Few things frustrate me more than seeing contentious debates flare up when it seems to me that everyone is basically on same side. Ann at Feministing posted on an article about a young, white, middle class woman who wanted to get sterilized, but because she fits the ideal of a prime breeder in the eyes of so many (think Tom DeLay claiming that if you just forced American women to have more babies, that would somehow stop immigration—racism and sexism in one tidy little bundle), she couldn’t get a doctor to agree to sterilize her. Radical Doula then stepped in and reminded everyone that there’s a kink in the issue, with the forced sterilizations of women of color being a problem as well. Okay, I think everyone in the reality-based world can agree that coercing someone to get her tubes tied is also wrong, especially if the woman is being singled out for being non-white and poor. There’s a long history of coerced sterilizations of black women, Hispanic women and especially Native American women in this country, and last I checked, sterilization rates with Native American women are still suspiciously higher than average, which could very well indicate increased physician pressure on that population.
Where I have trouble is with statements like this:
But there is a flip side to this debate, which I attempted to add to the discussion that arose from the Feministing post, but had little impact overall. The flip side is sterilization abuse: women who are forcibly or unknowingly sterilized against their will.
And from the comments at Feministing:
I think that you will find that for women of color, low income women, or immigrant women, this issue is completely different. Rather than having trouble getting sterilization surgeries, they are being FORCIBLY sterilized.
Nothing wrong with her points so much as with the framing of the issue as being about sterilizations in particular. If you focus on the actual medical procedure, it does seem like we’ve got groups with competing interests. But this isn’t about who’s getting her tubes tied when. It’s about whether or not women are getting to make their reproductive choices for themselves. The divide that’s been established between those fighting for the right of under-30 white women to get their tubes tied if they want has the same set of beliefs and interests in mind as those fighting against coerced sterilizations—the right of women to make their reproductive choices for themselves, with full information and without coercion.
There’s no doubt that the particular details from procedure to procedure manifest themselves in different ways. White feminists in the past have been blinkered on this issue, which created fuss when mandatory waiting periods for sterilization became an issue—those who saw the issue primarily through the lens of stopping coerced sterilization felt the waiting periods gave women a chance to escape pressure from doctors who do things like get you to sign consent forms while on drugs or in labor, and those who saw the issue primarily through the lens of advocating for the right to get sterilized at will saw waiting periods as just one more paternalistic interference with a woman’s right to choose. Also it seems suspiciously like the waiting periods imposed on women seeking abortion.
In an ideal world, there would be no waiting periods and doctors who sterilize in coercive fashions would be fought with malpractice suits. Still, taking into consideration that the very people who are most likely to get sterilized against their will are also the least likely to have the resources necessary to pursue a lawsuit, I can see that this might be a situation where the blunt arm of the law should fall on the side of waiting periods. It’s not like abortion, where the waiting period is put there to create financial and logistical difficulties. Nor is it like abortion in the rough sense of being “reversible”—most women who have an abortion today, if they decide to have a baby down the line, are free to do so. Sterilization is functionally irreversible, particularly if you can’t afford the surgery to reverse it.
But the main issue here is that the disagreement at hand is not so much a genuinely contentious political disagreement as a matter of some white feminists coming to their opinions with blinkers on. Once you have more information, it’s clear that we’re all on the same page—at the end of the day, a woman should not have a paternalistic law or doctor manipulating her reproductive choices to fit his racist ideals of who should or shouldn’t be reproducing. Hell, we even have roughly the same set of enemies. Call them the Tom Coburns of the world—I suspect that most white doctors who decide to sterilize women of color against their will turn around and refuse to sterilize white women who ask. Radical Doula states as much in her post:
There are seriously racist and eugenist philosophies at work here, for both cases. Doctors don’t want to sterilize young smart white women, partially because these are the people everyone wants reproducing. Just take a look at egg donation advertising for further proof of this. And the government wants to sterilize young undocumented and poor women of color because they are all of the things I just mentioned: of color, undocumented and poor. Plus they are reproducing at a higher rate than white people, who are barely replacing themselves. So let’s call this what it is–racism at work on our access to reproductive health technologies.
Both racism and sexism at work. My point is not that Feministing is wrong or that Radical Doula is wrong—my point is they’re both right, and yet there seems to be this sense that there’s a point of real debate here. I’m not seeing it. Everyone agrees on the basic concept of choice and that the manipulation of reproductive technologies for racist ends is wrong. There are some important details that have created strife, mostly because some white feminists haven’t had full information or considered the full ramifications, but once you get over that hump, there’s not really a point of contention. Within feminism, the issue of sterilization doesn’t fit the standards for an issue that can’t be de-politicized, the standards that Scott laid out yesterday:
[Y]ou can’t “de-politicize” an issue that is a)salient, and b)on which substantial groups of people have fundamentally incommensurable views.
Sterilization is clearly salient, but within feminism, there are not substantial groups with fundamentally incommensurable views. The views of the two “camps” on this issue have the same view on sterilization—that the final decision should be left up to the owner of the ovaries and should be made in a sober, fully informed, non-coerced way. How to get there might be up for debate, but I think if everyone gets to bring their information to the table, the general rule of thumb of a one-week waiting period or laws banning the signing of consent forms under certain conditions will get us to an optimal level where women are free to make their choices without coercion.
If there’s something I’m missing, a point where there is serious incommensurable views that must create strife, please let me know.
100 Responses to “Hasn’t consensus basically been reached on this?”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Wonderful post. 21 years ago, when I was 27 and my only child was almost 2, I was divorced and damn sure I didn’t want any more children. When I told my OB-GYN that I wanted my tubes tied, bless his heart - he immediately said “when do you want me to schedule it?” He’d known me since I was 16 and knew I was serious. When I hear stories of how women fight to get the procedure done when they’re under 30 with only 1 child, I still want to give my doc a big wet sloppy kiss.
The most common argument, as I’ve heard from others, that they get from their doctors: “What if your only child should die?” What?? Do they think children are interchangeable? Immediately popping out another would lessen my grief? Infuriating.
Oh, BTW, I am upper middle class and white, but with this OB-GYN, I’m positive that did not enter into the equation.
Good post. This “argument” amounts to what a friend calls agreeing violently - both sides have good, valid points that do not contradict one another, but they are so worked up that they refuse to see that.
There’s something very facile to the notion that you can equate a woman walking into a doctor’s office of her own accord and requesting a procedure with a woman being drugged or otherwise coerced into a procedure she doesn’t want. The common denominator is exactly your point: it’s about being able to exercise control over your fertility. But to try to negate one group’s experiences trying to obtain a procedure by offering another group’s experiences in a completely different context seems contrarian to me.
That said, when I went doctor shopping to get my tubal, I’d mistakenly thought that a woman gyn would be more receptive to my request, but would still get incredibly condescending blocks like “why don’t you wait until you’re married.” They were all white women, FTR. It wasn’t until I saw an Indian (Asian subcontinent, not Native American) male doctor before I was actually listened to. He was able to refer me to an African American male doctor who took me seriously, listened to my needs, didn’t condescend or lie about the procedure, and yes — performed the surgery.
(Testing? — what happened to my comment?)
