red fuzzy jesus

The Plastic State of Abortion Politics

(Archive Mar. 2003)

It’s the anniversary week for the historical Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade and in no place is this holiday more inescapable than Washington, DC. Since I live and work in the middle of all the marches and demonstrations I can’t help but consider the current state of the pro-life/pro-choice debate. This year holds some extra significance because it is the 30th anniversary of Roe. I was here last year and the hoopla was all the same. Unlike most political issues abortion attracts the same amount of fervor on off-year anniversaries as big round numbered ones. An oft repeated criticism of the battle is that it has become oversimplified. The once thoughtful arguments of both sides have spun down to sound bites, buzz phrases and the same tired speeches repeated, almost recited, with two opposing sides playing choreographed roles like the Sharks vs. the Jets. Even the signs are exactly the same and each side has a specific color scheme. Pro-lifers tend to have red signs with white lettering and pro-choicers tend to have blue signs with white lettering. The slogans are the same too except for a few clever parodies of the other side’s signs. Even the chants are the same. No single object represents the oversimplification of this hugely complex issue more than the plastic fetus.

Plastic fetuses are everywhere. I see them carried by most pro-lifers and some even complete outfits as accessories. There is a wide variety of shape and size in the plastic fetus. Most resemble a fully developed 4-month-old infant curled into the fetal position. The use of a baby as the image rather than something that looks like a fetus or embryo illustrates the argument of baby killer. Some have navels or umbilical stubs but none have genitals and most don’t have mouths. They range from thumb-sized to gigantic. Some have the features and proportions of little bald 40-year-old men curled up. One woman on the metro wore hers on a necklace like a charm beside a tiny bottle and pacifier. This juxtaposition of images again emphasizes that there is no difference between the baby you hold and the fetus attached to your internal organs. The meaning of this fashion statement did not occur to me immediately because I was temporarily distracted by the thought of some expecting mother giving her fetus a bottle.

Some plastic fetuses aren’t curled up at all. Their arms are folded in front of them but their legs are stretched out as if they can stand upright (or maybe dance like the one on Ally McBeal). These are possibly the most disturbing because their features actually resemble those of fetuses but they also remind me of those Troll dolls that used to be so popular. If the plastic fetus came with long, combable, bright hair the pro-lifers could have the next Tickle-Me Elmo. Despite the variety in shape and size plastic fetuses tend to come in only one color. Although a disproportionate number of abortions occur in minority communities, plastic fetuses are all the light, peachy color Crayola used to call ‘skin.’ It took Mattel decades to give Barbie a black counterpart so we can only hope a plastic fetus of color is just around the corner.

So many questions surrounding the purpose and meaning of the plastic fetus perplex me. For starters, where does one get one? It is odd for there to be so many when I’ve never seen them in stores. Is there competition among plastic fetus producers or does one company have the monopoly? On a particularly boring afternoon at the office I decided to click around on-line to see if I could get my own. No luck. I even went to E-Bay and searched with the phrases ‘plastic fetus’ then just ‘fetus’ and then for kicks ‘unborn child’ figuring I’d have more success if I used pro-life lingo. I found some rock and roll paraphernalia but still no plastic fetus. The presence of the ubiquitous fetus dolls is confusing enough but the inability to determine their origin compounds the mystery.

Another round of questions deals with the exact message of these props. On my one stop bus ride to work a woman stood on the corner with one of the straight-legged fetuses tucked by her side. Just before the bus completely passed her she shot up her arm and gave the fetus a few proud shakes and let out a holler. The gesture was startling. It was quasi-tribal and definitely intended to send some sort of message to my fellow commuters. What I don’t know. Another image I saw on the local news was of a man holding a large fetus by the legs and repeatedly banging its head against the steps of the Supreme Court. I tried to make some connection between this action and the positions of the pro-life movement but came up empty handed. Was the man mad at his fetus? More importantly, did that fetus learn its lesson?

At some level I feel jilted because my side doesn’t have an equivalent tool. The pro-choice argument cannot be so succinctly summarized by a doll. I can’t wave around a plastic teenage woman whose parents kick her out of the house and has to drop out of school because she got pregnant. No material can be molded into a model that questions the role of government in personal, moral, medical decisions. Despite the apparent advantage the plastic fetus provides, it ultimately distracts from the current spectrum of abortion politics.

Of all the abortion related bills debated in recent years few if any have anything to do with fetuses. The debate for a few years now centers on biotechnology and cell research. The same arguments are shouted back and forth but they apply less and less to reality. The heated debate over stem cell research is about cells, not fetuses. The argument against it is the usual protection of human life but the subject in question is a pitri dish of fertilized eggs in a clinic. These are leftovers that will never exist inside the womb of a woman and if not used for research will be thrown away. If, according to pro-lifers, the fertilized eggs are human beings then why is it preferable for them to be disposed of instead of destroyed during research? How is opposition to stem cell research protecting the life of an unborn child?

