OPINION & EDITORIAL
Local front of war on women’s rights
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mohammed Abed:
- Israeli plan actually hurts Palestinians (September 8, 2005)
- Conservative ideology failed victims (September 15, 2005)
- Local front of war on women's rights (September 22, 2005)
- Case for divesting from Israeli interests (September 30, 2005)
- Columbus anything but a national hero (October 13, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Religion interferes with FDA ruling (November 21, 2005)
- Fieldbinder - Abstinence-only education lacking (December 2, 2005)
- Potential pitfalls abound for Plan B (November 29, 2006)
- UHS, Planned Parenthood should rethink access to pill (October 29, 2007)
- A good Plan (May 3, 2007)
by Mohammed Abed
Thursday, September 22, 2005
On June 16, 2005, the Republican controlled State Assembly of Wisconsin voted 49-41 in favor of Bill 343, the so-called "UW Birth Control Ban." The bill prohibits University of Wisconsin System health-care centers from advertising, prescribing or dispensing emergency contraception. The drug at issue is otherwise known as Plan B, or "the morning-after pill." The pill provides a high dose of regular birth control that can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent if it's taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.
Bill 343 was introduced by State Rep. Daniel LeMahieu, R-Oostburg, after UW Health Services published ads inviting students to request prescriptions of the drug before they left for Spring Break. The state Senate has not yet approved the measure and it's expected to be vetoed by Gov. Jim Doyle. Elizabeth Nash of the Alan Guttmacher Institute points out that the assembly vote makes Wisconsin the first state to seriously consider banning emergency contraception on college campuses. Similar bills in Virginia have foundered in the past two years.
Rep. LeMahieu seems to be worried that by ensuring women know they can have access to the contraceptive, UW Health Services will be using our tax dollars to condone irresponsible and promiscuous sexual behavior. In citing this "reason" for introducing the legislation, Rep. LeMahieu conveniently omits the following piece of relevant information: the FDA has already conducted six independent studies confirming that even expanded over-the-counter access to "Plan B" does not, in any way, increase sexual activity among young teens. Unless Rep. LeMahieu would like to insist that UW undergraduates are less aware and responsible than young teens, then he ought to accept the obvious fact that these empirical studies undermine his principle reason for introducing Bill 343.
But perhaps its not promiscuity and "irresponsible sexual conduct" per se that Rep. LeMahieu objects to but rather the idea that women are free to engage in sexual activity whenever they want with whomever they want while retaining full control over their own bodies, irrespective of what the government or fundamentalist pressure groups may think about their choices. As many people have pointed out, Bill 343 is vaguely worded and abstract enough to justify prohibiting UW pharmacies from dispensing all forms of birth control to thousands of female college students, presumably because taking the pill allows them to engage in the terrible sin of having sex multiple times for the sake of something other than procreation.
Keen observers will also have noticed that social conservatives tend to apply their "values" or "morals" in very selective ways. If we assume for the sake of argument that Rep. LeMahieu is actually concerned with the rise of irreverent attitudes towards the sexual "act" rather than sexual freedom for women, then we could be forgiven for wondering why the text of his legislation doesn't include a proposal to ban UW clinics from prescribing or dispensing Viagra. After all, the absence of an erection increases the likelihood that male college students will abstain from engaging in the sacred act of penetration that bothers Rep. LeMahieu so much. But the story is that sex within the bounds of marriage has a different moral quality, so why not introduce further nuances into the legislation by making access to Viagra contingent on producing proof of marriage at the pharmacy?
Bill 343 and the discourse in which it is embedded is not some "isolated incident" or "freak event." It is, as the title suggests, the local front of a war on women waged by the combined forces of traditional social conservatism and right-wing Christian fundamentalism. The latter group has been a consistent base of political support for the Bush administration and is now being amply rewarded for its efforts. A quick glance at the national debate over Plan B provides a clear illustration of how the administration has subordinated the legitimate interests and concerns of women to the reactionary and atavistic social outlook of these groups.
In early 2003, Barr Pharmaceuticals submitted an application to the Food and Drug Administration requesting that Plan B be made available to the general public without a prescription, just as members of the general public can walk into a pharmacy and buy a packet of condoms, another subversive tool that encourages "irresponsible sex," Orwellian doublespeak for "sex outside of marriage and for purposes other than procreation," and "undermines parent's message of abstinence" as Rep. Leah Vukmir, R-Wauwatosa, claimed that educating students about Plan B would do. Eight months after Barr submitted its application, an FDA advisory committee voted overwhelmingly (23 to 4) to recommend that Plan B be sold over-the-counter.
