Social conservatives are engaged in a battle to prevent women from having access to birth control while, at the same time, attempting to force women to suffer when they get abortions to terminate the pregnancy produced by the lack of access to contraception.The mindset of the people – men – who are behind this assault on the rights of women is difficult to fathom, but there seems to be a desire to return women to second class status as citizens by forcing them to be baby bearing factories for husbands.
I remember the days when abortion was illegal except under extraordinary circumstances.
I was a doctor in training during this period. I would like to put a human face on America at that time; a time that preceded the Roe vs. Wade decision. (I, by the way, am not related to that Roe. As you know, I'm sure, Roe was a generic name like Doe.)
The year was 1966. I was a third year medical student. For some reason, still a mystery to me, Obstetrics and Psychiatry were taught at the same time using the same patients for teaching purposes. So, we interviewed young women in the prenatal clinic who were just coming in for their routine visits before having a baby, as though they were psychiatry patients. The care was free so the young women, mostly African-American, went along with the game. The upshot was that we found some seriously disturbed people in the process. We, also, had our leg pulled by some. One young woman told me with a straight face when I asked her what brought her to the hospital, “the bus.” I asked which one and she said, “The one that the people at the bus stop said went to the Medical Center.” As part of the psych work-up we asked questions to establish orientation to time and place. This same woman who came "on the bus" told me that the governor, mayor and president were the ones who had been in office two elections before. The governor was a one term, not very memorable governor. It was then that I realized the woman was very bright, was playing a joke on me, and totally “with it”.
Unfortunately, one of the women, seen by someone else, wanted an abortion. She seemed very depressed and threatened suicide. She was admitted for evaluation, and following admission there was a student-teacher conference to discuss the legal issues, the difficulty of establishing depression as a condition that would qualify as a threat to the woman’s life should she be denied an abortion, and we were told that the young woman would be discussed at a meeting of psychiatrists, the hospital attorney and obstetricians the following day to decide how to proceed.
The meeting never happened. The woman stepped out of her 7th floor hospital window and fell to her death that evening.
Fast forward to 1973. I am a resident, moon lighting in the emergency room of a community hospital in a small town near Phoenix. It is a fairly slow week night. A young Hispanic woman is brought into the emergency room after being seen in a doctor’s office for weakness and abdominal pain. The doctor finds that she had been to a back alley abortion clinic earlier that day and had a “coat hanger” abortion. Whatever was used to do the abortion went through the wall of the uterus and she has been bleeding into her abdominal cavity all afternoon. She is unresponsive and in profound shock when I see her.
Despite the administration of intravenous fluids and blood she dies before the Gynecologist can get there to do a hysterectomy and stop the bleeding.
I don’t know the details of either woman’s story. Were they married? Was this their first baby? It doesn’t matter. It was their last pregnancy, the one that pushed them over the edge.
These are just two stories that I remember. There were many others, like the young woman that lived with her pediatrician’s family throughout her pregnancy – she was in high school and unmarried – prior to giving up her baby for adoption. Some sadistic nurse showed the young mother her baby after delivery before taking it away. It was a heart wrenching moment that was, apparently, supposed to punish mom for her sin. We were “house sitters” for the pediatrician while he and his family were away on vacation and got to know this young woman very well. She was just a teen that got caught doing what a lot of teens get away with.
I interned and did my residency in a Catholic hospital. There were an unusually high number of hysterectomies done on Catholic women by Catholic doctors. Many of the women had normal uteruses removed. We jokingly referred to these hysterectomies as Vatican approved birth control.
Is this the America we want to return to? Do we want to return to an America where religious zealots are not content just to provide moral instruction, but insist, in addition, on punishing women, sometimes at the cost of their lives, for failing to follow their misogynistic religious laws? Do we want to have a lot of celibate, sexually-frustrated, men dictate how women live their private lives?
Do we want to return to a time when a major surgical procedure becomes a substitute for birth control?


Salon.com
Comments
R
Thank you for sharing your personal experiences!