There’s something very facile to the notion that you can equate a woman walking into a doctor’s office of her own accord and requesting a procedure with a woman being drugged or otherwise coerced into a procedure she doesn’t want. The common denominator is exactly your point: it’s about being able to exercise control over your fertility. But to try to negate one group’s experiences trying to obtain a procedure by offering another group’s experiences in a completely different context seems contrarian to me.
That said, when I went doctor shopping to get my tubal, I’d mistakenly thought that a woman gyn would be more receptive to my request, but would still get incredibly condescending blocks like “why don’t you wait until you’re married.” They were all white women, FTR. It wasn’t until I saw an Indian (Asian subcontinent, not Native American) male doctor before I was actually listened to. He was able to refer me to an African American male doctor who took me seriously, listened to my needs, didn’t condescend or lie about the procedure, and yes — performed the surgery.
Jebus. My mother had her tubes tied after my sister was born, nearly 37 years ago. She caught shit from family (”What if one dies; don’t you think you’ll want a replacement” type of stuff). She hasn’t told me about her doctor’s reaction, but shit, it was probably similar (although this probably would have been on a military base in W. Texas, for whatever that’s worth). It was her fucking body! She’s the only one whose opinion mattters in the end.
It’s not hard. The concept of “choice” means that (1) women ought to be able to get this proceedure if they freely give informed consent, and (2) women ought not to be coerced to undergo the procedure if they don’t want it.
Doctors do have an obligation to see that anyone seeking such a procedure understands its risks and consequences, but that obligation ought not to be an excuse for the doctor making the patients’ decisions for them . . .
It would be interesting to know if childless men catch hell when they request a vascectomy. Probably so, here and there, but I would wager not nearly as systematically as women in the analagous situation. Any anecdotes, second-hand or otherwise?
A choice is a choice, a choice, of course unless of course that the choice for chance is made by a woman.
Godmonkey — I know a guy who was able to get a vasectomy at 18, no grief, no “what if you change your mind” just into the doc’s office, sitting on frozen peas that afternoon.
richard, stfu.
i agree with stothel’s notion of “agreeing violently”. probably is a thing that occurs in the course of discussion of other issues as well. a good thing to keep in mind.
Godmonkey - men of any parental status catch hell for vasectomies because, like, it’s sacreligious to in any way harm the precious scrotum or interfere with the all-American potentness of a man’s SuperSperm.
Never mind that vasectomies are far less invasive surgeries than tubal ligation or any variant thereof.
Jane,
Sorry, I maybe should have put the /snark tag there. I was attempting a bit of sarcasm and obviously failed. I am a middle-aged white man who believes totally in choice for all humans in these areas (and yes, women are most definitely human).
Amanda,
You probably don’t mean to, but you sound like a privileged white upperclass feminist saying something like, “I made that point already. You don’t need to add your perspective.”
There ARE two different points here:
1. Your point from the feminist perspective of women controlling their own bodies.
2. The systematic attempts at genocide of non-white peoples by methods including but not limited to forced sterilization.
Your article misses the latter point.
Believe me, the greater level of ‘respect’ offered to the more priviledged (sp?) women in this situation is not being given to them for their sake. It’s being given to the white men whose property they are. I’ve known since the age of 12 that I was not having my own children, but what I want never weighs into the conversation with the doctor, it’s all about preserving my value a a breeder for the “future husband”. I would never say my experience was on par with being drugged and setrilized. But the bastards doing these things are the same bastards.
Elaine, how does point two come into conflict with point one? If point one were respected and enforced, would the forced sterilization in point two still be a problem?
It seems like it’s just two sides of the same coin - the issue is trying to get white people to have more babies than black people. I mean, either way it’s racist.
#8, #10: It is very difficult for childless men to get vasectomies; I’ve been trying for some time. The argument is usually based on something like “what if you fall in love with someone who wants to have children?”
(The answer, of course, is adoption — I’m just not interested in having biological children myself.)
Of course, I’m white. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a racial element for men, too.
There;s another factor at work here: Doctors are worried that if they agree to sterilize someone who’s young and/or childless, that person will later change their mind and sue.
Mike, that’s never held water. What’s the first thing that most doctors make you sign when you walk into their office before treatment? A HIPAA waiver. If that’s legal, I’m sure there’s some “buyer’s remorse waiver” their lawyers could whip up for them that a woman could sign before getting a completely elective surgery.
“There;s another factor at work here: Doctors are worried that if they agree to sterilize someone who’s young and/or childless, that person will later change their mind and sue.”
That’s a factor with pretty much any large medical decision, though. How difficult could it possibly be to defend against a suit in which a fully-informed and -consenting patient is suing you because the procedure they requested worked as it was supposed to? And wouldn’t they be equally worried about a patient who’d been denied care suing them for damages over an unwanted pregnancy if that was all that was motivating it?
I don’t see that Amanda missed the point. Her argument essentially boils down to the claim that sterilization, like any other reproductive tinkering, should only be performed on individuals who’ve offered informed consent.
Brining up how sterilization has been misused – for example, AGAINST PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES or ethnic minorities - does not constitute a counter-argument. In fact, I would characterize this as a secondary point that exists in service to the claim that sterilization should always be both an option and an informed choice.
There’s something facile about it, but that doesn’t mean the state doesn’t equate the two all the time. Which is an issue if you’re going to try to use legislative means to win white women the right to get sterilized when they want to be.
There ARE two different points here:
1. Your point from the feminist perspective of women controlling their own bodies.
2. The systematic attempts at genocide of non-white peoples by methods including but not limited to forced sterilization.
I’ve gotta agree with MP here, but maybe it’s just because I’m a stupid white person. Establishing the principle that women are full human beings who have the right to make their own healthcare decisions with full awareness and consent would apply both to women who want to be sterilized and to women who don’t want it but are coerced into it or who have it done against their consent.
I think part of the conflict here is that (white) feminists often feel like their concerns are shunted aside by liberal men who decide that reproductive rights are mere special rights that can be negotiated away for “real” rights like more economic justice. So when people that we think agree with us say that, yes, forced sterilization is a problem, but it’s a symptom of a much larger problem that’s more urgent, we get that pat-on-the-head feeling again. That “don’t worry, we’ll get around to equal rights for you one of these days” feeling.
And, of course, the reason it gets so rancorous is that feminists of color and other POC feel like they’re getting the exact same treatment from white feminists who dismiss their concerns about racism.
That’s the vicious circle here.
Amanda wrote:
Would you agree that, if there are to be no waiting periods, the physician ought to be immune from lawsuits from women who change their minds later on, and claim that they hadn’t had adequate time to consider all of the ramifications?
“Would you agree that, if there are to be no waiting periods, the physician ought to be immune from lawsuits from women who change their minds later on, and claim that they hadn’t had adequate time to consider all of the ramifications?”
Are they immune from those lawsuits now, because of waiting periods? If not, how is this question apropos of anything?
I think a large part of the problem might be that alot of people of color realize that most white people do not think of them as human beings capable of informed consent. Racist doctors think of them as children who need to be guided, as per the colonial experience, and anyone who is black or Hispanic or Native American in America has probably had an experience that drove that point home.
