The Handmaid’s Tale Comes to Life

Lucinda Marshall

The hijacking of abortion rights as a bargaining chip for the provision of health care is morally reprehensible and if it stands will result in significant harms to women’s health. Yet this is only one aspect of reproductive rights.

This article originally appeared on Feminist Peace Network.

Shortly before the Senate approved its version of  health care reform legislation, I quiped that I was re-reading Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale in order to get psyched for the vote.  Truthfully, it was only partly said in jest.

 

The hijacking of abortion rights as a bargaining chip for the
provision of health care is morally reprehensible and if it stands will
result in significant harms to women’s health. As women’s health advocates
are working full tilt to try to stop this from happening, there is an
uncomfortable sense of having been here before.  How is it  possible
that we have to fight  for the right to choose to have an abortion all
over again?

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Blasphemous as it might sound, I think that part of the problem is the word choice, which sounds ever so frivolous compared to the right to life
We’re not deciding which pair of shoes to buy. We are fighting for the
human right to make decisions about our own  lives.  Full stop. As M. Gabriela Alcalde, Director of the Kentucky Health Justice Network told me in an e-mail correspondance,

We should stop talking about the morality of individuals
and think about the morality of not providing necessary health care to
individuals and communities.  Government’s job is to worry about
systems working, government’s moral obligation is to assure that groups
or classes of people are not excluded from society’s benefits or carry
disproportionately society’s burdens. Abortion is necessary when seen
from a public health perspective.  In countries where it is illegal,
maternal mortality is higher, infants are abandoned at higher rates
(look at Romania), and overall maternal and child health is compromised.

Just as critically, we need to not lose sight of the fact that
abortion is only one aspect of reproductive rights. There are many
other aspects to women’s health care in addition to abortion that need
to be assured.  According to Alcalde,

Abortion should not be thought of separately from
prenatal care, birthing, and other reproductive and maternal health
services and experiences.  Separating it from the experience of
pregnancy in general is a huge mistake.

As I’ve noted before,  according to the National Women’s Law Center,

Maternity coverage continues to be largely unavailable
in the individual health insurance market, with virtually no
improvement in access to this essential health coverage from 2008 to
2009. NWLC examined over 3,600 individual health insurance policies
offered to 30-year-old women living in capital cities across the
country for 2009, and found that only 468 of those plans—or 13%—include
any coverage for maternity care.

NWLC
also notes that only the current House bill prohibits the treatment of
domestic violence as a pre-existing condition and that there are still
very significant concerns about the affordability of health care which
is more likely to impact women, who earn less than men and are less
likely to be covered through an employer.

While these are the primary issues that are on the table in regard
to the current  legislation, the reality is that there are other
significant women’s reproductive health issues that need to be
addressed.

In, “Sowing The Seeds Of Reproductive Justice In Kentucky” (Collective Voices, Fall, 2009), Alcalde points for instance to problems faced by Latina women,

Some reproductive health challenges that Latinas face
once in the U.S. include a high uninsured rate, low prenatal care rate,
high and rising HIV/AIDS rates, high maternal mortality rate, high
cervical cancer rate, and a high unintended pregnancy rate. 
Additionally, Latinas have a lower contraceptive use rate and have a
higher contraceptive failure rate than other groups of women in the
U.S..

Other issues that come to mind include the high c-section rate in
the U.S., affordable contraception on campuses and access to rape
crisis and abortion services in the military, and the insistence in
many parts of the country on the use of doctors (inevitably in high
cost hospital settings) instead of midwives to deliver babies.

One of the critical mis-steps in the health care debate was the
reduction of the issue to  one of insurance coverage rather than health
care provision.  In regards to women’s health, additional damage has
been done by allowing abortion to be addressed separate from the
overall issue of reproductive health.

In “How To Talk About Reproductive Justice” (Collective Voices, Fall, 2009), Loretta Ross
provides a useful framework for a more comprehensive solution when she
defines reproductive justice as, “the right of every human being to
have a child, not have a child, and parent a child.”

We  need to insist that abortion not be held hostage, nor can we
allow it to be split apart from the right to full reproductive health
rights for all women at a fair and equitable price.  That abortion is
being used as a bargaining chip for these basic human rights  is a bald
effort to control women’s lives and is unacceptable.

