Criminalization of Pregnant Substance Abusers

Andrea Smith’s cogent argument in her article “Better Dead Than Pregnant” enlightens us to the multitude of ways Native women are blatantly discriminated against when it comes to their reproductive rights and health care.  She specifically focuses on the faults of the Indian Health Service (IHS). While there are numerous topics within her article that deserve more attention, an area of particular interest for me was when she discussed the criminalization of pregnant substance abusers.  In this blog, I plan to analyze this idea through the framework that even though the system of health care that Native women rely on claims to be preventative, it is really a system based on punishment. 

The health care system Native women have to deal with is much different than the health care many upper and middle class white women are used to.  While many people might be used to having a choice as to which doctors they see and the ability to seek a second opinion, these are not luxuries that Native women who rely on IHS have access to.  Legislation on reproductive rights doesn’t just neglect Native women, it intentionally targets them.  Andrea Smith gives the gruesome example of Inuit women who were not offered anesthesia during their abortions.  Smith informs us that this was a punitive measure meant to deter the women from becoming pregnant again.  She writes, “By increasing the pain and trauma associated with abortion, or by making it inaccessible, the health care establishment exerts even more pressure on Native women to agree to sterilizations or dangerous contraceptives” (98).  I think it’s important that we see this action for what it really is: a punishment for being a Native pregnant woman.  The fact that there is such a vehement reluctance for Native babies to be born proves that they are not wanted or valued by our dominant white culture.  The severe punishments that Smith names, especially including forced sterilization, are evidence of yet another, albeit more secretive, genocide of Native peoples.

Smith uses the example of the organization CRACK and its extreme pro-criminalization stance.  The acronym stands for “Children Requiring a Caring Kommunity” which in and of itself is problematic.  Similar to the way viewing the pregnant woman as an incubator and giving super-subjectivity to the fetus strips the woman of her bodily integrity, focusing the organization on the children rather than the actual people who are struggling with drug addictions takes the focus off of where it really needs to be to make any improvements.  The name is a complete falsity regardless, or at the very least is extremely misleading; although it sounds like the organization cares about the children born to drug-addicted mothers, it really cares about the taxpayers who will have their tax money used to help them.  The organization also funded sterilizations (Smith 86).  Clearly there can be no children in need of a Caring Kommunity if there are no children. CRACK also changed its name to Project Prevention (how ironic, considering our topic here).

Barbara Harris (founder of CRACK) with family members

As problematic as these things are, the real trouble with CRACK/Project Prevention is that it believes “Poor women who are substance abusers are the cause of social ills, and that the conditions that give rise to poor women becoming substance abusers do not need to be addressed” (Smith 86).  This is why they opt for criminalization rather than rehabilitation for these women.  The physical ailments that might plague the baby of a drug abuser mark that baby as not only less valuable than an able-bodied one, but also more burdensome, explains Smith.  She writes, “Lives are of value to the extent that they meet capitalist expectations of self-sufficiency and productivity” (Smith 87).  Disabled children are not valuable because they are perceived as being unable to produce.  If our capitalist society is so driven by production, profit, and money, why does it continue to waste precious funds on incarcerating drug abusers rather than directing a fraction of that money to rehabilitation services and achieving even better results?  

The Justice Policy Institute published a policy report comparing the costs of incarceration versus rehabilitation.  One study done in Maryland yielded these results:

If it costs one fifth of the price to treat a drug offender than to incarcerate them, why isn’t it our go-to method?  Not only would treating women drug abusers cost less, but it would also help to diminish the number of future offenses and therefore future costs of incarceration.  CRACK would be happy to know that it could also lower the risk of babies being born disabled (or as our culture sees it, worthless and burdensome).