White feminists who push for their own rights and totalize them as relevant to all women (not saying that anyone here is doing that) sometimes miss the point that in different circumstances, oppression is expressed in different manners.
For instance, say we won, and all women suddenly had full reproductive freedom. Doctors would provide sterilizations whenever asked, and the procedure would be normalized. No stigma. People of color realize that just because western society believes all women, all human beings have reproductive freedom doesn’t mean that people of color have the same freedom. They’re not thought of as human by the people in power. So, a black woman who is coerced into sterilization can now be portrayed as even more foolish, because there’s no stigma against sterilization for her to hide behind.
To sum up, we have to remember that though it is obvious to many of us that people of color are still human, the system doesn’t treat them that way. Full reproductive freedom for all humans will only be extended to people of color once they’re fully recognized as human. Til then, the point needs to be made that sexism and racism work in tandem, but they work differently, and they have different consequences. As such, both points need to be made.
They may not directly contradict one another, but the richness of having both perspectives is totally necessary. It expands the picture of oppression and makes us realize that it’s bigger than any one of us and any one of our experiences.
richard: sorry about that. i assumed you were trollin’ before, but some good natured sarcasm is always welcome here!
I’ve heard this one from my friend’s doctor. “But it’s an elective surgery. Something could go wrong and then what?” I wonder how many women undergoing breast augmentation or other elective plastic surgery hear that?
WTF?
Why the hell would there not be adequate time to consider the ramifications of AN ELECTIVE SURGERY that you can have whenever you want? Or are you just referring to abortion and completely ignoring the actual content of the post?
Also, I’d like to add that it didn’t seem to me that anyone was having a debate. On Radical Doula, the point was simply made that her post was pretty much ignored on Feministing, not that a debate needed to happen. The point was simply that both points need to be recognized, or else the conversation is incomplete.
Elaine, that’s a strained reading. My point is that it’s counterproductive to pretend that the debate isn’t moving forward. If we’re not in this to progress, then why not just give up? I didn’t say I’d made the point. I said that the women of color waiting period proponents made their point, and thank the Disco Ball, humans can be capable of listening and being persuaded. No, really, they can. There’s more purpose to a discussion than everyone gets to speak. Listening? Being persuadable? Progressing? All the point.
Plus, if I sound upper-class, W00T. Maybe they’ll let me in one day if I can fake it. So far, no luck.
jane,
No problem. When I saw your comment, I realized how it could have come across that way. Especially if you don’t know my semi warped sense of yuma. ;})
Also, it’s condescending to non-white feminists to make it sound like their “purpose” is to speak up and make noise. Surely they’re in this to move forward, too. Isn’t being heard and changing minds a victory? Can’t we celebrate victories? Or is quagmire more fun and has to be created artificially?
Haven’t we already held consensus from things like the abortion debate, that the potential for the service in question to be forced on people DOES NOT justify banning it and making it unavailable to people who want it?
Just as we are pro-choice, and not pro-abortion the way pro-lifers are pro-life, we are pro-choice, and not pro-sterilization in the same way. A forced sterilization is as much a rejection of the woman’s wishes and right to control her own life, as much a form of enslavement to someone else’s convenience, every bit as anathema to feminism as forced childbirth—and this should be bloody obvious.
(And I call utter bullshit on any suggestion that illegality would be a significant moral barrier to anyone who thinks it acceptable to force a sterilization on someone. In fact, it would ensure that the person performing the sterilization would not have much worry about violating informed-consent laws, as they would be just an afterthought to the law already being broken.)
If women had full reproductive freedom like you used in your example, the fact that coerced sterilization violates reproductive freedom would be enough of a vindication for her.
It is, in other words, a violation of a woman’s rights that she even NEEDS vilification of the procedure to “hide behind.”
The procedure is not the qualifier for oppression. The coercion is.
I think a large part of the problem might be that alot of people of color realize that most white people do not think of them as human beings capable of informed consent.
Agreed, and in real world terms, that’s played out with doctors sterilizing women against their will by undermining their consent, which they view as an obstacle. I can see easily how this confuses the issue—you spelled it out perfectly—but some people, in their overeagerness to “correct” white feminist ignorance of the complexity of the issue also patronize women of color and their consent by making it seem like women need to be shielded from sterilization for their own good. I reject both.
The serious problem I see is not white feminists or sterilization itself, but that coerced sterilization is the sort of thing that would generally be resolved in a lawsuit, because it’s malpractice. But the very people targeted for this sort of malpractice are those who have the least resources to fight back by suing. Waiting periods are not ideal, but they are the best solution.
In practical terms, waiting periods won’t hurt anyone seeking sterilization. Most people who seek it out (instead of have a doctor push it on them in a hospital situation) have to wait anyway—they have an intake session and then a week later, they get the surgery. So it wouldn’t really affect anyone’s rights *to* get it. But it would offer a protection for those who could get caught in coercive situations.
Also, I’d like to add that it didn’t seem to me that anyone was having a debate. On Radical Doula, the point was simply made that her post was pretty much ignored on Feministing, not that a debate needed to happen. The point was simply that both points need to be recognized, or else the conversation is incomplete.
Well, sort of. My point was there is no real debate on this, but there seems to be one, because of the way that this is framed as a sterilization issue, when it’s really about informed consent. I sort of see being disappointed that the “flip side” isn’t mentioned, but on the other hand, a blog post is by its nature rather incomplete. Framing it as a “flip side” makes it sound like there’s disagreement, when it’s more that she wished there was another paragraph or something about how choice means choice In this case, it’s a bit called for since forced sterilization is an underplayed issue, but I am relaxed on people who don’t cover all bases in a single blog post. I’m not required to remind people that if you want to have the right to have a child, you should support abortion in every post either.
Good point Kyra, I did think my example was a little weak. It does make the point that just because this goal of feminism might be met, doesn’t mean that all women would have full reproductive freedom. Racism has to be dealt with as well. We as a society could believe that all humans are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, like the right to reproductive freedom, but we might still deny that right to women of color anyway. I’m simply saying that both aspects of this issue need ot be addressed, since women are oppressed by both racism and sexism.
I think another issue is that none of this fits on a bumper sticker. And in our soundbite culture, that confuses people. Explaining why a waiting period for abortion is bad but a waiting period for sterilization is good is hard to do in 30 seconds, which is fatal for an argument in modern America.
Because it’s part of the larger issue. Not only are women of color (sometimes) denied bodily sovereignty, but they’re also denied childcare, healthcare and other things that make raising children possible. It’s systematic racism.
In this one issue, sterilization, there is an overlap of sexism and racism, but to act as if all can be solved by simply allowing women reproductive freedoms is really, very naive. The racists who want to commit genocide will just find other ways to do it. To talk about this issue as though it has only one, true source (sexism) is simply wrong.
For example, classism and racism overlap in various ways in New Orleans. To act as though it’s all and only about racism is wrong. FEMA fucked over poor and middle class whites as well as poor and middle class blacks. Sure, the whites weren’t rejected in their transplant cities in the same way as the blacks, but they all still lost their homes, their community, their faith in the country to help them in times of need.
The issues overlap.
We as a society could believe that all humans are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, like the right to reproductive freedom, but we might still deny that right to women of color anyway.