To fully understand this patriarchal power play, it is useful to
look at the current health care reform debate from a global context. 
These are but a few examples:

1.  While the population control drumbeat gets louder as we become
more aware of the implications of climate change, it bears recognition
that we are very callously already practicing exactly that by the
denial of the relatively small amounts of money
that it would take to eradicate maternal mortality which claims the
lives of more than half a million women every year throughout the world.

“Every hour of every day in DRC, four women die from
complications of pregnancy and labour, and for every woman who dies,
between 20 and 30 have serious complications, such as obstetric
fistula, which is very common in DRC,” said Richard Dackam Ngacthou,
country representative of the UN Population Fund (UNFPA). For every
100,000 live births 1,100 women die, he said.

But to meet a national target of reducing the number of women who
die in childbirth by 75 percent and to provide all Congolese with
access to contraception – in line with the UN Millennium Development
Goals – new funding targets must be achieved.

The funding gap is severe: in 2008 some US$5 million went towards
the fight against maternal mortality, whereas in 2009 less than $2
million was allocated. Congo’s 2010 budgetary situation is no less
dire, with only around $6 million planned to finance the entire health
sector, where some $60 million would be warranted, according to a
member of parliament.

2.  In South Korea a new policy is effectively coercing women into having children:

On Dec. 9, Sungshin Women’s University in Seoul
organised an event titled, ‘Happy Childbirth – Rich and Strong Future’,
aimed at trying to raise awareness about the country’s very low birth
rate. It sparked controversy when the organisers requested women
students in the audience to submit a sworn statement that they would
have children.

A fourth year student who prefers to remain anonymous, told IPS “the
organisers almost forced female participants to write a sworn statement
for childbirth despite many participants asserting that the low birth
issue is a social problem rather than mere individual choice.”

South Korea’s birth rate – 1.19 in 2008, according to the Korean
Statistical Information Service, is the lowest among OECD countries –
has been in the news recently.

In November, the government’s Presidential Council for Future & Vision announced “comprehensive plans for low birth rate.”

The plans include a crackdown on abortion.

3.  And in countries such as China and India, there has been a systemic campaign of favoring the births of male children over females:

There are about 100 million women less on this earth
than there should be. Women who are “missing” since they are aborted,
burnt, starved and neglected to death by families who prefer sons to
daughters. This column had also identified the countries of South Asia,
East Asia, West Asia and Saharan Africa as the main regions which were
missing most of these women. The estimated number of women who are
missing are 44 million in China, 39 million in India, 6 million in
Pakistan and 3 billion in Bangladesh. This is the single largest
genocide in human history. Ever. Some researchers have coined a word
for this phenomenon: Femicide, or the killing of the human female
because she is female. (Note:  see also here and here.)

Until we insist that it cannot be considered separate of the overall
issue of reproductive health, abortion rights will continue to be in
jeopardy. Health care, including full reproductive health care, is a
human right, not a commodity to be controlled or bartered away by the
governments we elect to represent us.  Yet clearly that is exactly what
is happening not only here but in many parts of the world. Our current
reality is not so far from Atwood’s dystopia as we might like to think.

Roundups Sexual Health

This Week in Sex: The Sexually Transmitted Infections Edition

Martha Kempner

A new Zika case suggests the virus can be transmitted from an infected woman to a male partner. And, in other news, HPV-related cancers are on the rise, and an experimental chlamydia vaccine shows signs of promise.

This Week in Sex is a weekly summary of news and research related to sexual behavior, sexuality education, contraception, STIs, and more.

Zika May Have Been Sexually Transmitted From a Woman to Her Male Partner

A new case suggests that males may be infected with the Zika virus through unprotected sex with female partners. Researchers have known for a while that men can infect their partners through penetrative sexual intercourse, but this is the first suspected case of sexual transmission from a woman.

