Personhood: More than just Control, Must be about Equality

Susan Bordo dives head-first into the conversation about personhood through her article entitled "Are Mothers Persons? Reproductive Rights and the Politics of Subject-ivity". As the title implies, the controversy over reproductive rights is essentially the controversy over "subjecthood", or personhood. Grammatically speaking, the subject of a sentence is the person, place, thing, or idea that is being or doing something. Knowing that and trying to place it in this context, it can be inferred that the subject of one's life is what is actively being or doing something; in other words, the subject of one's life is the thing that is actively living. And so, Bordo's article examines just that - the subject that is actively living. The politics that are tied into this then are the politics of reproductive rights and the way in which a woman can both lose and gain subjecthood over her own life - something a man never has to worry he'll lose. As current legislation stands, a woman can (and does) lose her subjectivity when, instead, the fetus becomes the subject of a pregnant woman's life. When a woman becomes pregnant, she must give up her personhood for the sake of the fetus gaining its own personhood over her body. Seeing this as an issue, Bordo thoroughly examines and critiques the idea that, as it stands in our society, mothers are not the subject - or person - of their own lives but rather mere vessels for the fetus, the subject, the main person of concern. 

A perfect example of the reality that Bordo critiques is Personhood USA: Personhood USA, an anti-abortion, pro-life organization, defines personhood as "the cultural and legal recognition of the equal and unalienable rights of human beings." Personhood USA then continues that personhood is an affirmation of individual rights, and to be a person is to be "protected by a series of God-given rights and constitutional guarantees such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Through these definitions, it might appear as if Personhood USA has the potential to protect the rights of many women nationwide - however, unfortunately Personhood USA, does exactly the opposite of that; Personhood USA is an organization that fights for the rights of unborn fetuses, arguing that, as young humans, they deserve the same rights and respect as any full-grown human. As a result of this and despite the fact that Personhood USA may claim they are fighting for equal rights, Personhood USA fails to protect the rights that a woman ought to have, as both a mother and a human being. 

In examining this organization with added perspective and understanding from Bordo's piece, it is clear that Personhood USA jeopardizes a woman's own subjectivity for the sake of her potential child. There are many societal factors that contribute to this loss of subjectivity, all which revolve around the idea that women are inferior to men. Organizations such as Personhood USA, as well as the people who support such organizations, obsess over the fetus and fight to protect it, because, without their effort, the only individual with a say in the fetus' well-being is the mother herself. The idea that a woman has full and complete control over the young fetus is alarming because it promotes the idea that a woman is responsible enough to make decisions regarding both her well-being and the well-being of her child. It is my personal belief that if men were the individuals carrying the child, they would be trusted to make informed decisions regarding the state of the fetus. Why? For the reason briefly and subtlety aforementioned, now stated perhaps more blatantly: the pro-choice movement terrifies and alarms many individuals because it is a movement that not only empowers the female, but does so by placing all responsibility on the woman, thus removing men from the decision process. This is terrifying to our society because, as a country where a woman has yet to be president - even after all these some 230 years - and as a country where women still make $0.77 to a man's $1.00, any system that privileges a woman (or even makes her equal to a man) is a system that is not worth trusting. 

With all being said, Bordo does not believe this is the core of the issue.

So long as the debate over reproductive control is conceptualized solely in dominant terms of the abortion debate  - that is, as a conflict between the fetus's right to life and the woman's right to choose - we are fooled into thinking that is only the fetus whose ethical and legal status is at issue. 

In the above excerpt, Bordo writes of how the issue of personhood is only briefly discussed as we discuss a woman's right to choose and a fetus's right to live. Although a pregnant woman's personhood is most clearly seen being misrepresented when instead her fetus receives the most attention, a pregnant woman's personhood relies on far, far more than her decision to keep or abort a child. Thus, in agreement with Bordo, I must say that while I myself am pro-choice and fully believe that a woman's life ought to be prioritized over a fetus that may or may not be born, I ultimately see the issues of reproductive rights being issues that are not so clear; the fight for a pregnant woman's personhood will NOT be over when women have easy and affordable access to safe and professional abortion, but rather, the fight for a pregnant woman's personhood will be over when each inequality and injustice in our gendered societal structure is brought into light, discussed, and appropriately adjusted. 

