Now, I'm no fan of Sarah Palin. I'm a sex-positive feminist, which means that my values are pretty much the exact opposite of her anti-contraception ideology. But the vitriol that people are spewing towards her is disturbing. It has been suggested that her decision to board a plane while in labor with a pre-term Down Syndrome baby was criminally negligent; this is not true. There are no laws on the books dictating that all pregnant women must go directly to the hospital once labor begins, just as there are no laws dictating that women in labor must have a C-section if it's the only way to get the baby out safely. Hell, if a woman in labor (high-risk pregnancy or no) wants to pick up some fast food and rent some movies from Blockbuster first, it's her right.
A woman in labor is still a woman first; her rights to bodily integrity don't end when her water breaks. A woman in labor has the right to do the same boneheaded shit that any non-pregnant person wants to do, whether we agree with her judgment or not, and that includes not getting one's ass to the doctor as soon as one should, or not taking one's medication, or not undergoing a surgery that will probably do more good than harm. If it's not criminally negligent for my non-pregnant coworker to procrastinate seeing her doctor about the pain in her knees for 8 months, it's not criminally negligent for Sarah Palin to put off going to the hospital for 12 hours.
I won't argue against anyone who says that her decision was not the best she could have made (although she claims that she had her doctor's blessing to do it), but it was not criminal. She broke no laws.
I've seen many people speculate that Sarah did what she did after her water broke because she wanted her special-needs son to die, which is vicious speculation at best. No one knows what was going through Sarah's head the day that her son was born, and we have no way of knowing, so I wish that people would just give her the benefit of the doubt. If she's pro-life enough not to abort a Downs Syndrome baby, then I'd like to assume that she's pro-life enough to not deliberately endanger him on the day of his birth.
Another speculation I've seen repeated a few times makes the assumption that Bristol is indeed Trig's mother. There are some who are claiming (without a lick of evidence, mind) that Bristol's father impregnated her, which is another reason why the family would want to keep the pregnancy secret: so that Todd Palin wouldn't be outed as an incestuous child rapist. This rumor is so upsetting that I don't even really know what to say about it. How can people so blithely suggest (with no reason to believe so other than they want dirt) that Todd is a rapist, that Bristol is a victim of incest, and that the best and most compassionate way to deal with it (if true) is to drag them both into the national spotlight and turn it into a media circus?
This entire hullabaloo bothers me because pregnant women are already all-too-often treated as children. You see it all the time. Pregnant women are frequently refused service when they try to buy a six-pack of beer or a bottle of wine (even if they never had any intention of drinking it themselves), are lectured in public by complete strangers who have decided that her decision to consume sushi or soft cheese is everyone's business, and are demonized for taking any perceived risks (whether they are actual risks or just unfounded paranoia) at all because a woman's failure to be the perfect mother (even before birth) is too often considered to mean that she can't be a good mother at all.
Imperfect mother = unfit mother. Despite the fact that it's common knowledge that no one is perfect, perfection is absolutely expected of the pregnant woman or mother. Any sign that she may not be putting forth 110% during every moment of her pregnancy (like the day she forgot her pre-natal vitamin or the time that she treated herself to a medium steak dinner) is a sign of absolute failure. I've seen people suggest that because of Sarah's Palin's decision to board that plane, she is an unfit mother and that all of her children should be taken from her. The fact that her children are healthy and seem to be pretty okay is besides the point; apparently the family needs to be broken up and the children displaced - to do what? To punish Sarah? It obviously wouldn't be done in the best interest of the children, so punishment is the only reason I can think of.
People have demanded that, along with her records proving her health, she should turn over any record of how many pregnancies, miscarriages, stillbirths, and abortions she's had. The public has a right to know exactly what's gone on in Sarah Palin's reproductive systems over the course of her lifetime, even if it's got nothing to do with her health or ability to serve as VP, should McCain win the election. I can't tell you how much this sense of entitlement to another woman's uterus horrifies me.