I did a rotation in a walk in, spanish speaking, catholic mission sponsored medical clinic. We were allowed to ask about periods, contraception, and give pregnancy tests. After that, we were banned from talking about contraception or abortion services. I remember being startled when the nurse/interpreter squeezed my writing hand and said, We're catholic here, you can't talk about that.
Despite how disturbing this all is, it means we will persevere in November and once again be an example for the rest of the world, instead of the embarrassment we've, for the moment, become.
That said, once you have lost respect you never quite get it all back, no matter how hard you try.
Auwe (Alas)
.........(¯`v´¯) (¯`v´¯)
☼•*¨`*•.¸.(ˆ◡ˆ).¸.•*
............... *•.¸.•* ♥⋆★•❥ Thanx & Smiles (ツ) & ♥ L☼√Ξ ☼ ♥
⋆───★•❥ ☼ .¸¸.•*`*•.♥
Oryoki Bowl, thanks for your addition to the story. Also, you are right to be confused about the term. It is the "double speak" that H. G. Wells wrote of.
All this smacks of an effort to return to a time when women were property. If these lawmakers are ultimately successful there will be repercussions far beyond contraception and child bearing. The very structure and foundation of what freedoms we have left will be compromised to an extent that they will be ultimately meaningless.
Children having children. It's sickening how some of the teen mom scenarios are televised on reality shows; is this what a return to family values really means? Contestants are encouraged to apply! My teen is a better mom than your teen...just don't apply a social stigma and all is well with family matters.
It makes sense that obstetrics and psychiatry were together since the uterus, or hyster, was once considered to be the reason for female hysterics.
-R-
A few people suggested that I try to get this published elsewhere as an op-ed. I really have no idea how to do that. If anyone has a suggestion send me a p.m.
R+++ ;-)
I appreciate that it was awful what happened to these women, but the factoid that social conservatives want women to not have access is just that, a factoid. They may not want to PAY for other people's birth control, but that, of course, is a different matter.
Name me one prominent social conservative who has said that they don't want women to have access to birth control as a matter of law.
Barbara Joanne, I respect your opinion, but think "aspirin between the knees" and rhythm, are unreliable forms of birth control. I have known people who left the Catholic church because of policies that they couldn't deal with, but it was painful because of the family conflict that ensued. As to the cost issue, I think that is a smoke screen to hide the real objections which are several. Thanks for your opinion.
Your comments reveal what I think are some common confusions. The problem being complained about by the Catholic church, with respect to birth control and the ACA, would related to all employees, whether Catholic or not, of a Catholic hospital. The church itself is already exempted. So your point about leaving the church seems not relevant.
The church wants to prevent the government from requiring its health insurer for hospital employees to provide free preventive care in the form of birth control pills.
Note that the church is not required to pay for this, neither are taxpayers. It is actually coming out of insurance premiums. The church is trying to say that they don't want the insurance company to provide the birth-control to Catholics or non-Catholics, as long as they are covered under the hospital's policies.
To say you are paying for it is a mistake. It actually saves the insurance companies money to do this, because of prevented pregnancies.
To say you are paying for it is like saying that you pay for someone else's heart surgery, because you are paying insurance premiums.
It's like you going to a restaurant, and paying for your meal, and then claiming you are paying the chef's salary, so you want to be able to specify how he does his job.
If you really pay attention to the details, the church is exempted, and this only applies to hospitals that hire both Catholics and non-Catholics. And you or other taxpayers aren't paying; it is a matter of how the insurer is required to manage their insurance risk pool derived from premiums.
A careful examination of the details shows how misrepresentation of the facts explains that this is just a political show created by conservatives to be able to claim there is a war on religion (which there is not). It's a political stunt and it's overreach on the part of the church to try to control the insurers according to their religious preferences.
There is no war on religion. There is just an attempt to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, and hence reduce the number of abortions, which the religious ought to consider an improvement.
rated
I certainly agree that reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies is a good thing.
One of the dangers presented by the current attack on women's rights is the amnesia produced by time. The Roe vs. Wade decision came down in January of 1973, nearly 40 years ago, and the number of people who were directly affected by the laws before the decision is dwindling.