The criminalization of drug abusers does not improve our society at all.  Although many of us wonder how a pregnant woman could justify using drugs and potentially harming her baby, the issue goes much deeper than that.  It is about not crossing the line that takes away each woman’s bodily integrity, which is a very blurry line for our culture when it comes to reproductive rights.  The reason for the magnitude of passion for this issue is also not what it seems; as the example of CRACK/Project Prevention proves, the underlying reason for depriving Native women and other women of color the option of bearing children is really a twisted way the dominant white culture shows its distaste for the continued existence of Native peoples and people of color.  

Super Subjectivity of the Fetus and the Christian View

We talk a lot about dichotomies in our WGSS classes, and that applies to the way our country seems to be growing increasingly divided between liberal and conservative groups.  A consequence of this is the way political issues are represented as only having two sides.  As Susan Bordo points out in her article “Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture, and the Body,” this is also true for reproductive rights; the conversation is centered around abortion and only takes the form of pro-life versus pro-choice.  

Bordo emphasizes the importance of expanding the conversation to include more struggles with reproductive justice than just the right for a woman to be able to choose to have an abortion.  One of the points that really stood out to me in this article was the way Bordo points out that our society revokes the bodily integrity of pregnant women.  Breaches of bodily integrity often take place because they are in the interest of the fetus.  She writes, “In this culture the pregnant, poor woman (especially if she is of non European descent) comes as close as a human being can get to being regarded, medically and legally, as a “mere body,” her wishes, desires, dreams, religious scruples of little consequence and easily ignored in (the doctor’s or judge’s estimation of) the interests of fetal well-being” (76).  

Why does our culture justify ignoring the bodily integrity of pregnant women when we are so clearly pro-bodily integrity in all other cases?  (Bordo cites multiple examples of our legal system insisting on the bodily integrity of people in non-pregnancy related situations.  An interesting point was brought up in our class discussion that I think helps to answer that question.  The point was that since our culture attributes super subjectivity to the fetus (more on that later), we feel a moral obligation to protect it and speak for it since it can’t speak for itself.  Since much of the conservative influence in politics is related to Christian beliefs, I think it is fair to suggest that Christian beliefs about childbearing and motherhood may have something to do with this as well.  Consider this excerpt from lifeunited.org, a pro-life website:

“Our sinful nature naturally leads us to consider choices in view of what seems best for our lifestyles, instead of what might help “the least of these.” Abortion is not just a mere “issue,” it is a matter of life and death. A biblical view of abortion and other life issues reflects a deeper, soulful respect for the divine perspective of what it means to be human. When we value human life as God values it, we then understand which choices help protect life and avoid the shedding of innocent blood.” 

Although this passage is aimed specifically at the issue of abortion, the philosophy can be applied to the super subjectivity of the fetus that Bordo is concerned about.  A key point in this passage is the distinction between innocent blood and sinful blood.  The sinful blood belongs to the selfish mother who might dare to choose based on “what seems best for [her] lifestyle” rather than sacrifice autonomy over her own body for the godly work of childbearing.  This idea perpetuates the notion that the woman’s bodily integrity should be overlooked for the sake of the fetus.  The language used here is also telling of the way many Christians believe that the mere connection of sperm and egg is a person, and that life is sacred and ought to be protected.  The latter is not something many people would disagree with.  The problem arises when we start to attribute more value to a clump of developing cells labeled “life” than we do to a grown human with experiences, feelings, desires, and beliefs.  

Another important aspect of this Christian belief is fear of God’s wrath.  The same website that authored the above quote writes, “Psalm 106 also mentions God’s anger over a nation that had been disobedient, and had shed the blood of the innocent.”  No one wants to shed the blood of the innocent, especially if it means a one way ticket to Hell.  The implication made by the language used here is that a pregnant woman who chooses not to carry her pregnancy to term doesn’t have a deep respect of the divine perspective or value human life.  If we accuse women of these qualities, it is no wonder many people tend to side with the “innocent blood” - the fetus.  

Bordo writes, “The disturbing fact remains that increased empathy for the fetus has often gone hand in hand with decreased respect for the autonomy of the mother” (86).  Ultimately, in this view a female fetus has more rights while in the womb than she does when she has grown up and gotten pregnant herself, and Bordo and I both think that there is a serious problem with that. 