And, again, here’s where we get into the circularity, because even if we as a society decide that all men are equal no matter what race they are and completely eliminate racism (hey, a girl can dream), women could still be sterilized against their will if they’re viewed as lesser than men and not equipped to make their own healthcare decisions, so we’ll make that decision for you, little lady. (Pat-pat-pat.)
Either the problems of racism and sexism get solved together, or the injustice continues in slightly different clothing. I don’t think it would be much comfort to a woman sterilized against her will if she knew that at least it was “only” done out of sexism and not racism.
Yes, exactly.
But if the point of feminism is to allow women bodily autonomy, how does feminism work to deny women of color bodily soveignty? Yeah, we need to be aware that bodily soverignty does have different red zones for different races and classes, but the point that a woman should exercise control over her body does not jibe with forced sterilization.
In this one issue, sterilization, there is an overlap of sexism and racism, but to act as if all can be solved by simply allowing women reproductive freedoms is really, very naive.
No, it’s really, really not. You make “allowing reproductive freedom” sound simple, and it’s not. But it’s still the point. At the end of the day, even if we have a complex struggle to get there, extending freedom is indeed the point. If extending freedom means expanding the social safety net or limiting doctors who want to rob reproductive freedoms, then by all means, we do that. But pretending that we have different goals does no one any good, and creates resentments in strife between people who can work together.
I don’t think you read my post where I noted that the anti-forced-sterilizations groups, which are primarily concerned with women of color, should take the lead in offering solutions because they have the best ones. God forbid a white feminist not play to type! We might get past the unnecessary strife and reach a consensus necessary to move forward and what fun is that?
In this one issue, sterilization, there is an overlap of sexism and racism, but to act as if all can be solved by simply allowing women reproductive freedoms is really, very naive.
But “reproductive freedoms” cannot be separated from healthcare. It’s impossible to have reproductive freedom without equal access to healthcare. To say, “Yeah, you can go ahead and have kids, but you don’t get prenatal care” is just as oppressive as saying, “We’re going to sterilize you because you don’t know any better than not to get pregnant.”
And, as I think we’ve all realized by now, having a right in the law and being able to actually exercise that right are two completely different things. If you have to travel 50 or 100 miles to get healthcare, it’s worse than not having it at all, because you have the same people who put up the barriers going, “Well, you said you wanted healthcare — why isn’t it good enough for you?”
There are some feminists who have a very restrictive view of reproductive rights as only being about abortion and contraception and not having anything to do with overall healthcare, but I don’t think you’ll find many of them online.
I think another reason forced sterilization is an under-reported issue is because it doesn’t fit the media stereotype of “pro-choice = anti-baby” or “pro-life = anti-abortion”: since the (imposed) bumper sticker version of “pro-choice” is “I don’t want to have children” and since sterilization doesn’t “stop a beating heart”, there’s no place in the popular narrative for this issue. Even if you manage to overcome the media’s general avoidance of the problems of poor and/or minority people, you will still face the problem of the “press” or the “public” being unable to wrap their collective brains around the problem because it falls outside their paradigm (or mindset or whatever you want to call it).
So how do you prevent this problem from falling into the black hole with the rest of the actual facts about reproductive freedom issues? It might be possible to raise the issue as a challenge to so-called “pro-feminist/pro-life” groups. Honestly, this should be one of those “no-brainer” issues that both sides could agree on…like pregnancy prevention and good pre-natal care and social support for pregnant women (I know, they’re disingenuous–that’s why I said “should”). I can’t come up with a valid reason these groups could lay claim to in support forced sterilization. Sucks to say it, but this approach might be the fastest way to raise awareness of the issue: at least “talking points” get talked about.
I guess I never saw it as much of an argument between my post and what Radical Doula had to say. More like two angles on the subject.
I started to post in response to this earlier in the day, and got thwarted by a bad internet connection.
So…now that the debate has continued, I think I will just add this:
-I agree with Ann, I didn’t mean to frame this as an argument, but rather another angle to complicate the discussion that occured in the feministing comments.
-I was disappointed that no one picked up that other angle in the continuing comments discussion about the post, and therefore felt like something was missing–a really huge something. I realize that blog posts don’t cover all the angles, which is why I contributed my own perspective in my blog post.
-Of course the point of these discussions is to move forward and improve women’s reproductive health access. But if when we’re talking about these procedures, but we aren’t taking into account how different groups experiences, we’re only going to move forward for one group, and maybe backwards for the other.
-This isn’t the only example of a point of contention between mainstream feminists and feminist of color (or low income feminists, etc) and I think we need to talk about them more, to bring us back to the fundamental values we do agree on, and then find policy solutions that uphold those values but take into account the variety of experiences. I think I’d say that no Amanda, I don’t think consensus has been reached on how to solve these problems.
Just throwing a couple more thoughts into the ring.
There;s another factor at work here: Doctors are worried that if they agree to sterilize someone who’s young and/or childless, that person will later change their mind and sue.
Isn’t that much more true with a boob job? I don’t see any shortage of access to those anywhere around.
Waiting periods are stupid. Those of us who have considered sterilization think long and hard about it. While some might say “what’s a couple of more days”, I say pfffft!
Besides, anybody who has requested such surgery usually will NOT get cut that day or the next. Appointments must be scheduled, lab work done, etc. Male or female, that creates plenty of time and space to say “on second thought”.
Where and when are these forced sterilizations happening anyway? How common is this? How is it being defined? I don’t deny the potential for abuse, but let’s see some stats here (however flawed). Unless we can understand how and when and why this is happening, and who is doing it and to whom, we can wank about it all we want and not address the reproductive freedom issue!
I got a vasectomy when I was 32 and childless and was actually a little surprised by how little pushback I got from the doctors I talked to.
Somewhat apropos of this discussion, I did decide, after getting divorced a few years later, that it had been a mistake, and I got the vasectomy reversed. Believe me when I say that, as little fun as the vasectomy was, the reversal was just way way way less fun. But I’m glad I did it. (Still haven’t had any kids, but I wanted to put myself back at “square one”, so to speak.)
Of course, I didn’t even consider suing my original doctor. It was my decision. I just decided that it had been a bad one.
A few links about forced or coerced sterilization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_sterilization
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/sterilize.html
http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/contraception/16528res19940131.html
http://againsttheirwill.journalnow.com/
http://www.msmagazine.com/apr01/roberts.html
I think that part of what motivates the re-appearance of this discussion is history. That is to say, it is all well and good for white feminists to say now that yes, we agree, reproductive justice does include supporting the right of women of color to have children, and standing against forced sterilization. But this seems to be a relatively new development, and it isn’t one that white feminists can or should say that they’ve been sensitive to all along. Feminism has historically been white, and it is only recently, and as a result of the struggles of people of color, that this has even begun to change. To claim that those who continue to insist upon reminding us of that history are merely standing in the way of feminist progress is unfortunately nothing new.
This is all to say, logically, I think this is right, but there is a history to deal with here that I think we can’t just dismiss in the name of political progress. My .02.
I hear you, Rob C, however, doctors seem to like using vasectomies as an excuse not to give white women tubal ligations.