Rigorous scientific investigation had shown the drug to be both safe and effective. The advisory committee made it clear that good empirical evidence exists to show that easy access to Plan B would help significantly in preventing unintended pregnancies and this in turn would reduce the need for abortions.
Given that Plan B is not itself an abortifacient, could it be that misogyny is a higher "value" than "life" for the members of the advisory committee who voted against over-the-counter sales of the drug? There's more than a hint that this may be true in the case of Dr. David Hager, a Bush appointee to the FDA advisory committee. In both his medical practice and through his advisory role at the FDA, Hager's religious beliefs have grounded his opposition to emergency contraception, abortion and premarital sex. In his numerous books, Hager outlines a theory of gender relations according to which "good" men act as benevolent "protectors" and authority figures whose job it is to "guide" women towards "appropriate" life decisions. Unfortunately, no one was there to protect Linda Carruth Davis — Hager's ex-wife — when he repeatedly raped and abused her throughout their long marriage (see "Dr. Hager's Family Values" by Ayelish McGarvey, The Nation, May 30).
But why be concerned about the opinion of one person? Concern is an apt reaction when an individual's ideological orientation allows him or her to have a disproportionate influence on the policies of the federal government. With the 2004 election looming on the horizon, Bush administration officials became concerned that the advisory committee's recommendation would not sit well with the right-wing evangelical communities whose votes Bush was depending on. As a result, the FDA was pressured into requesting that Hager write a "minority opinion" to further amplify his concern that over-the-counter sales would contribute to an increase in sexual activity amongst younger teens, a view that had already been discredited by several of the FDA's own studies.
Nevertheless, reason and scientific evidence were set aside and the FDA rejected the committee's recommendation, to the detriment of millions of women around the country. In July 2004, the manufacturer of Plan B submitted a second application based on a compromise formulation that would allow over-the-counter access to women over the age of 16. No decision has yet been reached; the compromise formulation is mired in controversy, partly as a result of stiff opposition from the religious and secular right.
Whether it's in Wisconsin or in the halls of the FDA, the drive to make government policy responsive to the demands of sectarian ideologies — whether they are secular or religious — is a dangerous road to take. Invariably, the institutionalization of ideological conformity requires the abuse and violation of whole categories of people. This situation is no different (and likely worse) in the case of women.
Mohammed Abed (mabed@badgerherald.com) is a lecturer in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He would like to thank Henry Breitrose, Professor of Communication at Stanford University, for his FEMA timeline.
Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 12:48am):
Wow, so far Mohammad confines his writing to criticizing Jews/Israelis and religious Christians. When someone constantly critiques the same people over and over again, shouldn't this lead to some questions? Imagine if someone criticized African Americans over and over. At some point people should be asking about Mohammad's racism and hatred towards those different from him (namely Jews and religious Christians).
Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 2:09am):
Thank you very much, Mohammed, for writing about a topic other than the usual Israel-bashing. This article was very insightful and very well-written. Keep up the good work!
Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 8:55am):
Those nasty Republicans!
They should handle it it all according the Sharia. Of course there'd need to be some slight adjustments to allow for the wife beating and honor killings this would involve.
Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 9:58am):
This is rich, coming from a person whose culture is the unquestioned leader in constraining women's sexual freedom. Do the dems know you are speaking on their behalf, Abed? I think even they have standards.
Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 11:11am):
I find it humorous that the guy who cheers suicide bombers will say that "the drive to make government policy responsive to the demands of sectarian ideologies -- whether they are secular or religious -- is a dangerous road to take."
Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 4:30pm):
As the first to actually comment on the article written here I'd like to say, "nice job." There is no reason that Plan B is not being sold over-the-counter other than the fact that a few in power believe women's sexual freedom must be restricted.
Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 5:43pm):
i think we have to encourage women to have anal sex as a form of resistance to the oppressive conservative ideologues.
Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 6:11pm):
When I read the draft of this article, I was joking with Mohammed about the comments he'd be getting from ignorant little brats whose tiny brains can't accept the idea that a person named Mohammed could possibly be a feminist.
Sure enough, here you are, proudly trumpeting your small-minded racist stupidity. He even predicted some of these almost word for word. He has been hearing this crap his whole life and laughs it off. But it pisses me off, so cut it out.
Mohammed Abed is a man of personal integrity and moral conviction. You may disagree with him on one issue or another, but at least meet him on his level, with facts and reasoned argument. Don't just put together the two things you've ever heard about Arabs in your sheltered little life, and spit them back out as bigoted insults. You're just embarrassing yourself and your university.
Oh, and by the way, by ignoring the content of the piece to mock its author, you're ignoring a genuine risk to your reproductive rights--or those of your sister or girlfriend. Grow up already and get involved --at least call your representatives. As they say, ignore your rights and they'll go away.
