Seems Like a No-Brainer...

The Pennsylvania House of Representatives has once again stalled the passage of the House Bill 288, which would require all Pennsylvania hospitals to provide information about and access to emergency contraception to survivors of rape. You might ask why such an obviously necessary piece of legislation would be delayed. Well, even though scientists believe that while most often Plan B works by preventing fertilization of an egg by sperm, once in a while, Plan B works by preventing implantation of an already fertilized egg in a woman’s uterus. That, for some Catholic theologians is tantamount to abortion. But, even so, only the most radical opponent of abortion would deny survivors of rape the right to an abortion. And, hello, All-Powerful Catholic Church Lobby!

In an attempt to appease the APCCL, some reps have introduced ludicrous amendments that unequivocally compromise the integrity of the bill. Once such amendment proposed by Rep. Grucel (D-138) would have the survivor call an immediate family member, who would then be expected to bring emergency contraception to the hospital, rather than have it provided by the medical professionals in charge of her care. Another amendment proposed by Rep. Ross (R-158) would exempt medical professionals and hospital management from providing information and access to Plan B, as along an “independent contractor” was brought in to do so. Who is an independent contractor? Why should a rape survivor have to recount her assault to yet another person? Let’s remember that this is a humiliating experience for most women, even when they receive the best and most sensitive medical care. The whole experience of going to the hospital, giving a step-by-step account of the assault, undergoing a rape kit…it’s all very intrusive and there’re no reason for an “independent contractor” or family member to do the work of providing medical care. That is, ostensibly, why doctors and hospitals exist.

Not to mention that women who become pregnant as a result of rape are the most likely to have abortions. Emergency contraception is very time sensitive and the longer a woman has to wait to access to it, the more likely the treatment will prevent implantation of the already fertilized egg (rather than prevent fertilization from occurring altogether.) In this respect, the proposed amendments would actually make “abortion” (as defined by the APCCL) more likely. Of course, if the bill isn’t passed at all, the likelihood of actual surgical abortion significantly increases. I hesitate to even mention this argument, since I support a woman’s right to choose at any step of the way, but that is sort of another argument entirely…

Other states with powerful lobbyists for the Catholic Church have had similar bills passed with little or no opposition. This bill was first brought up in June. It’s now the last day of November and it’s supposedly going before the house again next week. Here’s hoping for a reclaiming of sanity this December.

Full disclosure

Here is my humble attempt to integrate the two things I think about most during my day.

Across history and cultures, women have had a contentious relationship with food and appetite, on the one hand, and body image, eating, and sexuality, on the other. Women, through the everyday routines of family meals, are often the transmitters of cultural codes pertaining to food and eating. Arguing for the centrality of women and food in industrialized societies sometimes poses a problem for feminist analysts who see the dangers in essentializing women and overstressing their nurturing capacities.

Another fundamental narrative in feminist history is that of women’s struggle to gain the right to pleasure. While earlier periods in our culture demonized women’s sexuality (and some elements in our culture certainly continue to do so…) a healthy percentage of American society, at least, has become reluctant to use moral terms to describe sexual behavior. But today, we demonize women’s appetite for food using the same language our forebears used for sex: “sinful”, “decadent”, “bad.” We have stopped condemning one essential human activity and begun to attack another.

Despite all these heady issues, I don’t intend to trace the cultural history of women’s shame in America, particularly in regards to sexual pleasure, food, and other “selfish” desires. I also don’t intend to dissect the division of labor or gendering of domestic food preparation or examine how the other “F” word (I mean “farming”- get your head out of the gutter!) plays into the discussion. This would all be good fodder for a dissertation, maybe, but not for a blog. Not this blog, anyway.

I hope to draw some connections, but mostly give a sounding board for issues that I often deal with at work, at home and in life as I try to balance the world I live in with the world I’m working to create. The food element will be mostly pretty pictures and recipes because that’s how I deal with the sometimes necessary outrage of confronting pushed-under-the-rug realities. Enjoy!