Firm Body, Firm Character

Kathleen LeBesco suggests that the body type that is most difficult to maintain is valued the most.  We can extend this idea to moral character and personal habits as well - the most difficult habits to maintain (the ones that require the most discipline) are the most desirable.  The problem lies in how we assume that practicing those difficult-to-maintain habits automatically produces the valuable body type.  In reality, valuable characteristics, such as a good work ethic and self-control, aren’t always tied to food and exercise.  A person may have excellent self control in her work - always handing projects in on time and staying late at work even when she really wants to go home to see her family, but she might also happen to be overweight.  Just because someone focuses on one aspect of her life (her work) more than another (her body) doesn’t mean that she is lazy or undisciplined; it just proves that we can’t know someone’s personal habits and character based on observing their physical body.  LeBesco says that fatness carries certain negative connotations with it, such as laziness and dirtiness.  These connotations are all based on our propensity to try to see physical manifestations of internal character.  Perhaps this is one of the more potent reasons for our societal acceptance of thin, toned bodies, and our revulsion for fat bodies.

In addition to writing the article we read for class, “The Male Body,”  Susan Bordo is also the author of an enlightening piece called “Reading the Slender Body.”  This piece is very relevant to the discussion about fat that LeBesco begins.  The article explores some of the negative connotations of fatness that LeBesco identifies in Revolting Bodies.  I think one of Bordo’s most applicable ideas is that it is specifically the lack of firmness that is off-putting about fat bodies, not necessarily that their actual size is too large.  This concept explains why the bodies of men that Bordo examines in “The Male Body” are always so firm and muscular.  The “flab” is what we identify as visual evidence of inner laziness and lack of control.  It also draws an obvious connection between how we perceive someone’s outward appearance to reflect their inner self.

In chapter four of Revolting Bodies, LeBesco expands on this sentiment: “Fatness marks the individual as a failed citizen in a number of ways: as not of the dominant social class, as an inadequate worker and consumer” (59).  She is touching on another very important idea here: since slenderness must be bought here in the West with gym memberships, leisure time to go to the gym, and funds for expensive healthy food, it is much more attainable for folks who belong to a higher class.  This association of fatness with lower classes is also why our culture finds it so unattractive. 

“The key to achieving and maintaining a healthy weight isn't about short-term dietary changes. It's about a lifestyle that includes healthy eating, regular physical activity, and balancing the number of calories you consume with the number of calories your body uses.  Staying in control of your weight contributes to good health now and as you age” 

  - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

In “Reading the Slender Body,” Bordo writes, “On the one hand, as producers of goods and services we must sublimate, delay, repress desires for immediate gratification; we must cultivate the work ethic.  On the other hand, as consumers we must display a boundless capacity to capitulate to desire and indulge in impulse; we must hunger for constant and immediate satisfaction.”  Fat bodies are perceived as inherently unable to be good consumers while simultaneously they are scolded and looked down upon for being apparently being unable to overcome the desire to consume.  The temptations that 

Bordo mentions which are thrown in our faces are yet more obstacles we have to overcome to be well-managed, well-controlled individual bodies.  The excerpt above from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website is proof straight from the government itself that people are expected to control their bodies, as if bodies are inherently unruly.  If they are not policed, they will wander toward chaos - which in this case is obesity.  

Who Benefits from Feminine Self-Presentation?

Although it wasn’t a main point in the chapter, I was intrigued by Julia Serano’s view on the commonly held idea that how a women chooses to dress and adorn her body exists to please men.  In the chapter “Putting the Feminine Back into Feminism” from her book Whipping Girl, she writes, “Clearly, it’s the idea that feminine self-presentation exists for men’s benefit that is oppressive to women, not the acts of self-presentation themselves” (Serano 328).  I agree that that notion is oppressive, but I also believe that there is nothing wrong with a woman dressing for attention, whether it is from friends, strangers, men, or women.  By investigating who is actually benefitting from feminine self-presentation, we can easily see that those two ideas are not mutually exclusive. 