The case involves a New York City woman who is in her early 20s and traveled to a country with high rates of the mosquito-borne virus (her name and the specific country where she traveled have not been released). The woman, who experienced stomach cramps and a headache while waiting for her flight back to New York, reported one act of sexual intercourse without a condom the day she returned from her trip. The following day, her symptoms became worse and included fever, fatigue, a rash, and tingling in her hands and feet. Two days later, she visited her primary-care provider and tests confirmed she had the Zika virus.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

A few days after that (seven days after intercourse), her male partner, also in his 20s, began feeling similar symptoms. He had a rash, a fever, and also conjunctivitis (pink eye). He, too, was diagnosed with Zika. After meeting with him, public health officials in the New York City confirmed that he had not traveled out of the country nor had he been recently bit by a mosquito. This leaves sexual transmission from his partner as the most likely cause of his infection, though further tests are being done.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s recommendations for preventing Zika have been based on the assumption that virus was spread from a male to a receptive partner. Therefore the recommendations had been that pregnant women whose male partners had traveled or lived in a place where Zika virus is spreading use condoms or abstain from sex during the pregnancy. For those couples for whom pregnancy is not an issue, the CDC recommended that men who had traveled to countries with Zika outbreaks and had symptoms of the virus, use condoms or abstain from sex for six months after their trip. It also suggested that men who traveled but don’t have symptoms use condoms for at least eight weeks.

Based on this case—the first to suggest female-to-male transmission—the CDC may extend these recommendations to couples in which a female traveled to a country with an outbreak.

More Signs of Gonorrhea’s Growing Antibiotic Resistance

Last week, the CDC released new data on gonorrhea and warned once again that the bacteria that causes this common sexually transmitted infection (STI) is becoming resistant to the antibiotics used to treat it.

There are about 350,000 cases of gonorrhea reported each year, but it is estimated that 800,000 cases really occur with many going undiagnosed and untreated. Once easily treatable with antibiotics, the bacteria Neisseria gonorrhoeae has steadily gained resistance to whole classes of antibiotics over the decades. By the 1980s, penicillin no longer worked to treat it, and in 2007 the CDC stopped recommending the use of fluoroquinolones. Now, cephalosporins are the only class of drugs that work. The recommended treatment involves a combination of ceftriaxone (an injectable cephalosporin) and azithromycin (an oral antibiotic).

Unfortunately, the data released last week—which comes from analysis of more than 5,000 samples of gonorrhea (called isolates) collected from STI clinics across the country—shows that the bacteria is developing resistance to these drugs as well. In fact, the percentage of gonorrhea isolates with decreased susceptibility to azithromycin increased more than 300 percent between 2013 and 2014 (from 0.6 percent to 2.5 percent).

Though no cases of treatment failure has been reported in the United States, this is a troubling sign of what may be coming. Dr. Gail Bolan, director of CDC’s Division of STD Prevention, said in a press release: “It is unclear how long the combination therapy of azithromycin and ceftriaxone will be effective if the increases in resistance persists. We need to push forward on multiple fronts to ensure we can continue offering successful treatment to those who need it.”

HPV-Related Cancers Up Despite Vaccine 

The CDC also released new data this month showing an increase in HPV-associated cancers between 2008 and 2012 compared with the previous five-year period. HPV or human papillomavirus is an extremely common sexually transmitted infection. In fact, HPV is so common that the CDC believes most sexually active adults will get it at some point in their lives. Many cases of HPV clear spontaneously with no medical intervention, but certain types of the virus cause cancer of the cervix, vulva, penis, anus, mouth, and neck.

The CDC’s new data suggests that an average of 38,793 HPV-associated cancers were diagnosed each year between 2008 and 2012. This is a 17 percent increase from about 33,000 each year between 2004 and 2008. This is a particularly unfortunate trend given that the newest available vaccine—Gardasil 9—can prevent the types of HPV most often linked to cancer. In fact, researchers estimated that the majority of cancers found in the recent data (about 28,000 each year) were caused by types of the virus that could be prevented by the vaccine.

Unfortunately, as Rewire has reported, the vaccine is often mired in controversy and far fewer young people have received it than get most other recommended vaccines. In 2014, only 40 percent of girls and 22 percent of boys ages 13 to 17 had received all three recommended doses of the vaccine. In comparison, nearly 80 percent of young people in this age group had received the vaccine that protects against meningitis.

In response to the newest data, Dr. Electra Paskett, co-director of the Cancer Control Research Program at the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, told HealthDay:

In order to increase HPV vaccination rates, we must change the perception of the HPV vaccine from something that prevents a sexually transmitted disease to a vaccine that prevents cancer. Every parent should ask the question: If there was a vaccine I could give my child that would prevent them from developing six different cancers, would I give it to them? The answer would be a resounding yes—and we would have a dramatic decrease in HPV-related cancers across the globe.