Eliminating the Undesirables

France Winddance Twine discusses in Outsourcing the Womb that many people have turned to overseas surrogacy.  Twine points out that many poor and uneducated women have no choice but to become surrogate mothers. Twine also briefly mentions sperm and egg donor qualifications and regulations in the U.S and in chapter 4, she states that commercial egg and sperm markets choose applicants based on their physical and social characteristics. (Twine 33) Kindle version

In the United States, which is a relatively unregulated market, the fees that egg donors are paid vary according to their experience and their level of education, with first-time egg donors earning the least ($ 4,000) and experienced and well-educated egg donors earning substantially more ($ 6,000) (Twine 32).

Twine makes it clear that overseas surrogate mothers are forced into surrogacy because of their lack of income and remarkably, this seems to be the opposite for egg and sperm donors. She also points out that only the economically privileged can afford fertility treatments. (Twine 8) Surprisingly, eligible sperm and egg donors are also part of the economically privileged. There appears to be an effort to eliminate undesirable traits. These traits include homosexuality and unintelligence.

The requirements needed to become a sperm and egg donor are extensive and do not apply to most. Sperm and egg donors are required to have a certain height and weight, good health, higher education, and opposite sex partners.

In 2005, the FDA released guidelines that discouraged homosexual men from donating sperm.

The Guidance for Industry: Eligibility Determination for Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products states:

List[s] of conditions and behaviors that increase the donor’s relevant communicable disease risk. Except as noted in this section, and in accordance with § 1271.75(d), you should determine to be ineligible any potential donor who exhibits one or more of the following conditions or behaviors.

1.  Men who have had sex with another man in the preceding 5 years (Refs. 17 through 46) (risk factor for HIV and Hepatitis B).

According to the FDA, this provision is an effort to protect mothers from contracting HIV. Many sperm banks follow the FDA regulation even though they are not mandatory.  It’s surprising that these regulations are being followed despite the procedures sperm banks take to ensure that sperm is free of infectious disease. Once sperm is donated it is tested for sexually transmitted diseases, frozen for at least 6 months and then tested again for STDs. Since 2005, many gay-right’s activists have pointed out that this provision is not based on any really scientific evidence and instead are based on bigotry.

 

Education was the other requirement that stood out. Usually egg and sperm donors are required to have some form of higher education. In the 1980s, Robert K. Graham, a businessman known for inventing shatterproof eyeglasses, started Repository for Germinal Choice, a sperm bank that chose its donors based on intellectual achievement. Aside from intellectual competence, good looks, height, weight, and good genetic history have always been requirements for sperm donors.

These requirements exclude traits that are seen undesirable by sperm banks. These qualifications are reminiscent of eugenics. Only people who have these desirable traits are selected to reproduce.  By demanding higher education and heterosexuality in applicants, unintelligence and homosexuality are marked as undesirable. Additionally, those who cannot afford a college education are often minorities and part of the working class. These groups are also excluded. Various questions such as:

What about the rest of us? Are we worthless without these characteristics? Are we worthy of reproducing?Do I qualify as an egg donor?  According to these qualifications, no one in my family, my self-included, would be eligible because we have traits that are undesirable.

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/Tissue/ucm073964.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4655231

Final Thoughts on Outsourcing the Womb

It was interesting to me to read, in Outsourcing the Womb, the amount of money that can be earned when someone sells the rights to their body. The current industries are related to larger issues of colonialism and women’s control of their own bodies. Along with this discovery, it made me see the discrepancies within the system that is dubious while asserting subjectivity to a woman.

             Depending on her socioeconomic status and nationality, a woman in need of money might be paid less because of her geographical location. Internationally, for example, in Guatemala the text mentions in Outsourcing the Womb how little they get paid in comparison to women here in the United States. There is a similar discrepancy in other countries, like India, as well. In India, the practice of paying women, and especially women of lower socioeconomic status, less is a common practice for functions such as holding a fetus.  It was also interesting comparing this reading to the last one, as that reading talked about indigenous women and their lack of subjectivity of their bodies they were still policed by the movement. The institutions were not there for them or to support them, but to rather police them and police their bodies.

            The reading suggests that we should not get caught up with the sense that this is giving freedom to a woman to do what she wants with her body. It is misleading, because hiring, underpaying, and making a business of a woman’s body might help that woman in need. However, it still doesn’t account for the systematic problems and history that goes tied into being a woman, and even more so a pregnant woman.