This investigation is a way for us to pivot the center.  Let’s start with a very typical scenario: 

A woman is getting ready to go out for a night on the town with a few of her female friends.  She puts on a sexy dress and heels, and takes time to do her hair and makeup, thinking of all the cute guys that might smile at her and buy her drinks because they think she’s pretty.  In this scenario, it is true that she is taking such care in her appearance so that men will notice her and be pleased with what they see, but it is not them she wishes to benefit - it is herself.  She puts on that dress because it makes her feel sexy.  She does her hair and makeup that way because she knows it’s flattering.  The positive attention she receives tonight is attention that she seeks for her own benefit, just like she chooses her outfit because she feels attractive in it.  She desires the male attention because it makes her feel good and confident, not because she is trying to make any men feel good.

In this article, Serano writes something that I think needs a little clarification:

  

This myth—that feminine dress is primarily designed to attract male attention—exists for a single reason: It enables the societal-wide sexualization of women. After all, if we believe that she wore a pretty dress today because she is trying to pique men’s interests, then suddenly catcalls, sexual innuendos and ogling seem legitimate (because she was essentially “asking for” that attention). And if she says that she is not interested in a man’s sexual advances, well then she must be sending “mixed messages,” because she was clearly trying to “tempt” or “tease” him given the way she was dressed.

There is another important distinction that we need to make here, and that is the one between dressing for “attention” and dressing for “positive attention.”  No one that I can think of would dress with the intention of receiving negative attention.  Unwanted attention can never be legitimate because it is just that: unwanted.  The burden needs to be placed on the shoulders of those who would catcall or ogle on the assumption that a woman is seeking attention because of her self-presentation.  Regardless of whether or not she is seeking attention, the potential harasser needs to recognize that it is still just an assumption.  There is no way to know if she dressed for herself or not, so the only logical solution is to treat her with respect.  They need to know the difference between giving her an appropriate compliment and verbally harassing her.  The key idea here is that presenting oneself with the hopes of receiving positive male attention does not give a green light for negative attention too. 

It’s worth noting that although women do sometimes dress for men, they also dress for their friends, for strangers, and for many other reasons.  On page 327, Serano writes:

Feminine self-presentation tends to highly correlate with a more general desire to surround oneself with beautiful or aesthetically pleasing objects and materials... The idea that this trait exists primarily to pique men’s interest seems unlikely to me, as most straight men I know seem rather disinterested in the way their homes are decorated, and often are completely oblivious when their female partners don new outfits or hairstyles.

This backs up the claim that women dress for each other as well.  If I am going out with some friends, for example, I can confidently say that my outfit is nearly always influenced by which friends I’m seeing.  Whether consciously or not, I know that different friend groups will appreciate different styles and notice different things about my self-presentation.  In a way, I dress to please them, but the compliments they give me and the feeling of comfort and belonging (maybe even unity?) that I have is benefitting me.  There are some enlightening statistics that deal with women dressing for other women here.  

With all of that said, the last thing I think we need to address is the notion many of us hold that women who seek attention or affirmation are somehow lacking in self-esteem.  It’s unreasonable to suggest that just because someone enjoys positive attention, it means that they are insecure.  Everyone enjoys positive attention!  We need to recognize that enjoying positive attention doesn’t necessarily mean you have low self-esteem.  It’s also important to consider that there is nothing wrong with complimenting a girl who does have low self-esteem - it may help her become more confident with herself over time.

Scientists Exist in the Cultural Atmosphere Too!