Another current debate involves RU-486 which keeps an embryo from imbedding in the womb during its early stages of cellular division shortly after conception. Plastic fetus? If the termination of a fetus was the primary concern of the pro-life sect wouldn’t they be cheering technology that allows us to terminate pregnancies before the fetal stage instead of shaking dolls and shrieking at it?

About the only issue currently involving a fetus is the proposed ban on partial birth abortion. This procedure easily has majority opposition even in the pro-choice community because it is tantamount to infanticide. Here a plastic fetus is applicable but ineffective. So many oppose partial birth abortion but it is still legal because both sides have an all or nothing approach. Pro-choicers fear any concession to the pro-life argument could be carried all the way down to conception. The personhood argument has to be applied by pro-lifers as soon as the sperm meets the egg in order to hold its legitimacy. Right now destroying a baby halfway through its birth is legal but researching cells is not. The complexities of the issue are overlooked when the focus is all on the supposed unborn child, embodied by the plastic fetus. Neither side has effectively created rhetoric for all stages of pregnancy.

While most people see nothing immoral about killing and eating an animal they do object to killing another human. Pro-lifers use the plastic fetus to say that terminating a pregnancy is equal to murder. But the slogans and the dolls do not answer questions like what’s the difference between humans and animals? A soul? Freewill? Many would argue we have neither. If a person has a soul and freewill does a fetus? …an embryo? …a zygote? At what point in development does the soul inhabit a body and what actually constitutes humanness or the legal protections of personhood? Is there any difference between a fertilized egg and you and me and does the belief that there is no difference protect the sanctity of human life or devalue it? Can the government come up with a universal answer to these questions or let each individual figure it out for him or herself. I asked a plastic fetus but it didn’t have a mouth.

The plastic fetus has cemented its role in the theatre of abortion politics along side the shouts, signs, and speeches. Its popularity seems to be growing despite its diminishing application. As abortions continue to become more common in the earlier stages of pregnancy will it eventually be replaced by a fake, tadpole-like embryo? Will the stem cell research opponents soon be wagging giant floppy egg cells? The best image of the week came during a lunch-hour jog when I saw a couple people fighting the wind to hold onto a large, helium filled fetus balloon. If this trend continues it may now excite me to endure the mittened perkiness of Katy Couric hosting the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day parade for the chance to see her comment on a zygote float.

Filtered Freedom

(Archive Mar. 2003)

