While discussing the rush in various states to impose the most arbitrary and draconian restrictions on abortion they can imagine (where, looking at some of the testimony offered “imagine” really is the right word) Echidne of the Snakes says
Reading about forced birth laws does make me see how very apt that term I prefer: “forced birth” is. Note that a woman’s mental health will be screened for abortion but not for going on with the pregnancy. She might be out of her mind but nobody cares about that as long as there is no abortion.
Calling it “forced birth” isn’t original to Echidne but something about the way she introduced it in this post really hit home for me. Specifically she said it after quoting from objectively bizarre testimony by unqualified men asked to testify before a legislature that was interested only in justifying its decisions.
I think it was that tacit introduction of a noun that made it resonate for me. So I’d like to propose that moving forward we start calling it what it is: government-forced birth. And using headlines and blog-post titles like “Nebraska Targets Mentally Ill for Government-Forced Birth“ or “Oklahoma Legislature Expands Government-Forced Birth Policy.”
Say it because they’ll hate it. Say it because it’s the truth.
—-
And trust me, when a medical “expert” hops up to testify that a) birth should be government-forced because at 20 weeks a fetus can feel pain but in the same hearing also volunteers that b) appears indifferent to the fate of a 20-week old fetus when he recommends pregnant women be subjected to electroshock therapy sufficient to cause grand-mal seizures that medical “expert” isn’t “pro-life.” He pretty clearly doesn’t give a shit about fetuses. Instead he’s only pro government-forced pregnancy.
I have to chip in here that
Submitted by Holly Pervocracy (not verified) on Tue, 2010-04-27 16:17.I have to chip in here that “electroshock therapy” is really “electroconvulsive therapy” (ECT), it’s given under anesthesia so there’s no pain and no grand mal seizure, and it’s an appropriate and accepted treatment for extreme drug-resistant depression. (The current only flows through the mother’s brain and there’s no seizure, so I don’t think it would cause any distress to the fetus except for the risk of anesthesia.) ECT sounds terrible, it was inappropriately given in the past, but in its current usage it can help people in distress.
If a woman’s suicidality is her only reason for seeking an abortion, and she and her support system are otherwise willing and able to care for the child, then ECT during pregnancy isn’t a bad idea at all.
[I agree completely, Holly, that ECT, as practiced today with anesthesia, is perfectly acceptable medical practice for certain forms of mental illness. And I agree that if done competently, with anesthesia, seizures would be extremely unlikely. Especially since current and voltage with modern ECT is very, very low compared to the bad old days. The physician who was testifying in Nebraska, however, was the one who said he though ECT-induced seizures would be fine. Perhaps he “humanely” thinks giving a woman anesthesia might put her fetus at risk… while juicing her hard enough to convulse. So yeah, in principle I agree if abortion was indicated only because she was treatably mentally ill then ECT might be an effective alternative. (Though if she’s suicidal only because she can’t obtain an abortion I’m not sure that’s the right solution.) But this fucking asshole didn’t seem to have that in mind. So he’s just a fucking asshole. —fl]
I would agree with ECT for a
Submitted by Reader (not verified) on Wed, 2010-04-28 22:19.I would agree with ECT for a suicidal woman wanting an abortion only if the converse is equally recommended for a suicidal woman wanting to stay pregnant.
If a woman is suicidal as a result of wanting an abortion, then logically, it’ll not be because one is readily available, but because one is not and the answer to relieve the distress is to offer that abortion already. IIRC, in the good ol’ days when abortion was supposedly illegal, severe mental distress was one of the ‘get out’ clauses those with the funds to get a decent medical abortion used.
[“If a woman is suicidal as a result of wanting an abortion, then logically, it’ll not be because one is readily available, but because one is not.” Funny how that works, Reader. I remember being a crisis hotline peer counselor when I was a teenager, back before Roe was handed down. And yeah, it wasn’t a coincidence that our hotline offered unplanned-pregnancy and suicide-prevention assistance. I agree that ECT, especially as practiced today, is acceptable medical practice, I just disagree it’s the “obvious” solution to not-wanting-to-be-pregnant depression. Thanks. —fl]
The problem here might be the
Submitted by Holly Pervocracy (not verified) on Thu, 2010-04-29 05:09.The problem here might be the definition of “seizure,” and my comment was poorly written in that regard. ECT always causes seizures within the brain, it’s supposed to and that’s believed to be how it works. But because of the use of anesthesia and muscle relaxants, there is no physical seizure, the patient’s body doesn’t move.
I’m not sure whether you can call it a “grand mal seizure” exactly if the patient’s body is still, but the activity in the brain is the type that would produce a grand mal seizure if the patient could move, and that’s an intentional thing.
Or he could just be a complete idiot; I couldn’t find a direct quote so I don’t know. But depending how you define a seizure, “ECT strong enough to cause seizures” is all of it.
[It would be nice to find a transcript. The article just says the doc was speaking outside his specialty and says “grand mal” was the wording he used. —fl]
Based on what I know about
Submitted by Plymouth (not verified) on Wed, 2010-05-05 03:23.Based on what I know about suicide (and, really, it’s not a lot) it would be highly unlikely for someone to be suicidal ONLY due to being unable to obtain an abortion. Suicide is generally NOT a spur of the moment decision. It’s a result of prolonged depression and detachment from the world. Becoming pregnant and feeling stuck with it may be a TRIGGER to someone to finally act on suicidal thoughts but unless they were already on that path, it would not actually cause suicide.
I love your blog. I’ve been
Submitted by Bakka (not verified) on Wed, 2010-04-28 03:31.I love your blog. I’ve been reading around for a while, but this is my first comment. Hello!
In Canada, our court decision that struck down abortion says just this at one point (as you might already know). I think in part one reason that there has been no introduction of any new laws on abortion here is because the court decision used the language of the Government controlling women and forcing us to give birth against our wills. I think this could be a very effective strategy.
I am not saying Canada is perfect, we still have a long way to go toward ensuring access, for example. But I think the language used in the decision makes it much more difficult to argue that the government should be forcing women to give birth, because that is the legal argument one would have to address in the Canadian context.