My experience during my annual exam this year was rather telling in that regard. As I’m almost 35 with no children and have been married for 8 years to a guy who’s as CF as I am, I asked the doc about getting a tubal. She glanced at my chart and responded, “Your husband should get a vasectomy instead. The tubal would be much more invasive.” I nodded briefly, then asked, “And what good would my husband’s vasectomy do me if he were to divorce me, or if I were to be raped?”
She didn’t have any smart answers for that one.
Let’s see, some stats:
the US forcibly sterilized some 60,000, with programs reaching into the 1970’s (with 27 states still having it in the books in 1956);
some 3000 in Canada, 6000 in Sweden, … (with many of these programs reaching into the 1970’s);
there is evidence of hundreds of Roma being forcibly sterilized in Slovakia and the Czech Republic this century (see: http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_bo_slovakia.html ).
One of the main groups has been people on welfare (in some countries, to get welfare you had to be sterilized–I forget where I saw this, but there is a push in the US for this).
My ex-husband tried to get a vasectomy when he was under 30 and had only two kids. Absolutely couldn’t be done. Time cured both problems and almost the first thing he did after our third child was born was schedule the vasectomy. This was quite a while ago, I don’t know if things have improved since.
I’ve noticed that the term “doctor” is used here as being synonymous with white males. Although i’m sure that white males still make up the majority, most of the doctors i work with or see are either women or people of color. Soon women doctors will outnumber male doctors. Will that make a difference or do you think that this is systemic to the practice of medicine itself?
Elaine:
Actually, all three of the big -isms — racism, sexism, classism — are at play, here, and I don’t think anyone has denied that.
The point, however, is that if you knock out one leg of a three-legged stool, the whole damn thing falls over. So in a sense, yes, we really can do a great deal to solve these problems by attacking them from only one direction.
But realistically, we don’t need, or even want, everyone to attack the same leg. Personally, I believe that the strategic disadvantages of massing your forces outweigh the more-or-less momentary tactical advantages it affords.
I’m going to guess “systemic to the practice of medicine,” pablo. The reason is that even if there are more female clinicians, it’ll be a couple of generations at least before those female clinicians work their way up to the chairs of state medical boards, or editor offices at the NEJM, or director posts at the CDC, or the boardrooms of AMA.
And their ascents are going to be frustrated by the glass ceiling, the mommy track, and the tendency of female clinicians to be tracked into specialties like Geriatrics or Pediatrics and discouraged from specialities like Neurology and Surgery.
As far as the frequency of forced sterilizations — the scenario of women given forms they can’t read — I can’t say. But just a few years ago I remember hearing about programs offering drug-addicted women (and only women) a few hundred dollars in exchange for being sterilized or going on depo, etc.
I don’t want to say that the women who participated in those programs were/are duped, naive, etc., but it hardly seems to fall in the “free, informed, and uncoerced” category of consent that I am comfortable with. It’s not like they were given a whole range of options as far as seeking treatment, getting good health care for themselves and their children, housing assistance, etc., and, oh yeah, you can also have sterilization or long-term BC if you like.
Dang. I don’t know if I’m going to say the same thing twice, but there is Project Prevention, which pays drug addicted women (and only women) to get sterilized or on long term BC like depo. I don’t know if that is considered “forced,” but I think it’s definitely creepy. Naturally, there is no offer to help you with drug treatment, health care, assistance with any children you may have, nothing.
I live in heavily Mormon southern Idaho, and when I only had 1 child, I could not get any of the urologists that were accepting patients to agree to perform a vasectomy on me. Once I had 2 children, then there was no issue (no pun intended).
We’ve had a similar issue with my wife. She had her tubes tied after our second child, but had continuous problems with extremely heavy periods, extremely long periods, bleeding between periods, and a raft of other issues. The best she could get out of a doctor was either ‘well, that’s just how periods are’ or ‘your periods are so heavy because you are overweight’. Now, after 11 years of visiting different OBs in and outside of this town, she finally had one listen to what she was saying, take a good look at her uterus, and say “this isn’t right, we need to remove it.”
You know, I had honestly never thought of it like this. I’ve never given much thought to sterilization at all, preferring my pills with all their side benefits. But for my friends who I’ve seen try to fight to get themselves sterilized, I’ve always found it just stupid and pointlessly annoying to have a waiting period. Knowing that “less desirable” women are being coerced into giving up their fertility, though, I can definitely see where it would be a good idea.
I don’t think it’s a matter of not reaching consensus–I mean, sure we’re all in agreement. But I think that when it comes to choice, what comes into play is the choice to not have children. Abortion, birth control, and tubal ligations are the issues that make the news; coerced sterilization (and the godawful Norplant debacle) don’t make the news on the same level. And it doesn’t get the attention or energy access to abortion and birth control have.
So, I agree that these are different sides to the same coin. However, a lot of poor women and women of color feel the abortion/BC/tubal part is sucking up all of the oxygen. If we have unfettered access to all of these things, it would still be quite possible for doctors/the state to perpetuate sterilization abuse.
And I say this as someone who’s extremely biased in her views of reproductive rights–my knee jerk response is abortion/BC/ligations and EC.
She glanced at my chart and responded, “Your husband should get a vasectomy instead. The tubal would be much more invasive.” I nodded briefly, then asked, “And what good would my husband’s vasectomy do me if he were to divorce me, or if I were to be raped?”
Um, you do realize that a tubal ligation requires surgery, yes? I mean, these days it’s relatively minor surgery, but it does usually require general anesthesia even when it’s done laproscopically. Unlike a vasectomy, which only needs a local. I don’t see that your doctor’s response was absolutely horrible as a first response, especially given how many men absolutely refuse to get a vasectomy and insist that their wives get the more invasive tubal ligation because the guy is afraid they’re going to accidentally castrate him during the vasectomy.
Sorry, but it’s hard for me to say that your doctor was horrible for even suggesting that you guys might want to consider the less invasive procedure.
Ms. Kate:
Where and when are these forced sterilizations happening anyway? How common is this? How is it being defined? I don’t deny the potential for abuse, but let’s see some stats here (however flawed). Unless we can understand how and when and why this is happening, and who is doing it and to whom, we can wank about it all we want and not address the reproductive freedom issue!
It most often happens after a woman gives birth and is in the hands of the medical establishment. Sometimes consent is coerced, sometimes it’s faked, sometimes no one bothers.
This information is not hidden. A few links (if you want more just google “forced sterilization”):
http://againsttheirwill.journalnow.com/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7243352/site/newsweek
http://www.reproductiverights.org/pr_03_0128slovakia.html
So, yes, it is a real threat. When working to make sterilization easier to get for people who want it, we have to be very careful not to allow it to be easy to force on people who don’t want it.
Sina:
But this seems to be a relatively new development, and it isn’t one that white feminists can or should say that they’ve been sensitive to all along. Feminism has historically been white, and it is only recently, and as a result of the struggles of people of color, that this has even begun to change.
I’m not sure what you consider “recently.” I’ve been reading feminist literature since I was 12 or 13. That was in the early 1970s.
And that literature included women of color, believe me. I knew about forced sterilizations of Black and Native women before I got into high school.