            Outsourcing the womb, then just makes all of these inconsistencies of our system that puts women in a double bind; and this goes for poor women especially, since poorer women are the most targeted women to serve as surrogates. While connecting this reading to the one about Indigenous women and their colonization, it was also interesting to see and the differences and similarities within the article that talked about the criminalization of mothers, which I wrote about in my last post. These industries that exist for the demand of surrogacies and women who will do the labor do not care about the woman involved. The fetus, and the want and need for fetuses, comes from societal norms. These societal norms further the point of the lack of subjectivity of the body of a woman.

            Connecting the current reading to the last reading, as I mentioned earlier, is compelling because it is interesting to see how it interconnects because these indigenous women are being policed, and the hierarchy between races and socioeconomic status. There are women who are being sterilized against their will, but there other women who are being paid to get pregnant, give up their rights, and go through the labor of growing, and giving birth to a child. Therefore, there are many problematic issues within the industry of surrogacy, the lack of regulation in this industry, and this industry does not give power to the woman. There is market place for the body, but not for the person, or the conditions that they live under.

            In other cases around the world, such as Kenya, this nation ruled out the idea of adoption just recently in order to lower the rates of human trafficking. This recent development brings another facet of this issue into consideration. Moreover, this new development makes it even harder to deal with these issues because we are not only talking about subjectivity of a body but the lack of an individual owning one. Furthermore, this brings the argument that if countries that are targeted as tourism adoption to follow this same example and how it would affect them: would it hurt them or benefit them? In the case of some women, without breaking the glass ceiling of what it means to pay someone in a developing economy to carry a child a give it up, this industry might not mean a lot because of their existing structures of privilege. To another person, and the one carrying the child to term, it would mean a lot. Because they need the money to feed another of their children, if they do need to feed them, or in some other cases pay off their students loans.

            Furthermore, these industries and issues are more problematic, aside from the race and socioeconomic status issues that are clearly represented, as the ideas and legacy of colonialism that are hidden and still prevalent in today’s world as seen through these practices. The world has not achieved a post-colonialist society. The world is still clearly experiencing the legacy of colonialism, and some of us don’t realize this legacy unless we take courses in college.  Organizing to action would be my other point of grievance, how do we raise these issues to the level of attention they merit when no one is talking about them? When, not wanting to assume, no one really goes through this issues post undergraduate school? Tackling these issues as women is a main concern when there is a male dominated society.

            I have learned through my own perseverance to stand up for myself, but how can I make conversations and make others understand when they don’t want to listen? That is a problem that I want to understand. But coming together, and understanding that we should look at the small successes is a good way to start. Because no matter the issues brought up at the dinner table we should not be discouraged to let others know of what we stand up.

That’s where I leave this blog post, in this note that I care and there others that do as well. And will keep that with me.

I leave this article to keep the conversation going about adopting, and the alternatives wanna-be- parents can take, 

 http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/article/2000142876/state-bans-adoption-of-children-by-foreigners 

What Does the Community at Allegheny Look Like?

The second official Community at Allegheny meeting took place tonight at the Tippie Alumni Center. Community at Allegheny is a group that grew out of the demand for administrative action after the open forum on October 3^rd. The first meeting consisted of students, faculty, and administrators stating what we felt problems to the community on this campus were. At the beginning of tonight’s meeting, we were handed a list of the things discussed in the first meeting, and a list of good listening and discussion practices for groups like ours.

We started out in small groups, and were tasked with finding one issue that we all felt like we could stand behind. Each group was organized with a mix of students, faculty, and administrators. Though I came to the group thinking about transgender rights, and what I specifically could bring to the table, we went with the broader issue of “Student Safety”. I identified the issue of personal safety to JoeD as the issue that is driving national and global efforts against racism, specifically in regards to the Mike Brown and Eric Garner cases.

We identified many ways that students feel unsafe of campus. A woman of color in my group noted that not one email was sent to the student body in regards to the decisions of non-indictment in either the Mike Brown or Eric Garner cases. She said she was feeling unsupported by the administration as a human being. JoeD said that the student-wide emails are generally sent to deal with local problems that affect the students directly, but it was brought up that these issues do indeed affect our students directly, particularly in the level of safety they feel on campus. We also mentioned that the diversity of the security officers on campus needs to reflect the student body, because many people of color on this campus feel uncomfortable with the 11 white guys that we have.

