More Honest Times at Ridgemont High

Jennifer Jason Leigh as Stacy Hamilton

Last Sunday, Channel Four screened the 1982 movie “Fast Times at Ridgemont High”, one of the first and arguably best of the “teen” movie genre, which features a whole heap of actors who went to become big stars, like Sean Penn (as the stoner surfer Jeff Spicoli), Jennifer Jason Leigh (the main female character, high schooler Stacy Hamilton) and Judge Reinhold (Stacy’s elder brother Brad). In the movie, Stacy gets pregnant to the slick-talking, premature ejaculating Mike Damone. With no fuss, and admirable determination, she asks him to split the $150 cost of an abortion at the local free clinic. “Doesn’t sound free to me,” Mike tells her. But he agrees to pay his share, and give her a ride to the clinic.

About now, in pretty much every contemporary movie  or TV show that dares to touch the abortion issue (and that’s not many), Stacy will suffer a lot of angst and will eventually decide not to go through with the abortion. She will then either have a convenient miscarriage or a baby. (The 2010 Ben Stiller move, “Greenberg” is a notable exception, as is the lol episode of The Sarah Silverman Program “Bored of the Rings” in which Sarah finds out the community group she recently joined is a radical anti-abortion group planning to bomb on the clinic where her sister, Laura, volunteers. Here’s a clip of Sarah fondly remembering her past abortions there.)

Pro-choice morsels (19 Dec)

Some links from the past couple of weeks:

The UK Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AMRC) last week published the world’s largest, most comprehensive and systematic review of mental health outcomes and abortion care, the conclusion of which is that abortions do not increase a woman’s chance of developing mental health problems. RH Reality Check has a good summary (and a link to the AMRC website, where you can download a copy of the full review).

DJ Jay Smooth has some thoughts about the ‘Until Abortion Ends’ videos.

The Abortioneers write abortion haiku (I think I might have a go at that too).

And check out this nifty comparison of various birth control methods.

—Feel free to share any good posts/articles/other bits and pieces with us in a comment.—

Book Review: How to Be a Woman

How to Be a Woman, by Caitlin Moran

(Ebury Press, 2011.)

REVIEWED BY CAITLIN MERRIMAN

FIRST OF ALL, Caitlin Moran clearly has a superior first name, which bodes well. How To Be A Woman, described on the back cover as “part memoir, part rant” begins, as many memoirs seem to, with our protagonist being chased through a park on her 13^th birthday by a bunch of boys with rocks. Moran recalls her first teenaged experiences with equal parts humour and chagrin, managing to transmit her awkwardness to the reader without being too cringey. A warning to all potential readers: if you feel uncomfortable at the thought of long descriptions of pubescent adventures in masturbation, musings on vaginas and their furnishings and a rather harrowing description of childbirth, this book may not be for you.

Moran’s memoir is a sort of journey through feminism, as she has lived it. Though she discusses her admiration of academic feminists like Germaine Greer, she points out several issues with mainstream academic (Western) feminism, such as Greer’s incredible, unforgiveable transmisogyny, and the Dworkin-esque stance towards pornography which has been the subject of many a debate for a couple of decades. How To Be A Woman describes the many instances in Moran’s life when she felt legitimately confused and unsure of exactly how she was supposed to do things, ranging from a hilarious chapter on what exactly to call her genitalia (some great suggestions being ‘ducky,’ ‘cupcake,’ ‘pasta shell,’ ‘Yorkshire pudding’ and my personal favourite: ‘Birmingham City Centre’) to a rant about the absurd amount of time women are expected to spend ridding themselves of body hair.

Guest Post: Abortion as Society’s Mirror

by Alison McCulloch

The discussion sparked by Richard Boock’s blog posts (“A Woman’s Right to Choose” and “Defending Your Right to An Opinion”) got me thinking about the how so many moral debates wind up with abortion as their end point. It’s not breaking news that societies tend to act out so many of their moral fears and panics by restricting sexual expression and reproductive rights. That they use contraception and abortion as tools to try to control what they fear or disapprove of. New Zealand has its own long history of doing this, be it trying to get white women to have children in order to avoid “race suicide” to keeping contraceptive information away from teenagers for fear of runaway teen sex – or something.

In a society that devalues certain groups, like those with Down syndrome or others who don’t fit a particular mold, as ours does, again we find the sharp end of the debate being focused on abortion. As if this, and so many other problems, could be solved if only women would stop having abortions for the “wrong” reasons.

The Road Ahead for Choice

With the final election results in and Cabinet posts announced, it’s clear that things are going to get tougher for supporters of reproductive rights in the coming parliamentary term.

Abortion was invisible as an election issue in 2011, largely as a result of more ominous threats such as the global economy, environmental damage and climate change and the more immediate concerns of earthquakes, mine disasters, interruption to gas supplies and a shipwreck. And then there was all the hype around the rugby world cup. Women’s health was once again relegated to the bottom of the list of things to address. Abortion still suffers from the stigma of being seen as a controversial and divisive issue rather than as a straightforward matter of health, justice and rights. Not one party mentioned it in their manifesto. 