One of the divide and conquer strategies anti-feminists use is to say that feminists don’t care about people of color, don’t care about women who work in the home, don’t care about anyone but their own self-absorbed White upper-class high-powered, highly paid executive asses.
This is so untrue it’s painful, but it serves to separate women from women.
Ok… one more try at responding to Ms. Kate — there are groups like “Project Prevention” that pay women to get sterilized or go on long-term BC. The women volunteer, of course, but I can’t imagine dangling cash in front of a woman who is likely poor and in need of a fix is exactly the kind of “informed choice” we’re talking about.
And if I’m vague, I apologize. I left out the bad “d” word in case that’s why my comments were being blocked, but you can imagine the population this group targets. Or Google it.
And now I am totally embarrassed for posting a zillion times. Sorry, all.
JoAnne:
Fair enough. I wasn’t so much reading feminist literature in the 1970’s, as I did not yet (quite) exist. But I didn’t learn these critiques of feminism from Katie Roiphe or anything: these critiques were and are levied against feminist discourse by women of color who consider themselves feminists. Like I said, I agree with the logic of Amanda’s argument above, but am looking for an explanation of the re-emergence of this debate. I think that history has a lot to do with it, and I think that Sheelzebub makes a great point about our different relations to state power above.
Ok… one more try at responding to Ms. Kate — there are groups like “Project Prevention” that pay women to get sterilized or go on long-term BC. The women volunteer, of course, but I can’t imagine dangling cash in front of a woman who is likely poor and in need of a fix is exactly the kind of “informed choice” we’re talking about.
IIRC, the whole thing was born out of the hysteria surrounding the crack problem of the 1980s. Women were having “crack babies” and OMG the crack babies were going to grow to be 100 feet tall and CRUSH US ALL!! And I’m only partially exaggerating here — there was a lot of talk about how these babies born to crack-addicted mothers would be sociopaths with no ability to feel human emotion, so it was absolutely imperative that we stop crack-addicted women from having children.
Of course, as anyone who has ever followed these health hysterias could have told us, it turned out to be a gigantic load of bullshit, but not before a lot of women were coerced into getting sterilized or getting Norplant because of OMG the CRACK BABIES!!!
Racism with a lovely dollop of sexism right on top.
I had to wait 30 days. But it’s not like I’ve ever gone right in for anything but emergency surgery, anyhow.
But that’s if you’re talking about stand-alone sterilization — the serious abuses can occur during a c-section, when the woman’s already opened up and an unscrupulous doctor (such as, say, Tom Coburn) decides to make a few alterations without the patient’s knowledge or consent.
And considering how many hospitals are requiring women to give birth via c-section, this opens up all kinds of avenues for abuse.
As for lawsuits if a patient changes her mind: unlikely, given the waivers and releases and consent forms you have to fill out. Then there’s the statute of limitations problem — change your mind 10 years after you’ve been informed that, yes, you are going to be unable to conceive, and you’re pretty much SOL.
The suits that are successful are those that arise because the doctor botched the surgery and the woman became pregnant.
I grok what you’re saying, Mnemosyne, but at the time, I felt hugely disrespected and just wanted to shout at her: “Of course I know that vasectomy is less invasive than tubal ligation, you twit! I wouldn’t be asking you about this if I hadn’t already discussed it with my husband he hadn’t already refused! Just because I don’t have M.D. behind my name doesn’t make me an imbecile!”
The shitty remark about his leaving me or me being raped actually worked better, IMHO, because it demonstrated to her that I’d actually found out how the procedures are performed and had thought about all the ramifications…that it wasn’t just some lark for me, but that I’d actually taken the time to consider it.
By then, however, I was already insulted because she’d assumed that the default position for a female patient was ignorance.
That being the case, how do waiting periods help? The fact that doctors are prompted by racism and sexism to mutilate women who in many cases aren’t even conscious isn’t going to be stopped by making women who actually want sterilization wait a few days. These doctors are performing criminal acts. They should be treated as criminals.
By then, however, I was already insulted because she’d assumed that the default position for a female patient was ignorance.
I hope you changed doctors, then, if you feel that she thinks that all of her female patients are idiots and not that she wanted to make sure you were aware of all the available options. In medicine, you learn very quickly not to assume that people automatically know things like what “apply topically” means, even educated or smart-seeming people.
Of course, I’m speaking from the perspective of someone who tried to talk her brother into getting a vasectomy since I thought it was unfair that my sister-in-law should have to have abdominal surgery while he would only need a quick snip in the doctor’s office. No dice, of course, because (and this is a very close quote), “If I get a vasectomy and she leaves me and takes the kids, I wouldn’t be able to have more.”
Since you mentioned your brother, Mnemsyne, that’s something that’s so disturbing to me…the idea that men believe that they are entitled to have as many children as they want, and the wishes of the women who incubate them be damned.
It’s like he’s thinking to himself: “I can be a jerk and lie on the sofa, watching sports on TV and drinking beer and scratching myself all weekend, every weekend, because if she doesn’t like it, she can just leave. Then, I’ll just get a younger model, and have a whole new family with her! That’ll show that nagging bitch.”
That’s something that hurts my brain every time I think about it.
Anyone who voted for Bush twice, regardless of age, gender or ethnicity should be involuntarily sterilized before 2008
It’s like he’s thinking to himself: “I can be a jerk and lie on the sofa, watching sports on TV and drinking beer and scratching myself all weekend, every weekend, because if she doesn’t like it, she can just leave. Then, I’ll just get a younger model, and have a whole new family with her! That’ll show that nagging bitch.”
There’s a reason he’s not my favorite brother. :-p Not that my favorite brother did much better when he left his wife for a younger model, but that’s a whole different post …
My friends who had a surprise pregnancy after 8 years of marriage? Had the baby, but hubby got snipped immediately afterward (in fact, I think it was somewhat prior to the birth). Because they were pretty sure they could handle one kid, but they were very sure they didn’t want any more surprises.
Okay, I’ll stop threadjacking now.
I wouldn’t be asking you about this if I hadn’t already discussed it with my husband he hadn’t already refused!
I guess he’s not *quite* as CF as you are.
Maybe there was something about your doctor’s tone we’re not getting here, but a tubal is much more invasive and expensive than a vasectomy. If what you conveyed to your doc was “WE don’t want children”, then it makes sense to go for the less awful surgery.
Of course, doctors are also pretty used to men who would rather put their wives in surgery than have anyone come near their precious cojones, so I would imagine it was not a big deal to her.
In practical terms, waiting periods won’t hurt anyone seeking sterilization.
An observation based on my limited experience (school/residency/practice in one state only). Waiting periods always end up hurting poor women. They’re the ones most likely not to have the paperwork in order which means they’re not able to have the procedure when it best suits their needs.
I think another reason forced sterilization is an under-reported issue is because it doesn’t fit the media stereotype…
Or could it be because it’s a rare, aberrant occurrence?
Also, when it comes to not being too keen on recommending sterilization for young women, two additional issue you need to consider:
1) The failure rate can go up over time and the risk varies by patient age at sterilization (and, of course, method used).