Making Inroads Toward a Chlamydia Vaccine

An article published in the journal Vaccine shows that researchers have made progress with a new vaccine to prevent chlamydia. According to lead researcher David Bulir of the M. G. DeGroote Institute for Infectious Disease Research at Canada’s McMaster University, efforts to create a vaccine have been underway for decades, but this is the first formulation to show success.

In 2014, there were 1.4 million reported cases of chlamydia in the United States. While this bacterial infection can be easily treated with antibiotics, it often goes undiagnosed because many people show no symptoms. Untreated chlamydia can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease, which can leave scar tissue in the fallopian tubes or uterus and ultimately result in infertility.

The experimental vaccine was created by Canadian researchers who used pieces of the bacteria that causes chlamydia to form an antigen they called BD584. The hope was that the antigen could prompt the body’s immune system to fight the chlamydia bacteria if exposed to it.

Researchers gave BD584 to mice using a nasal spray, and then exposed them to chlamydia. The results were very promising. The mice who received the spray cleared the infection faster than the mice who did not. Moreover, the mice given the nasal spray were less likely to show symptoms of infection, such as bacterial shedding from the vagina or fluid blockages of the fallopian tubes.

There are many steps to go before this vaccine could become available. The researchers need to test it on other strains of the bacteria and in other animals before testing it in humans. And, of course, experience with the HPV vaccine shows that there’s work to be done to make sure people get vaccines that prevent STIs even after they’re invented. Nonetheless, a vaccine to prevent chlamydia would be a great victory in our ongoing fight against STIs and their health consequences, and we here at This Week in Sex are happy to end on a bit of a positive note.

Analysis Law and Policy

Indiana Court of Appeals Tosses Patel Feticide Conviction, Still Defers to Junk Science

Jessica Mason Pieklo

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled patients cannot be prosecuted for self-inducing an abortion under the feticide statute, but left open the possibility other criminal charges could apply.

The Indiana Court of Appeals on Friday vacated the feticide conviction of Purvi Patel, an Indiana woman who faced 20 years in prison for what state attorneys argued was a self-induced abortion. The good news is the court decided Patel and others in the state could not be charged and convicted for feticide after experiencing failed pregnancies. The bad news is that the court still deferred to junk science at trial that claimed Patel’s fetus was on the cusp of viability and had taken a breath outside the womb, and largely upheld Patel’s conviction of felony neglect of a dependent. This leaves the door open for similar prosecutions in the state in the future.

As Rewire previously reported, “In July 2013 … Purvi Patel sought treatment at a hospital emergency room for heavy vaginal bleeding, telling doctors she’d had a miscarriage. That set off a chain of events, which eventually led to a jury convicting Patel of one count of feticide and one count of felony neglect of a dependent in February 2015.”

To charge Patel with feticide under Indiana’s law, the state at trial was required to prove she “knowingly or intentionally” terminated her pregnancy “with an intention other than to produce a live birth or to remove a dead fetus.”

According to the Indiana Court of Appeals, attorneys for the State of Indiana failed to show the legislature had originally passed the feticide statute with the intention of criminally charging patients like Patel for terminating their own pregnancies. Patel’s case, the court said, marked an “abrupt departure” from the normal course of prosecutions under the statute.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

“This is the first case that we are aware of in which the State has used the feticide statute to prosecute a pregnant woman (or anyone else) for performing an illegal abortion, as that term is commonly understood,” the decision reads. “[T]he wording of the statute as a whole indicate[s] that the legislature intended for any criminal liability to be imposed on medical personnel, not on women who perform their own abortions,” the court continued.

“[W]e conclude that the legislature never intended the feticide statute to apply to pregnant women in the first place,” it said.

This is an important holding, because Patel was not actually the first woman Indiana prosecutors tried to jail for a failed pregnancy outcome. In 2011, state prosecutors brought an attempted feticide charge against Bei Bei Shuai, a pregnant Chinese woman suffering from depression who tried to commit suicide. She survived, but the fetus did not.

Shuai was held in prison for a year until a plea agreement was reached in her case.