The recent events surrounding police brutality might feel like they are distant to some students on campus, but that’s not an option for black students. Even if black students can feel safe on this campus, some of my friends worry for their family members who are growing up and living in violent cities with oppressive police forces. But black students can’t always feel safe on this campus. Yik Yak has only highlighted the immense racism on this campus, and the only people using it are 18-25 year-olds who are apparently the least racist generation to date. The amount of racism and institutional apathy for black students from the administration also directly adversely affects students on this campus. The protests, speeches, and actions done and taken by, and in solidarity with, black students on this campus come from a system of oppression that is frightfully real for students of color.

I brought up the fact that the all-gender bathroom in the CC was relocated to the most inconvenient place possible and the all-gender bathrooms we do have are not easily accessible. I also brought up that coming out to your professors in front of a class full of students, especially after your assigned (not preferred) name and pronouns have already been called can be deeply troubling for trans students. These kinds of acts make trans students feel less safe and accepted on campus. A very simple way to fix the second problem would be to have every professor email all of their students before classes begin and ask them for their preferred name and pronouns (or specifically, what they want to go by in class, because not every trans student is willing to be out to all of their classes and/or passes such that they are comfortable doing so).

The Allegheny website lists two gender neutral bathrooms on campus here. This is not even close to an exhaustive list. One thing I’d like to work on personally is putting together a map with all gender neutral bathrooms on campus clearly labeled. I would also like an explanation as to why there is still orange tape blocking the ramp entrance into Oddfellows, when construction ended very near the beginning of the semester. This campus is not accessible to disabled individuals. This Allegheny page starts off by defending the college’s poor accessibility from the age of our institution. They offer an accessibility map, but warn that it may be out of date due to ongoing construction projects.

Once it was time for the groups to get back together and present their ideas/demands/issues to the group, things started getting more heated. Many groups felt the lack of administrative transparency is the largest (or farthest reaching) issue facing our campus community. Administrators felt that some of the things suggested by the students, such as names and contact information of administrators, was already provided. Many students expressed that they had never heard this information before, it is not widely advertised, and they aren’t even sure who to look for or where. Many students, including myself, learned a lot about the structure of the administration from this meeting, knowledge that is supposedly easy to access.

Many students expressed frustration with the extra-curricular responsibilities on our shoulders with regards to social justice work. We feel that our oppressions on campus come from the administration (and the administration’s tolerance for student bigotry) and as such it should be on the administration’s shoulders to change the way this institution treats marginalized students. It should also not be entirely on the Center for Intercultural Advancement and Student Success. CIASS is a great resource for marginalized students on campus, but they are not equipped or staffed to deal with changing this institution as a whole, and it should not be entirely on the shoulders of our faculty of color to stand up for marginalized students.

After the meeting was technically over, the group that was left identified the main themes of the meeting, with room for people to speak up for direct action steps that can be taken. I brought up two points in front of the group. It was very stressful, considering I also came out to all of them, but rewarding. I am very proud of the people around me. I have fortunately surrounded myself with a group of people who love and support me, and actively campaign for other marginalized bodies on this campus, pushing me to be better as well.

The Community at Allegheny group will come out with a list of action steps by January 1^st. 

The Business of Fertility

Until reading Outsourcing the Womb by France Winndance Twine I thought surrogacy was a generally accepted way to have a child; I never even considered how corrupt it could be. This got me thinking about all the options people with fertility problems have to get pregnant. I do not know much about fertility treatments but Outsourcing the Womb has made me develop an interest in the world of fertility. The book gave some background on the process of surrogacy and in this discussed briefly the role of sperm donors and egg donors. I discovered that about 7.3 million Americans are infertile, which makes up around 12 percent of the population. The role of different social classes gives a lot of background to what fertility treatments certain people can get. Although everyone is looking for the most effective fertility treatment, only some can truly afford them. I am interested in examining how affordable and effective different treatments are.

Surrogacy: The role of a surrogate is to carry a baby for an intended parent. In vitro fertilization, which is when fertilization happens outside of the womb, is most common in our modern culture. The egg and sperm often belong to the intended parents if possible, but sperm and egg donors can be involved too. Surrogacy is typically a very costly process and therefore is more common among the upper-middle class. The problem with this is that the option of surrogacy is not available to everyone, leading to the outsourcing of surrogacy. Many countries, and some states in America, have banned surrogacy, but some that have not present opportunities for cheaper surrogates. Many people will travel to countries such as India, where women are willing to be surrogate mothers for a much lower price and where the medical care is respectable.