From a large study (CREST) [o]verall, women sterilized at age 34-44 years were half as likely to become pregnant after sterilization compared to women sterilized at age 28-33 years and were approximately one third as likely to become pregnant as women sterilized at age 18-27 years. Also, the overall 1st year failure rate is 0.1-0.8%. The 10-year cumulative failure rate (all methods studied) is 18.5 per 1000 pts.
2) When you’re the one who performs both the sterilization and the inevitable reversal just a few years down the line, clinical experience matters.
It’s not only that young pt age and low parity are recognized risk factors for patient regret (for example: Follow-up interviews 14 years postprocedure demonstrate that regrets were expressed by 20.3% of women aged 30 years or younger at the time of BTL and by 5.9% of women older than 30 years at time of procedure.). Your doctor’s experience also enters in the equation. It’s our obligation to advise you based on our best professional judgment.
As an aside, I’ve never had a reversal request from a patient who’s never had children. Only from [mostly young] patients with 2+ children.
Bottom line: If your doctor is reluctant to perform the procedure don’t assume she/he has an ulterior motive.
That being the case, how do waiting periods help? The fact that doctors are prompted by racism and sexism to mutilate women who in many cases aren’t even conscious isn’t going to be stopped by making women who actually want sterilization wait a few days. These doctors are performing criminal acts. They should be treated as criminals.
It’s not going to stop those people, but it is going to stop the ones who are waving a consent form in front of a groggy or in-pain woman who’s there to deliver vaginally.
Plus, the waiting period offers some recourse for the patient, even if something does happen. If the doctor, say, backdates a consent form and the patient can show she didn’t sign on that date, that’s pretty damning.
The downside is that waiting periods will hurt women who *do* want sterilization at the same time as the birth, or who don’t have the means to make two trips, pay for two procedures, etc.
ema, it’s a rare occurence nowadays; it wasn’t not so long ago. As a physician, I’m sure you’re also aware of controversies over using unconscious/anesthetized female patients as “talking pelvises”. The notion that the silly patients don’t need to consent because We Know Better is not, alas, gone from medicine.
So we just hope the doctor screws up forging the new form? Sorry, I still don’t see how that helps. Putting a consent form in front of a person who doesn’t have the capacity to consent is already illegal. Forging documents is already illegal. And as Ema points out, waiting periods hurt poor women the most, while reinforcing the idea that society gets to question women’s reproductive decisions.
The downside is that waiting periods will hurt women who *do* want sterilization at the same time as the birth, or who don’t have the means to make two trips, pay for two procedures, etc.
Oh, absolutely. But I would imagine that you could get all that paperwork taken care of prior to the birth, no? I expect that’s how you’d take care of it anyhow, since you know you’re going to be at the hospital at some point.
Then you could have the same result by saying that all consent forms must be signed prior to admission to the hospital.
Then you could have the same result by saying that all consent forms must be signed prior to admission to the hospital.
I’ve only ever had one surgery in my life (so far) and I had to make a separate appointment to get my pre-op blood drawn and get all of the consent forms signed about a week before my surgery. So I’m actually surprised to hear that it’s done any other way.
Where and when are these forced sterilizations happening anyway?
I was wondering the exact same thing. So, I checked out the links (Sina #53). [Ugh, I know this is not my blog, but I must say this: people, when you provide links, please take into account that some of us will actually take the time to check them out.]
First, in the wikipedia article the only mention of somewhat recent data (1981) is this:
The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981.[6]
And yet, if you check reference #6, you get this:
More than 2,600 residents were sterilized between 1917 and 1981, most of them in state care. Among them were children who were living in state institutions because they were unwanted, people who had epilepsy and wayward teenage girls.
…
But evidence of what occurred was scanty. Medical records detailing the surgeries are confidential. And the records of the Board of Eugenics, the small state board that ordered the procedures, and its successor, the Board of Social Protection, were lost or destroyed.
Next, Sterilization of Native American Women Reviewed by Omaha Master’s Student covers the 1970s and provides no data on forced sterilizations.
The ACLU reference is about Norplant.
Next link covers the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, with an assertion in a newspaper article that the Eugenics Board of North Carolina ordered the sterilizations of more than 7,600 people from 1929 through 1974. without any further supporting data on the 1970s.
The last link is to a journal article mentioning a program that offers women who use drugs and alcohol $200 to be sterilized. No data on current forced sterilization programs.
At the risk of stating the obvious, accusations of forced sterilizations and assertions like doctors are…mutilat[ing] women who in many cases aren’t even conscious require hard data.
mythago,
ema, it’s a rare occurence nowadays; it wasn’t not so long ago.
Agreed. My problem is with the commenters, like the one I was responding to, who think nothing of implying that it’s a common occurrence now. Saying that a physician performs procedures without consent (and, implicitly, that the entire OR staff is incompetent, the administration is clueless, the department complicit, etc.) is a grave accusation.
“talking pelvises”?
Mnemosyne,
The waiting period is 30 days. [You have to have a consent form on file signed at least 30 days in advance.] Miss that by even one day (early delivery for whatever reason) and the poor patient cannot get the tubal while she’s in the hospital (with an epidural already in place). Much, much better for her to have to reschedule at a later date, when she has an infant to take care of.
Where and when are these forced sterilizations happening anyway?
I was wondering the exact same thing. So, I checked out the links (Sina #53).
First, in the wikipedia article the only mention of somewhat recent data (1981) is this:
The Oregon Board of Eugenics, later renamed the Board of Social Protection, existed until 1983, with the last forcible sterilization occurring in 1981.[6]
And yet, if you check reference #6, you get this:
More than 2,600 residents were sterilized between 1917 and 1981, most of them in state care. Among them were children who were living in state institutions because they were unwanted, people who had epilepsy and wayward teenage girls.
…
But evidence of what occurred was scanty. Medical records detailing the surgeries are confidential. And the records of the Board of Eugenics, the small state board that ordered the procedures, and its successor, the Board of Social Protection, were lost or destroyed.
Next, Sterilization of Native American Women Reviewed by Omaha Master’s Student covers the 1970s and provides no data on forced sterilizations.
The ACLU reference is about Norplant.
Next link covers the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, with an assertion in a newspaper article that the Eugenics Board of North Carolina ordered the sterilizations of more than 7,600 people from 1929 through 1974. without any further supporting data on the 1970s.
The last link is to a journal article mentioning a program that offers women who use drugs and alcohol $200 to be sterilized. No data on current forced sterilization programs.
At the risk of stating the obvious, accusations of forced sterilizations and assertions like doctors are…mutilat[ing] women who in many cases aren’t even conscious require hard data.
mythago,
ema, it’s a rare occurence nowadays; it wasn’t not so long ago.
Agreed. My problem is with the commenters, like the one I was responding to, who think nothing of implying that it’s a common occurrence now. Saying that a physician performs procedures without consent (and, implicitly, that the entire OR staff is incompetent, the administration is clueless, the department complicit, etc.) is a grave accusation.
“talking pelvises”?
Mnemosyne,
The waiting period is 30 days. [You have to have a consent form on file signed at least 30 days in advance.] Miss that by even one day (early delivery for whatever reason) and the poor patient cannot get the tubal while she’s in the hospital (with an epidural already in place). Much, much better for her to have to reschedule at a later date, when she has an infant to take care of.