I understand that the stakes are high in this election. Trust me, I'm all too aware of how the outcome of this election may effect my life and the lives of those I love. But Sarah Palin's vagina is none of my business, it's none of your business, it's none of the world's business. Her ability to mother is not what's at question here (and the very fact that it was the first thing questioned after the VP announcement is telling; after all, I haven't heard of any witch hunts questioning the abilities of Obama, Biden, or McCain to be good fathers while they run the country, but there are PLENTY of people asking if Palin can be a national executive and a mother at the same time); her ability to to be Vice President needs to be the focus.
Sarah Palin's vagina, Sarah Palin's womb, and Sarah Palin's children all belong to Sarah Palin, unless proven otherwise. So let's just leave them out of the ruckus, shall we?
6 comments:
I agree that as a woman, Sarah Palin will face more personal, ridiculous questions and judgments than any of her male counterparts, particularly in relation to family.
I don't believe that everyone has a right to know her entire medical history or that it's okay to spread vicious rumors about her and her family. However, I think the concern of some people might be the hypocrisy of being so "pro-life" and then the possibility of making "anti-life" (abortion) decisions.
Similarly, if I am someone who believe life happens at conception, I think that to avoid hypocrisy, I DO have to treat my fetus as life and as a child and I SHOULD make good decisions (whether that is eating healthy, refraining from substances that could hurt the fetus, making safe choices regarding the labor and delivery). I don't think it makes a mother unfit to make mistakes (we talk all the time in my job about "good enough" parenting) but I DO believe that it makes a mother hypocritical if she considers life beginning at conception, fights for policies denying others the right to make choices about the life of the fetus after conception, and then doesn't take important steps to protect that fetus. Does that make sense?
I totally agree that the family of this woman should be left out of the whole discussion. I'm doing a post on it myself tomorrow.
The Broken Man
I'm feeling a little like Jo here, although politics just always fuck everything up. If you assume, as I do, that 99% of politicians are lying about most things and have a secret agenda, than I can understand the interest to know whether a pro-lifer has had an abortion or has made choices that could endanger her infant before it's even born - because that is hypocrisy and I'm alright with politicians being ousted for it as often as possible. On the other hand, you're absolutely right to point out that this bullshit is happening 100% because she's a woman with children. No Obama being a child molesting rapist talk out there, that's for sure, or suggestions that McCain forced any women in his family to have a baby they didn't want to have.
What makes me more sad than anything is women that have babies when they shouldn't (ie most of Baltimore) because they ARE, in fact, unfit mothers, being children of their own unfit mothers. Although, I have to say, I had a good laugh when I found out the Repubs chose a woman for VP.
You both make sense, ladies, but I feel as if it's also hypocritical of pro-choicers, who have stressed the importance of women's reproductive health concerns being a private and personal matter, to decide that anyone who doesn't agree loses the right to that privacy. If Palin's ever had any abortions, I really don't want to know about it, and I don't want anyone else to know about it either if she doesn't choose to share it with them; publicly crucifying a woman for her reproductive choices is only going to hurt the cause rather than help it.
I had so much more to say (I feel like I haven't expressed myself very well), but I am EXHAUSTED and about to pass out. Did I make any sense there?
To Broken: I'm looking forward to reading your post!
I don't think anyone is saying that "if you disagree, you lose the right to privacy" I think what people ARE saying is "If you don't agree AND you are going to force that disagreement on EVERYONE ELSE thereby making their reproductive choices completely public and some of them illegal, you need to 'fess up about your own choices in the past."
What is wrong is that people immediately assume that she has made these kinds of choices and even moreso, when they can't find dirt right away, immediately assume there is some kind of massive cover-up.
Amen. I don't agree with this woman's politics, but the attacks on her have thus far been vicious and unwarranted.
I think if you believe in a woman's right to privacy than you must extend that right to ALL women, even those who would desire to strip you of said right.
Thanks for this thoughtful post.
Post a Comment