False Protection, Real Oppression: Opposing Anti-abortion Legislation

women-of-the-world-unite-womens-liberation-demonstration-august-26-1970-21.jpg

 Photo © Estate of Fred W. McDarrah

By Linda Gordon

Who could have imagined in 1973 that we would still be debating abortion rights in 2016? When the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it was following, not breaking with, public opinion. Eighteen states had already repealed or liberalized their anti-abortion laws before Roe. The reasons were obvious: in our modern, post-industrial society, whenever more people are required to bring in wages to support their families, reproduction control is an economic necessity. The majority of aborting women, now and in the past, were already mothers who had as many children as they could support; the majority of abortions resulted from joint decisions by biological mothers and fathers. And bans on abortion have always hurt poor people the most.

The reason we’re still mired in a debate that functions—and was designed—to move the public away from debating, say, economic inequality or foreign policy is largely political. New Right strategists decided to focus on abortion and other sex-and-gender issues as a means to break open the New Deal coalition—that is, to entice poor, working-, and middle-class citizens to vote against their economic interests.

It worked, but not completely. Conservatives have not been able to overturn Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion in the United States, or to change the public’s overall opinion on abortion. In 1975, a Gallup Poll showed that 22% of registered U.S. voters wanted a ban on all abortions; in 2015, 19% did. Today, 50% label themselves “pro-choice,” 44% “pro-life.” This stasis has forced anti-abortion advocates to resort to incremental measures. Many state laws now severely limit access to abortion, especially in rural areas and the “red” states. At their most hysterical, anti-abortion advocates have turned to violence. According to NARAL Pro-Choice America, they have murdered eight abortion providers and clinic staff and unsuccessfully attempted 17 more assassinations since 1973. In addition, they have committed 6,800 acts of violence—arson, bombings, assaults, threats—and more than 188,000 acts of disruption.

This does not count the Nov. 2015 terrorist attack at the Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood clinic. This terror has driven many physicians to refuse to do abortions. The shortage of providers and clinics is especially hard for low-income women.

On March 2, the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear opening arguments in Whole Woman’s Health v. Kirk Cole, which challenges a Texas law enacted under the pretense of protecting women. Activists are staking a lot on this attempt to stop the chipping away at abortion rights. The Texas law is the worst of several TRAP laws (Targeted Restrictions on Abortion Providers). A decision is expected in June. Some 98 amicus curiae (friend of the court) briefs have been filed opposing this and similar laws, and I co-wrote a brief with three other historians, which was then signed by 16 racially and sexually diverse historians who specialize in law, politics, and economics. Historians’ perspectives on this case are important because we situate our arguments in the long history of the denial of equal rights to women. The historical arguments concern not just abortion but many aspects of women’s lives, and thus the whole gender system.

TRAP laws share one false premise—that their purpose is to protect women. The historians’ brief uses two aspects of legal history to show the fraudulence of that claim. First is coverture, the system used to deprive women of civil and political rights for centuries in the Anglo-American legal system. Under coverture, when a woman married, her husband became her guardian, just as her father had been, and he “represented” her in all legal matters so as to “protect” her.

 

The Cost of Trap Laws

Texas’s anti-abortion laws, among the worst in the nation, require abortionists to have admitting privileges at a local hospital within 30 miles of a clinic, a requirement not usually made at clinics that provide other medical services. A woman must undergo an ultrasound exam, be shown the image, and have the image described to her. This ultrasound must be obtained at least 24 hours in advance of the abortion, thus requiring at least two separate visits and, for many women, paying for a hotel or driving long distances. Teenagers must have parental consent. The abortion must be performed in a surgical facility. If the woman or the abortionist prefers a medical to a D&C abortion (the medical form is the usual and safer form of first-trimester abortion), the woman is to make four visits to a licensed physician. For a third-trimester abortion, the provider must certify the medical indications supporting his or her judgment. This means that a woman’s choice or social or economic reasons do not meet the standard. All these provisions, of course, significantly raise the costs of abortion. 

 

Husbands controlled women’s labor, property, and bodies: she could not sue or be sued and could not enter a contract. He was entitled to her services as housekeeper, mother, and sexual partner. (He could not legally rape her because he was entitled to sex on demand.) He could use corporal “punishment” against her, force her to move wherever he chose, gain exclusive custody of children in case of a (difficult to achieve) divorce, and prevent her from attending school.

By this logic, women didn’t need to vote or serve on juries because husbands “represented” them. Gradually these male rights were ended by courts and state laws as a movement toward sex equality made most people realize that coverture was not protective but rather a means of depriving women of basic rights.