Recently I saw a public service announcement about freedom. In it a young man asks for books he can’t find at a library. The librarian informs him the books are no longer available and asks for his name. He tries to leave but is stopped by two men in suits, presumably federal agents, who want to ask him a few questions. The announcement asks, “What if America wasn’t America.” It wants you to ponder what America would be like without freedom of speech. It points out that freedom to exchange information without government threat or coercion is a basic tenant of democracy and suggests that freedom is potentially threatened if we do not appreciate it and actively defend it.
To most this scenario is so far removed from possible it isn’t worth considering. Freedom to access information and say what you want is so ingrained in our culture as a birthright that we cannot imagine living without it. Most people live blissfully unaware of current threats to free speech. Case in point, The United States v. The American Library Association. The name of this case alone gives me chills. It involves the legality of internet filters in public libraries. Congress passed a law called The Children’s Internet Protection Act that basically said in order for a public library to receive federal funds it has to install internet filtering software chosen by the federal government on all library computers. It has received opposition from many groups including the ACLU and American Library Association. On March 6, 2003 the Supreme Court heard arguments from both sides but has sent it to a lower appeals court to review for now. The law is designed to protect children using computers in libraries from accessing pornographic images. The intent is noble. Everyone knows what is available via the world wide web and no one wants children seeing a lot of it.
Critics of the act say the law should be repealed because it does not only apply to children. The filter blocks information regardless of the user. It is a mother to us all, keeping our minds on good things. Another criticism is the filters do not work. No filter catches all pornography and a lot block useful, non-pornographic information. Two of the plaintiffs in the case are a teenager unable to research homosexuality and another who couldn't research his mother's breast cancer. Another criticism involves the implicit inequality inherent in its application. Not everyone has internet access at home and many use public facilities to learn, do projects for school, search for jobs, and find lower prices on goods. Because these people tend to be poorer any restriction on their access is just another systemic disadvantage for the already disadvantaged.
The nitpicking over the quality of filtering software or whether lack of Ebay counts as discrimination misses a larger concept. Even if the filter worked perfectly and could block everything bad and allow everything good and even if Internet access became as commonplace as television there would still be huge constitutional issues with the idea of requiring libraries to install filtering devices. For starters, who decides what is good and bad? Congress approves the filter and its settings. Elected officials or their bureaucratic staff members determine what is suitable for public viewing and what is not. The concept is an Orwellian nightmare and not unlike the scenario presented in the public service announcement only instead of the government predetermining what books are and are not available the media is electronic. The slippery slope is easy to see. Today the government decides images of a sexual nature are not permissible in public, tomorrow opposition to military conflict is too threatening. But a slippery slope concern is not an adequate opposition to the here and now. Right now the law is only intended to block pornography. Pornography is seen as having limited utility so its protection from government regulation receives little support.
Most free speech advocates work under the understanding that one must protect the speech that is most offensive or threatening in order to protect their own. The Supreme Court has previously ruled groups like the Ku Klux Klan have the right to demonstrate even if they have an anti-government message and promote racism and violence. Such decisions are not an endorsement of racism but an affirmation of free speech. By allowing The Buddhist Book of the Dead, Hitler’s Mein Kampf, or Daddy’s Roommate in your public library you protect your religious and political views from being banned. By handing over the power to decide what is and isn’t acceptable speech in public to the government you may protect some kids from smut but ultimately you threaten my freedom to write this article.
This rationality for protecting offensive speech is not universally accepted. To many government has a vested interest in preventing the immoral. Overtly sexual images are seen as intrinsically harmful and government must regulate it based on its responsibility to protect its citizens. With this view there is no disconnect between thought and action. The link between pornography and rape is causal, not just correlated. A lack of prohibition against lurid imagery is seen as an endorsement of sexual deviancy and a contributing factor to a longterm moral collapse of society. The solution to the problem is not a system that provides enough freedom to allow great thought, discovery and innovation while tolerating the offensive but strict moralistic control to create strict moral citizens. This way we are all a lot safer from perverts and ultimately, protected from ourselves.
The argument also follows that because tax dollars go to the public libraries the government is obligated to regulate them with sound moral judgment. On the contrary, libraries are supposed to be epicenters of thought and information available to all. Free speech can’t be limited to privately funded institutions because society benefits from having knowledge available to its citizens regardless of income. I am cautious whenever I hear something should be regulated or banned because tax dollars are connected to it. Though a valid point in a lot of cases it can also be used to justify gross infringements on civil liberties. Taxes do pay for computers in public libraries but they also pay for the telephone poles that bring the internet to my home. It is important to remember that everything in life can be connected to tax dollars somehow within two degrees of separation. The presence of a public contribution alone does not necessitate regulation.
Last year when John Ashcroft commissioned giant, $8000.00 curtains to cover the Spirit of Justice statue in the Justice Department building it caused little alarm. The statue was covered because it is partially nude and the Attorney General didn’t want such imagery behind him when giving press conferences. Ashcroft could not appreciate the artistic merits of the statue. Its exposed breast was not a symbol of motherhood or the universal beauty of the human form. It was just naked and nakedness is dirty and must be hidden lest we think lusty thoughts. The action not only calls attention to the depth of Ashcroft’s repression it speaks volumes about the mentality behind the Justice Department’s fight for internet filters. The metaphor of Ashcroft blocking the principles of impartiality and justice to protect us from depravity is informative. I cannot detect a hint of understanding that variety in information, even the sexual or provocative, is good for society. The agenda is more a series of moral judgments made for us by the government for our own good. Its justification is a lighter version of Middle Eastern theocracies that ban all radio and photography as potentially sinful and keep women hidden under fabric so men aren’t tempted. In Afghanistan the Taliban blew up priceless ancient statues of Buddha because they were incongruent with Islamic teachings. Here we just defunded Andre Serrano.
The Children’s Internet Protection Act is not without its supporters. Many of the same groups that object to unrestricted internet in public libraries have also lobbied hard for certain books to be removed as well. Their objections to free speech online fits into an overall agenda to have regulations on all forms of speech conform to their specific moral or religious teachings. The American Family Association is spearheading a congressional campaign to coerce the FCC to crack down on network television. To them the sexuality on primetime TV cannot be tolerated despite the plethora of viewing choices available. Focus on the Family has an ongoing campaign to have a list of books removed from school and public libraries including Heather Has Two Mommies and the Harry Potter series because of their supposed ‘promotion’ of witchcraft and different family structures. These groups offend my moral understanding of kindness, fairness, and equality. However, I do not want the FCC banning the 700 Club even when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson use it as a platform to say secular America got what it deserved on September 11th. I strongly disagree with their websites but I do not want them to be selected for government filtering. As a response to the efforts of groups like these the American Library Association holds an annual Banned Book Week where books under fire from opponents of free speech are pulled off the shelves and prominently displayed in libraries across the country. It’s a victory cry as well as an act of defiance and liberation. The current fight for the protection of online information is another battleground in the same war with the same opponents. The war is about much more than just nakedgirls.com. It is an ongoing struggle between two opposing views on just how free speech should be.
I doubt the act will survive the Supreme Court. It has struck down too many other laws regulating speech on the Internet and mostly treated the web like other media. In the first Amendment it says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Such a simple and seemingly inarguable statement has endured over 200 years of debate and still means the same thing. In America you get to see, think and say what you want. It’s such a basic concept that I’m always boggled when groups exercise their own speech and religious liberty to oppose it for others. If anything, all the book banning and internet filtering attempts serve to keep me from taking it for granted. When a public service announcement asks, ‘What if America wasn’t America,’ it is important to remember, to many people it isn’t.