Ugh, my lengthy comment is no more. Here’s the short version.
I checked all the links in #53. None provide any evidence of recent (as in the 1970s and 1981) forced sterilizations.
Saying that doctors perform surgeries without consent (and, implicitly, that the entire OR staff is incompetent, the administration clueless, and the department complicit) is a grave accusation in need of some hard data.
mythago,
“talking pelvises”?
Mnemosyne,
The waiting period is 30 days. [As in, you have to have a consent form on file signed at least 30 days before the procedure.] Deliver even one day early and you have to reschedule. Much, much better to have to came back to the hospital when you have an infant to take care of.
The waiting period is 30 days. [As in, you have to have a consent form on file signed at least 30 days before the procedure.] Deliver even one day early and you have to reschedule. Much, much better to have to came back to the hospital when you have an infant to take care of.
I may be mistaken, not being a medical professional and all, but I was under the impression that a pregnancy takes about 9 months to come to term — why would a woman who wants a tubal ligation after delivery have to wait until her 8th month to sign the consent form? Couldn’t she sign it around month 5 or 6 and have it on file for when she goes into labor?
If you can’t decide more than 30 days in advance whether or not you want to have a life-altering surgery that will remove your fertility forever, you should probably hold off on having the surgery until you’re less ambivalent about it.
Sina:
Fair enough. I wasn’t so much reading feminist literature in the 1970’s, as I did not yet (quite) exist. But I didn’t learn these critiques of feminism from Katie Roiphe or anything: these critiques were and are levied against feminist discourse by women of color who consider themselves feminists. Like I said, I agree with the logic of Amanda’s argument above, but am looking for an explanation of the re-emergence of this debate. I think that history has a lot to do with it, and I think that Sheelzebub makes a great point about our different relations to state power above.
Oh yes, agreed. I was just trying to say that feminism isn’t only now seeing people of color. But you are right, it is still a blind spot for many feminists in many ways.
I think it is because many feminists come from a White-centered experience — not usually of their own choice, but because of de facto and social segregation growing up — that these issues can take us by surprise.
It’s a technically self-negating statement to say, “I’m a feminist of color and I find feminists ignore people of color.” But I don’t dismiss it, because I know there is a huge amount of truth in it.
I think of feminism in its best aspects and less in its failures and imperfections, so I think of the feminists who ignore people of color as imperfect and flawed feminists rather than representative of feminism in that regard, and the complaining feminist of color as the more “true” feminist.
I guess I’m like those Christians who say “don’t judge us by Jim Bakker and whatsisface with the meth and the male prostitute.”
Sigh. Ever the optimist.
ema:
“I checked all the links in #53. None provide any evidence of recent (as in the 1970s and 1981) forced sterilizations.”
Check again. Native American forced sterilizations were occurring in the 1970s.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/sterilize.html
ema:
I don’t know if you are only talking about stuff in the US, but my link:
http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_bo_slovakia.html
talks about forced sterilization in Slovakia in 2003.
First, I’m on a different computer and can see all my duplicate posts. Sorry, sorry, sorry.
Second, Mnemosyne it’s 30 days minimum (180 up to 30 days). The women don’t wait on purpose; often it’s a combination of no/late prenatal care, mix up with the forms, no f/u, moving, etc. And, from what I’ve seen, the poorer you are the more likely there’s a problem with the paperwork, the less likely you are to have the tubal when you’re already in the hospital and it suits you. That’s just not right.
JoAnne,
The article provides no evidence–zero, nothing, none whatsoever–for forced sterilizations of Native American women in the 1970s.
It talks about:
A) Number of cases [see GAO investigation; no evidence provided the GAO found the sterilizations to be forced.]
B) Case report of Norma Jean Serena where there’s a finding of no forced sterilization [Serena said she could not recall having signed a consent form; the attending physician said he had explained the operation to Serena and that he was convinced she understood him. A jury agreed.]
C) Tale of the walk-in LA patient which touches our hearts but is devoid of any evidence [doctor doesn’t ask pt’s name, but does 1) perform a pelvic (or maybe he/she just looks deeply into the pt’s eyes and makes a diagnosis?), 2) determine that operation had been performed under false pretenses (really? How do you determine that without reviewing the pt’s records. And how do you do that without knowing the pt’s name?]
D) Direct quote from an IHS doctor critical of the sterilizations (Pinkerton-Uri) about, you know, voluntary sterilization:
A 200 million population could support voluntary sterilization and survive, but for Native Americans it cannot be a preferred method of birth control. While other minorities might have a gene pool in Africa or Asia, Native Americans do not; when we are gone, that’s it.
JohnL,
Yes I was, US only. I’ll read your link, thank you.
ema:
The article provides no evidence–zero, nothing, none whatsoever–for forced sterilizations of Native American women in the 1970s.
If you don’t believe what people said happened, sure. Do you think there will be records where doctors write, “sterilized 4 Native women against their will today. Hoo boy!”
Are you really saying there should be no concern about forced sterilization or deceptive practices around sterilization? Regardless of the accuracy of the actual numbers reported, do you really think none occurred during the 70s and 80s?
More importantly, do you really think with the Repug hysteria over immigration and fear that the dusky races will overbreed and overtake the US (especially the health care system), no one’s going to try to pull this shit again?
What exactly is your position?
The women don’t wait on purpose; often it’s a combination of no/late prenatal care, mix up with the forms, no f/u, moving, etc. And, from what I’ve seen, the poorer you are the more likely there’s a problem with the paperwork, the less likely you are to have the tubal when you’re already in the hospital and it suits you. That’s just not right.
And this is what we’ve been trying to convey to you:
THE POORER YOU ARE, THE MORE LIKELY IT IS THAT THE DOCTOR WILL TALK YOU INTO A TUBAL LIGATION WHEN YOU DON’T REALLY WANT ONE.
It’s pretty ironic that you’re arguing that no poor women are ever coerced into getting sterilized, and then present the exact situation when they’re most likely to be coerced into it as the perfect time for it to be done.
I don’t think anyone said poor women have never been sterilized against their will. However, no one here has produced evidence of a widespread problem occurring more recently than 30 years ago. Since we know about past incidents, I don’t see any reason why we wouldn’t know about more recent incidents if they were happening frequently.
Linden:
I don’t think anyone said poor women have never been sterilized against their will. However, no one here has produced evidence of a widespread problem occurring more recently than 30 years ago. Since we know about past incidents, I don’t see any reason why we wouldn’t know about more recent incidents if they were happening frequently.
But the point is, we are looking to change the system to make it easier to get sterilized, because White middle-class women are having some trouble with access to that procedure.
We cannot assume there will be no negative consequences to this, including some racist doctors choosing to use high-pressure tactics and misinformation to convince low-income and non-English-speaking women to consent to sterilization.
We don’t laugh at the idea that “abortion alternative” clinics can misguide women who are under stress and poorly educated about reproduction. Why not be just as alert to the possible manipulation of the reproductive futures of women of color and women who are low-income?
I can’t say which is a worse long-term effect — having a child you don’t want, or not ever being able to have a child you do want. I think both are outrageous, and both should be guarded against.