The Indiana Court of Appeals did not throw out Patel’s conviction entirely, though. Instead, it vacated Patel’s second charge of Class A felony conviction of neglect of a dependent, ruling Patel should have been charged and convicted of a lower Class D felony. The court remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions to enter judgment against Patel for conviction of a Class D felony neglect of a dependent, and to re-sentence Patel accordingly to that drop in classification.

A Class D felony conviction in Indiana carries with it a sentence of six months to three years.

To support Patel’s second charge of felony neglect at trial, prosecutors needed to show that Patel took abortifacients; that she delivered a viable fetus; that said viable fetus was, in fact, born alive; and that Patel abandoned the fetus. According to the Indiana Court of Appeals, the state got close, but not all the way, to meeting this burden.

According to the Indiana Court of Appeals, the state had presented enough evidence to establish “that the baby took at least one breath and that its heart was beating after delivery and continued to beat until all of its blood had drained out of its body.”

Therefore, the Court of Appeals concluded, it was reasonable for the jury to infer that Patel knowingly neglected the fetus after delivery by failing to provide medical care after its birth. The remaining question, according to the court, was what degree of a felony Patel should have been charged with and convicted of.

That is where the State of Indiana fell short on its neglect of a dependent conviction, the court said. Attorneys had failed to sufficiently show that any medical care Patel could have provided would have resulted in the fetus surviving after birth. Without that evidence, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded, state attorneys could not support a Class A conviction. The evidence they presented, though, could support a Class D felony conviction, the court said.

In other words, the Indiana Court of Appeals told prosecutors in the state, make sure your medical experts offer more specific testimony next time you bring a charge like the one at issue in Patel’s case.

The decision is a mixed win for reproductive rights and justice advocates. The ruling from the court that the feticide statute cannot be used to prosecute patients for terminating their own pregnancy is an important victory, especially in a state that has sought not just to curb access to abortion, but to eradicate family planning and reproductive health services almost entirely. Friday’s decision made it clear to prosecutors that they cannot rely on the state’s feticide statute to punish patients who turn to desperate measures to end their pregnancies. This is a critical pushback against the full-scale erosion of reproductive rights and autonomy in the state.

But the fact remains that at both trial and appeal, the court and jury largely accepted the conclusions of the state’s medical experts that Patel delivered a live baby that, at least for a moment, was capable of survival outside the womb. And that is troubling. The state’s experts offered these conclusions, despite existing contradictions on key points of evidence such as the gestational age of the fetus—and thus if it was viable—and whether or not the fetus displayed evidence of life when it was born.

Patel’s attorneys tried, unsuccessfully, to rebut those conclusions. For example, the state’s medical expert used the “lung float test,” also known as the hydrostatic test, to conclude Patel’s fetus had taken a breath outside the womb. The test, developed in the 17th century, posits that if a fetus’ lungs are removed and placed in a container of liquid and the lungs float, it means the fetus drew at least one breath of air before dying. If the lungs sink, the theory holds, the fetus did not take a breath.

Not surprisingly, medical forensics has advanced since the 17th century, and medical researchers widely question the hydrostatic test’s reliability. Yet this is the only medical evidence the state presented of live birth.

Ultimately, the fact that the jury decided to accept the conclusions of the state’s experts over Patel’s is itself not shocking. Weighing the evidence and coming to a conclusion of guilt or innocence based on that evidence is what juries do. But it does suggest that when women of color are dragged before a court for a failed pregnancy, they will rarely, if ever, get the benefit of the doubt.

The jurors could have just as easily believed the evidence put forward by Patel’s attorneys that gestational age, and thus viability, was in doubt, but they didn’t. The jurors could have just as easily concluded the state’s medical testimony that the fetus took “at least one breath” was not sufficient to support convicting Patel of a felony and sending her to prison for 20 years. But they didn’t.

Why was the State of Indiana so intent on criminally prosecuting Patel, despite the many glaring weaknesses in the case against her? Why were the jurors so willing to take the State of Indiana’s word over Patel’s when presented with those weaknesses? And why did it take them less than five hours to convict her?

Patel was ordered in March to serve 20 years in prison for her conviction. Friday’s decision upends that; Patel now faces a sentence of six months to three years. She’s been in jail serving her 20 year sentence since February 2015 while her appeal moved forward. If there’s real justice in this case, Patel will be released immediately.