Fertility Drugs: I have heard of fertility drugs before but did not know what they were specifically for or how well they worked. These drugs can come in pill form or can be injected and they help to induce ovulation. They are typically pretty low cost and are sometimes effective, making them a good first choice for people with fertility problems. The problem I see with fertility drugs are the possible side effects. The shot produced some of the worst side effects including premature deliveries and formations of ovarian cysts. Although the shots are a bit more effective than the pills, the side effects, in my opinion, seem to outweigh benefits.

Egg and Sperm Donors: Donor sperm and eggs are used in a few different fertility treatments. For treatments requiring donor sperm, the price is typically low, whereas treatments using donor eggs can cost anywhere from $15,000 to $30,000. It is also a more invasive process to donate eggs than to donate sperm. Egg and sperm donations can be used in surrogacy, in vitro fertilization, and artificial insemination. Artificial insemination is when donor sperm is injected directly into the woman’s uterus. It is fairly inexpensive but usually requires multiple tries to actually work. Not just anyone can be a sperm or egg donor, there are certain guidelines and requirements to donate. I found a website that gave me a lot of good information on sperm and egg donation and all its uses, which can be found here.

All of these treatment options come at a cost whether it is a monetary cost or a lasting physical effect. We also see that many of these fertilization treatments increase the chances of having multiple births, such as having twins, or triplets. The controversy over fertility treatments is immense. In terms of surrogacy, there was a huge lawsuit over Baby M. This was a case that happened in New Jersey in 1986. In this instance the surrogate was the biological mother of the baby, and she had signed a contract agreeing to give up the baby to its biological father and intended mother. The problem came when the child was born and the surrogate decided she wanted to keep the baby. The trial was over who would get custody of the baby, the biological mother, or the biological father. A different case involving in vitro fertilization had to do with issues of age discrimination. A couple was seeking in vitro fertilization after failing to get pregnant for three years. The woman was 37 years old, and national guidelines state that women up to the age of 39 should be funded for this treatment. However when she tried to get funding, her local primacy care trust (PCT) refused to pay saying they do not fund women over the age of 34. Issues like this are not uncommon because despite national guidelines, local PCT are in fact allowed to set their own restrictions.

Another major issue we see with fertility treatments is involving money. People can be paid good money for being a surrogate or for donating eggs or sperm. If someone is really struggling for money and they are offered double their salary to be a surrogate it is difficult for many women to refuse. There are surrogates out there who claim to do it just because they love being pregnant and think everyone should be able to have their own child, but some are in the business because they ran out of options and need the money. The monetary incentive for donating eggs and sperm is just as enticing, and although it pays less than surrogacy, it is an easier process, especially for sperm donation. 

The problem I am seeing is that the fertility revolves around money. If you have enough money you have better chances of getting the fertility treatments that would best suit you. But what if you desperately want a child of your own and just can't afford the treatment options? People will go to desperate measures for something as important as having a child that is your own, even if it means someone else is getting ripped off along the way. Other people are going to extreme lengths just to make money and they may turn to doing something that they are not fully comfortable with doing, such as being a surrogate or donating eggs/sperm. The option of fertility treatments is very necessary, and we should be doing more to help people afford the proper treatment for them. 

Are We Allegheny?

At the beginning of this semester, as I entered into my first weeks of classes, it was so crystal clear to me that black and brown lives matter, that women’s lives matter, that transgender lives, queer lives matter, that it seemed, at least in my circles, a given. Common knowledge. Not something that needed special clarification. As I progressed through the semester, however, and encountered so many people who thought otherwise — so many people who were dedicated to defending police brutality, to claiming that “it’s not about race” or it shouldn’t be — that it became increasingly clear to me how little progress we, as a society, have really made. There are still people dedicated to maintaining the existing structures of power. That’s no surprise. But hearing people close to me claim that the problem lie in the hands of the oppressed; that the murder of young black men and women (or really anyone who was a “them” in some way or another) is justified by the “crimes” they may or may not have committed. We have studied the way that Bodies are perceived, coded, and ranked in this society. It’s not hard to find articles, videos, or any type of media example of how disturbingly true this is. There’s a long — and growing — list of examples for me to pick from. 