V Ravenscroft-Scott
former student
(not afraid to sign my name, just don't want to start getting emails from the damn BH)
Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 7:15pm):
Hahaha...male...feminist...sorry, that's hilarious!
Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 8:27pm):
It's not Mohammed's name - it's all he's written in the past which indicates he is an Islamic fascist which make me laugh about him writing about womens rights.
Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 9:00pm):
I didn't look at the author's name before reading the article...I was surprised to see who it was after reading the article. It's difficult to ignore the source of any article, and in fact, it's necessary to determine any biases that may be present in the message. It would be like reading an article written by Barr Pharmaceuticals regarding all the benefits of Plan B, and not considering the fact that they may have a financial interest in how the article is perceived. If Mr. Abed has a history of bashing the right, that fact needs to be taken into account when others read the article.
That having been said, I've got to say I'm against Plan B - especially over the counter!!! I'm a firm believer in holding people accountable for their actions, and Plan B promotes the exact opposite of that tenet. To exacerbate that issue, we're going to allow anyone to pick up the product without consulting a pharmacist or physician about the possible side effects??? At a time when so many people are blaming the federal government for "not caring about the poor/blacks" in Louisiana, we have people on the same side of the aisle now pronouncing that the same people that weren't educated enough to heed a mandatory evacuation order are going to be intelligent enough to make decisions on their health be themselves?
Anonymous (September 22, 2005 @ 9:14pm):
This has nothing to do with "female sexual or reproductive rights". This has to do with taking the lives on tiny, undeveloped children, whether it is 3 months after conception, or 48 hours after. A life is a life. Liberals, deny this all you want. It must make you feel better about yourselves to live in a world of denial.
Anonymous (September 23, 2005 @ 1:03am):
"I was joking with Mohammed about the comments he'd be getting from ignorant little brats whose tiny brains can't accept the idea that a person named Mohammed could possibly be a feminist.
Sure enough, here you are, proudly trumpeting your small-minded racist stupidity."
Really, maybe people are just tired of a person named Mohammad criticizing religious Christians. Doesn't seem that politically correct for someone outside Christianity to continually critique religious Christians.
Its funny how Mohammad condemns "right-wing Christian fundamentalism" yet never condemns Islamic fundamentalism. Lets see, right wing Christians oppose birth control. Islamic fundamentalists blow innocent people up on a continual basis. It's not that difficult to figure out which is worse.
In fact, rather than condemn Islamic fundamentalists, as he does Christian fundamentalists, Mohammad continually serves as an appologist for them. He blames the U.S., Great Britain, et.al. for the horrific murders done by Islamic fundamentalists.
People are getting tired of Mohammad's tirades against religious Christians and Jews. His hatred towards those that are different from him is appalling. It is time he gains some respect for those with ideological, racial, and religious differences than himself. Until then, his articles need not be respected.
Anonymous (September 23, 2005 @ 1:31am):
Mohammad is for women's rights. Unless they are innocent Jewish Israeli women on buses or in restaurants. In that case, its clear where he stands.
Anonymous (September 23, 2005 @ 12:14pm):
I read the article and I thought, wow, UW has some intelligence in their student body. Then I read the comments, which were, for the most part, racist and just plain dumb. No wonder University of Michigan is perennially ranked higher, you're all a bunch of backwards rednecks. I can imagine you hicks sitting around, drinking Miller Rights, "'dem Mohamadens be some dirty towel heads, yee haawww, les kill dem all." You should all be embarrassed.
Anonymous (September 23, 2005 @ 2:07pm):
"Miller Rights"? Wow, you are criticizing others on intelligence? I guess you should stop yee hawwwing at others and learn to spell.
Anonymous (September 23, 2005 @ 3:52pm):
it's called a typo genius. you know that one's abilities at typing is not a guage of intelligence. you do understand that right?
Anonymous (September 23, 2005 @ 5:39pm):
No one here cares where Mohammad is from or what religious beliefs, if any, he holds. Everyone is just sick of him criticizing religious Christians and Jews/Israelis constantly. He never has a good thing to say about either Christians or Jews. Every week its the same hate filled rants of someone with a grudge against specific groups of people. It's time people ask if Mohammad is the racist one. After all, he keeps criticizing Jews, Israelis, and Christians.
Anonymous (September 23, 2005 @ 5:39pm):
No one here cares where Mohammad is from or what religious beliefs, if any, he holds. Everyone is just sick of him criticizing religious Christians and Jews/Israelis constantly. He never has a good thing to say about either Christians or Jews. Every week its the same hate filled rants of someone with a grudge against specific groups of people. It's time people ask if Mohammad is the racist one. After all, he keeps criticizing Jews, Israelis, and Christians.