From Our Files: The 1970s Abortion Lottery

This entry is part of an occasional “From Our Files” series in which we dig through ALRANZ newsletters and related files to give readers a bit of insight into the recent history (post-1960s) of the struggle for reproductive rights in New Zealand. All the entries are listed here.

Excerpts from the first annual report of ALRANZ for the year ending December 31, 1971.

“The saddest part of the year’s work has been answering the large number of men and women who have come to us for help about an unwanted pregnancy. We can only advise that the legal approach is through the patient’s general practitioner, and we are continually being hurt by our knowledge of how differently these doctors react. Some of our questioners have sufficient money to travel to other countries, in which case we advise of the situation in the country they hope will help them. It is a very difficult situation we find ourselves in, knowing as we do, that persistence and money can often result in a successful abortion. Our enquirers include medical practitioners asking for help for their patients. … The intelligent articulate and well-to-do are finding it easier to get abortions for themselves, or for their wives, daughters or girl friends. Sometimes they get them in New Zealand, sometimes in Australia, America, England or other countries. When we hear of a family selling their house to send the woman back home to England because another pregnancy is intolerable, and then hear of another woman in almost identical circumstances getting an abortion at a Public Hospital at no cost to the family, we realise that education of the doctors as to what is the practice of their fellow practitioners is of prime importance. We are not so naïve as to believe that the law is always strictly fair, but it is impossible to find any other area covered by our criminal code, where the practice is so varied, with such far reaching results in human misery.”

BACKGROUND

Prior to the 1977 Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act, and the associated amendments to the Crimes Act, New Zealand’s abortion laws were essentially replicas of England’s 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which included prison terms of up to 14 years for those performing an illegal abortion and seven years for the woman. The only ground for abortion was “preservation of the life of the mother”.

Choice and Antenatal Screening

An interesting debate has been sparked on screening and abortion by Richard Boock’s recent blog post both on the post itself and over at The Hand Mirror. Anti-abortion advocates have also weighed in, of course. This is an important discussion to have. As Anthea notes over on THM, pro-choice advocates don’t want to alienate those engaged in the disability rights struggle since we, too, oppose discrimination and the devaluing of any particular group. I think it’s worth remembering, too, that anti-abortion advocates want to take away the reproductive rights of all of us, including people with Down syndrome, and that anti-abortion campaigners don’t equal disability rights campaigners.

I thought it might be useful to post an article from ALRANZ’s August Newsletter on this issue that gives a bit of background about why this has become a hot topic:

Choice and Antenatal Screening

IN FEBRUARY 2010, the Ministry of Health introduced a new screening programme that included safer and better funded first and second trimester screening for Down syndrome (trisomy 21) and other conditions including trisomy 13 (Patau syndrome), trisomy 18 (Trisomy E or Edwards syndrome), neural tube defects, and some rare metabolic and genetic disorders. The screening offered is largely (but not entirely) state-funded, and is voluntary.

Pro-choice morsels

A few quick links to start the week with:

The Abortioneers explain why it matters that Apple’s Siri can help you find almost anything you could possibly want, so long as it’s not information about birth control, or an abortion clinic. (Their original post about Siri’s apparent anti-choice bias is here.)

Feminists for Choice report that a group of nurses in New Jersey are refusing to assist with providing pre- and post-operative care for abortion patients, even in emergency situations. Their lawsuit is due to be heard today.

For those of you who like to listen to podcasts, why don’t you check out RealityCast, ”a weekly half-hour of news, commentary, homour, interviews and mailbag questions about reproductive health and rights”, presented by Amanda Marcotte from RH Reality Check.

Planned Parenthood NYC have put together a handy guide to discussing reproductive health and justice at the holiday table.

And, closer to home, we LOVE this response to our post about John Banks.

Medical Refusal Rights Must be Regulated Before More Women Die

Dr. Leslie Cannold  is an Australian-based author, commentator, ethicist and activist who played a key role in the successful campaign in Victoria to decriminalise abortion. Thanks to  Dr. Cannold for allowing us to post her recent article about “conscientious objection”, which is also available at her Website.

by Leslie Cannold

In 2008, Victoria repealed all abortion related sections from the Crimes Act. Among the provisions of the Abortion Law Reform Act that attracted opprobrium from the approximately 4% of Australians who oppose abortion in all circumstances was section 8, the conscience clause.

Often misrepresented in public debates by opponents of legal abortion, the clause attempts to balance a woman’s rights (her right to autonomy, religious freedom, timely medical and reproductive healthcare) against an individual health practitioner’s right to conscientious refusal. It does this by requiring the practitioners to inform the woman of his objection and to refer the woman to a qualified practitioner who does not object.

Only in an emergency – where the refusal of the practitioners to perform an abortion means the woman will die – does the law deny practitioners an exemption to their standing obligation to treat.

Conflict over medical refusal rights is a red-hot issue across the world. This is because conscientious refusal is largely unregulated and, as a result, there has been an explosion of individuals and institutions refusing care to a growing pool of patients.