Whether we’re looking “macro” at society as a whole — at American society, for the sake of this argument — or at the “micro” of Allegheny’s campus, we are far from the “post-racial” society that I’ve heard about. We’re not post- anything, because that assumes that there’s a finish line to cross and that’s it for systemic oppression. The idea that “women earn seventy five cents to a man’s dollar” isn’t even true, because it is the white woman who earns this compared to a white man’s dollar. Actually researching the researching the figures for the median earnings of men and women of many races was not difficult to find, but it was not reflective of the falsely-labeled “equal” and “post-racial” society that America consists of. Just looking at those statistics shows the way that certain bodies are literally worth more in the workforce than others. Overall, men earn several thousand dollars more than their female peers and white people earn more than Black and Hispanic people. It’s even further complicated by motherhood.  This article talks about how “nonmothers [were offered] an average of $11,000 more than mothers for the same high salaried job” even when the qualifications were identical. This kind of oppression shows in literally every aspect of life — at work, in school, at home, in conversations between multiple groups of people. Though the statistics I shared were specific to discrimination in the workplace, it’s not hard to connect them to other statistics and current events. 

(Trigger Warning for Slurs, Rape, Abuse); "All Oppression is Connected" by Staceyann Chin

Following the failure to indict the police officers involved in the deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown, I found:

• …an article about a former police officer who was convicted of a felony for shooting an elk. (I wish I was kidding). This police officer— who, yes, broke the law, but that’s not the point—was given a harsher punishment for ending the life of an animal than was given to the people who caused the deaths of countless people of marginalized communities.
• …that “they broke the law anyway” and “the officer was just doing his job” are seen as justifications for what has been happening for the entire history of this nation. It’s reminiscent of what Kate Bornstein termed “gender defenders” — but on an intersectional level. The “defenders” here do not simply uphold the binary; they simultaneously cling to the existing structures that uphold racial hierarchies, sexed hierarchies, and class hierarchies. 
• …another article, detailing the psychology of prejudice, which described and then linked to an implicit bias test meant to measure prejudice, subconscious or conscious connections we’ve made with certain races and ideals. There’s a reason why police officers are more likely to use deadly or excessive force on black bodies — and it’s not because black bodies are more likely to be violent towards police. 

Broadening my search, I also found:

• …that yet another transgender Black woman was killed while seeking refuge, adding another name to the long list of trans women (specifically trans women of color) who have been killed.
• …that forced sterilization was only recently banned in California prisons. (Women of color and poor women were targeted specifically; especially if they already had children and could be seen as “at risk” of getting pregnant again)
• …that the US has been deporting Latino/a people unlawfully and hastily, because their voices are not valued. 
• …that, overwhelmingly, the horror stories of injustice in America, of the failures of the judicial system are stories of marginalized communities; that, yes, this is about race. It is about sex, about gender identity, about the perceptions that certain groups of people are innately better or worse than other groups.
• …that our college is currently under investigation for Title IX Sexual Violence policy violations by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Because the trauma of human beings, the violence that they are subjected to, has not been enough to enact administrative action to rid the campus of these violent attackers and come up with a realistic and comprehensive plan for the prevention of future instances of sexual violence.
• …that, even in the midst of our celebration of the Bicentennial, even in the midst of our continuing year(s) of Civil Rights, in honor of the 50th anniversaries of the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts, this school still refuses to recognize that there are large numbers of students who feel unsafe and that this needs to be addressed immediately, rather than having discussions about how we can make ourselves safer. 

About a month ago, Dr. Lani Guinier came to this campus to talk about the importance of having truly diverse and open spaces for dialogue, about the sheer necessity of bringing different perspectives and experiences to the table in the name of progress. On this campus, however, her words failed to reach those most in need. Take, for example, Yik Yak and its nearly constant stream of racist/sexist/homophobic comments, sitting neatly next to jokes about finals or the weather in Meadville. There exists on this campus a huge divide between those dedicated to social justice and “the rest of us”. The college campus as a whole has not been willing to come forward to actually and willingly discuss the problems that are daily occurrences for certain students; that these things are physically or emotionally preventing students from performing academically.

Last night, I sat in on the second Community at Allegheny meeting. A mix of students, faculty, and administrators (though, I’ll be blatantly honest, it was student-heavy and missing nearly half of the administrators from the president’s cabinet), we were given a list of previously recorded demands and asked to sort through them, look for themes, discuss the major themes, and come up with possible solutions for some of those demands. Overwhelmingly, we asked the administration to be held accountable - through things as creative as administrative “RSE”-esque reviews, office hours for higher ranking college employees, and the simple request for transparency in their decisions about our academic (and personal!) lives. While we were expected, in the time of the community meeting, to come up with major action suggestions for the administration to implement, we were continually told that “progress has been made” on certain fronts and that we could be “assured” that the administration cares. But overall, the feeling has been that, as students, we have been given the weight of fixing the system that has prevented us from feeling 100% safe; that it’s our responsibility to fix our own oppression.

