily hired to do so (but, this too is a topic for another time).
On to the Feministe article. It’s on the topic of some other work by Chris Korzen about abortion and health care reform. To be honest, I haven’t been following the news on health care reform in the legislature too well, because my gag reflex is a little weak. Even so, it is apparent that the position taken in the Feministe article is philosophically shallow. It is a great example of why I can’t get on board with many mainstream feminists regarding reproductive issues, even though I am pro-choice. Here are the highlights: Read the rest of this entry »
parentism: an example
July 5, 2009
What is parentism?
Parentism is a less discussed cousin of racism, sexism and classism. On my interpretation, parentism consists in discriminating against people on account of their parental status, or in individual actions and attitudes or institutional arrangements that favor persons of a particular parental status unjustly.
While surely there are cases wherein people are unjustly treated because they do have children, I am more interested in cases wherein people are unjustly treated because they don’t have children. Read the rest of this entry »