        While reading the chapter “Dueling Dualisms” from Anne Fausto-Sterling’s book Sexing the Body, I took note of one particularly thought-provoking comment she made just a few pages in: “Through their daily lives, experiments, and medical practices - scientists create truths about sexuality; how our bodies incorporate and confirm these truths; and how these truths, sculpted by the social milieu in which biologists practice their trade, in turn refashion our cultural environment” (Fausto-Sterling 5).  She is arguing that medical professionals create the truths about human bodies that they think they already see.  I think this topic is worth some serious investigation, considering (as Fausto-Sterling says) that the kind views and biases of medical professionals come through in the language they use and especially the way they interpret their findings.  

  This passage stood out to me because it made me question the very thing that our society always relies on to verify or refute theories - science.  I think sometimes we forget (I certainly had) that science requires scientists, that those scientists have their own biases, and that those biases can never be completely removed from the scientist’s work.  Science is not as objective as we assume; it still has a very strong human element, and that element is far more influential than we give it credit for.  This passage in Fausto-Sterling’s book reminded me of an article I read last year in Intro to Women’s Studies called The Egg and the Sperm by Emily Martin.  In her article, Martin discusses the way that medical professionals talk about the reproductive functions of male and female bodies differently.  She writes that the texts explaining these functions “have an almost dogged insistence on casting female processes in a negative light. The texts celebrate sperm production because it is continuous from puberty to senescence, while they portray egg production as inferior because it is finished at birth. This makes the female seem unproductive, but some texts will also insist that it is she who is wasteful” (Martin 488).  The example that Martin gives here shows how biology texts that seem merely informative can plant a bias in the minds of the readers by using language that carries certain connotations.  The issue Martin is commenting on is the propensity for people to view masculine traits and functions positively while feminine traits and functions are viewed negatively.  To her, this seems to suggest that this propensity extends beyond biology and into our culture.

  Fausto-Sterling is making a similar argument in the passage above, but with another perspective: not only are the biases of those in charge of identifying and classifying humans (both medically and politically) reflected in their work, but their work also shapes the way that the people being classified perceive themselves and others.  Fausto-Sterling’s phrase “sculpted by the social milieu” is a striking and thought-provoking one that sums this idea up well.  The way that scientists see the world influences how we see the world because they are the ones who do the grunt work to find out how everything works, then pass it along to us.  Unfortunately, many of them grow up believing in the dichotomous view of sex, the limited view of gender, and the traditional view of how the two ideas relate to one another because that is the atmosphere they were raised in.  As a result, the way we perceive the world (and ourselves!) relies on the way scientists present it to us. 

  While Martin is talking about bodily functions in a way that doesn’t question lines of sex or gender, Fausto-Sterling is taking the conversation one step further by asking what kind of damage is being done by the medical terminology used to classify people who aren’t definitely male or female.  The way that this kind of power goes unrecognized is what really caught my attention, especially because I think the people in question should have more of a say in what terms they are identified by in both medical and social settings. The power of a name is much stronger than we think.  In Feminist and Queer Theory, there was a discussion about the amount of backlash from implementing gender neutral bathrooms at Allegheny, but how no one complains about single-stall restrooms at places like bars that can be used by anyone.  The two restrooms are exactly the same, but something about the connotation of the term “gender neutral” makes people uncomfortable.  If we just called every single stall bathroom a restroom, I highly doubt there would be so much complaining.  The point, though, is that what we call something greatly affects the way we perceive it.  The discussion in Fausto-Sterling’s “Dueling Dualisms” is about what to call people who are not definitely male or female, but have body parts and qualities generally seen in both sexes. Perhaps even they would choose a name not exactly right, since their understanding of their own bodies is swayed by the way they are taught that the sex binary is black and white and gender classifications are hardly any better.

        How can we fix this problem? It seems like the only solution is to somehow reevaluate all the things we think we know about sex, gender, sexuality, and the body through enlightened eyes... But can we ever achieve that enlightened state when our culture is so ingrained in us and we in it?  I think it would be a good start to take a look at who has the power to decide what kind of language we use and how scientific findings are interpreted.  Maybe once we do that, or even through doing that, we will be able to adopt a more accurate view of our intricate bodies and desires.