Sterilization to Plan B: Native American Women Fight for Reproductive Agency.

In “Better Dead than Pregnant” Andrea Smith details the plight of Native American women who either want or do not want to get pregnant. Her article illustrates the racist and elitist ideas and thoughts behind Native American women and pregnancy. The main theme in this novel was the insistence on control of Native American women, especially on doctors controlling Native American women.

This control is asserted in several ways. First off the doctors already have a degree of control because they are seen as the experts, and defaulted to have the most knowledge. They also exert control by devaluing the opinion and thoughts of the Native American women by declaring racial superiority. They do this by taking charge of these women’s reproductive lives.

As Smith discusses doctors on reservations have a history of sterilizing women without their consent. For example about 50% of Native American women were sterilized in the 1970s. As Smith discuses this is a form of racial genocide. Doctors were intentionally lying to Native American women about the procedure they were about to undergo. Either by telling them they were getting a different procedure or telling them it was to fix minor complaints such as headaches. The decision was made exclusively by doctors and was usually based off of racist, outdated, ignorant stereotypes the doctors had about Native American women.

Doctors would preform sterilization procedures because they judged that Native American women would be bad mothers. Either because they already had “too” many children, or because they assumed based off of racist stereotypes that these women were drug addicts or had bad judgment. At the root of these sterilization procedures is the idea that these Native American women do not know how to take care of themselves. They do not know how to make their own decision. They are deemed too dumb, or too ignorant, or too helpless to be in charge of their own lives.

Native American women do not have control in their lives; they do not have control over how to live their lives. Andrea Smith proved this in the early 2000s with her article “Better Dead than Pregnant” and it can still be seen today in this article about emergency contraceptive access for Native American women. There was no choice about weather or not to undergo sterilization, that decision was often made by the doctor. Similarly with emergency contraceptives there is no choice because you cannot find emergency contraceptives on the reserve.

Plan B and equivalent medicines are not carried on reservations. If a woman wants to get an emergency contraceptive she must drive off the reservation at least an hour and not even been guaranteed to find emergency contraceptives. What’s more they would most likely not have the money or the means to get the emergency contraceptive. There is also very little information provided as to why emergency contraceptives are not available on reservations. Even after doing research the author of the article could not get a straightforward answer about why contraceptives aren’t available and what would have to be done to make them available.

Sterilization was used to try and stop Native Americans from reproducing and continuing to survive. It is important to fight back against sterilization so that Native American culture, heritage, and bloodline is not ended. While the problem with not having access to emergency contraceptives is that without it Native American women do not have the choice to not have children.

One of the reasons things like Plan B are important is because rates of sexual assault are very high for Native American women. It is often not a question of “if” but “when” these women will need access to contraceptives. Having access to Plan B can drastically change the amount of control and agency Native American women have over their lives. Just like sterilization was about the taking away agency from the women, not having access to Plan B is also about taking away agency.  

Because these women are a minority; because they live on reservations and their only source of healthcare comes through the US government; because they do not have systems in place to give them a voice or give them power their needs are ignored, and secondary to what others believe they need.

 There is also little interest from those who are in power, it allowing these women to gain power, or to gain agency. So, what does this mean for Native American women? It means progress is slow; it means that they are denied basic rights and it means that they are not seen as fully human.

Although sterilization and access to Plan B might seem like two separate and apposing issues the idea behind both is the same, control. Stripping Native American women of the right to making their own decisions and making their reproductive health another person’s jurisdiction keeps them from gaining power over their own lives. In a way it keeps them just as suppressed and enslaved as they were when settlers first tried to colonize Native Americans. These rules and barriers around reproductive health are just another form of genocide.

However, it does seem that there are some positive changes coming. There is policy being put in place so that Plan B can be give to Native American women without them having to go to the pharmacy or clinic for a visit. Instead it is starting to be treated as an over the counter medicine, meaning that the women will be able to order it from pharmacies and have it delivered to the reservation. This is all preliminary and is not in place yet, but is a promising step in allowing Native American women more agency over their reproductive choices.