The second part of the brief concerns “protective” labor legislation enacted in the early 20th century as women were entering the wage-labor force in greater numbers. These state laws limited the occupations that women could enter, the hours they could work, and the locations and conditions in which they could work. The protective justification rested on women’s expected reproductive function, on the assumption that exertion might interfere with it. For example, women were barred from all sorts of athletic activities. Pregnant women were expected to rest and not allowed to work. (Do I need to say that these rules were rarely enforced when it came to poor women, especially women of color?) The rules were often contradictory: for example, women were not allowed to be bartenders but were allowed to serve drinks (even though they were more vulnerable to sexual harassment than they would have been behind the bar). Rules like these systematically confined women to the lowest paid jobs, and in doing so usually garnered support from labor unions, which fought to preserve the best jobs for men.

Put simply, our point is that “protecting” women not only disadvantaged them but also rested on false assumptions, notably that women’s primary destiny as mothers must be enforced by husbands and/or government; and especially that women are not capable of making their own decisions but must have government reminding them of the consequences of these decisions in a manner never applied to men.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s death could lead to a 4-to-4 decision, which would leave Texas’s (and other states’) phony protective laws in place. The most important task for progressives is, of course, to put pressure on the Senate to approve an Obama appointee to the Court.

Whatever the Supreme Court decision—and either way, it will not end the battle over reproductive rights—it is important for the U.S. public to see through these claims of protection and identify how they actually function to maintain sex inequality.


 

Linda Gordon teaches history at New York University. Her most recent books are Feminism Unfinished and Dorothea Lange: A Life Beyond Limits.

This article originally appeared in the spring 2016 issue of the Democratic Left magazine.

Individually signed posts do not necessarily reflect the views of DSA as an organization or its leadership. Democratic Left blog post submission guidelines can be found here.

 

 

 

DSA Queer Socialists Conference Call

April 24, 2017
· 46 rsvps

DSA is in the process of forming a Queer Socialists Working Group. This call will cover a discussion of possible activities for the group, its proposed structure, assigning tasks, and reports on the revision of DSA's LGBT statement and on possible political education activities. 9 pm ET/8 pm CT/7 pm MT/6 pm PT.

 

Introduction to Socialist Feminism Call

April 30, 2017
· 55 rsvps

Join Philadelphia DSA veteran activist Michele Rossi to explore “socialist feminism.” How does it differ from other forms of feminism? How and when did it develop? What does it mean for our activism? 4-5:30pm ET, 3-4:30pm CT, 2-3:30pm MT, 1-2:30pm PT.

DSA Webinar: Talking About Socialism

May 02, 2017
· 11 rsvps

Practice talking about socialism in plain language. Create your own short rap. Prepare for those conversations about socialism that happen when you table in public.

Join us for our latest organizing training for democratic socialist activists: DSA’s (Virtual) Little Red Schoolhouse.

This training is at 9:00pm Eastern, 8:00pm Central, 7:00pm Mountain, 6:00pm Pacific, 5:00pm Alaska, and 3:00pm Hawaii Time. Please RSVP.

Instructor:

Steve Max, DSA Vice Chair and one of the founders of the legendary community organizing school, The Midwest Academy

In Talking About Socialism you will learn to:

  • Have a quick response ready to go next time someone asks you about democratic socialism.
  • Create your own elevator pitch about democratic socialism and DSA.
  • Use your personal experience and story to explain democratic socialism.
  • Think through the most important ideas you want to convey about democratic socialism.
  • Have a concise explanation of what DSA does, for your next DSA table, event or coalition meeting.

Training Details

  • This workshop is for those who have already had an introduction to democratic socialism, whether from DSA's webinar or from other sources.
  • If you have a computer with microphone, speakers and good internet access, you can join via internet for free.
  • If you have questions, contact Theresa Alt <talt@igc.org> 607-280-7649.
  • If you have very technical questions, contact Tony Schmitt <schmittaj@gmail.com> 608-335-6568.
  • Participation requires that you register at least 45 hours in advance, by midnight Sunday.

 

DSA New Member Orientation Call

May 06, 2017
· 52 rsvps

You've joined DSA - Great. Now register for this New Member Orientation call and find out more about our politics and our vision.  And, most importantly, how you can become involved.  2 pm ET; 1 pm CT; 12 pm MT; 11 am PT.  

Film Discussion: The Free State of Jones

June 11, 2017
· 18 rsvps

Join Victoria Bynum, Distinguished Professor Emeritus of History, Texas State University, San Marcos, to discuss The Free State of Jones. STX Entertainment bought the film rights to Bynum's book of the same title. She also served as a consultant and appears in a cameo scene. What was the Free State of Jones? During the Civil War, an armed band of deserters led by Newt Knight, a non-slaveholding white farmer, took to the swamps of southeastern Mississippi and battled against the Confederacy in an uprising popularly known as “The Free State of Jones.” Joining Newt in this rebellion was Rachel, a slave. From their relationship, there developed a controversial mixed-race community that endured long after the Civil War had ended. View the film here for $6 before the discussion. 8 ET/7 CT/6 MT/5 PT.