Women’s bodies, like every other aspect of their existence, have been the debate of contention for centuries, so much so that even in an apparently “liberal-leaning” US, state sanctions on access to and awareness of reproductive rights remain a legend. Facilitated by the widely successful marketing of women’s cognitive and intellectual inability to make good decisions, history is littered with examples of male hegemony in the limitation of the exercise of these rights. This might seem absurd in today’s America, but the truth is, that not much has changed. Ever since the Supreme Court decided to overturn the judgment from Roe v Wade, the federation has given way to a heterogeneous approach towards access to abortion, labeled with a state-by-state narrative of patriarchal totalitarianism.
As the Presidential Election term nears, a critical decision to be made by American voters is the placement of reproductive rights in their hierarchy of expectations. It is important to remember that while candidates on all sides tend to exaggerate the mass scale of impact they aspire to implement through rhetoric, it is foolish to forgo their previous terms as a concrete representation of the extent to which they will truly exercise these powers. Or if they even plan to. The purpose of this opinion is not to dissuade – should you choose to? That is another story – the American population in their voting preferences. It is merely an enlightenment of what already is and if that becomes a reason to irk some, then so be it. It is about time they relinquish their bulging savior complex that only surfaces when other cultures are involved and self-evaluate their own human rights situation.
It is only right, therefore, to start with the most left-leaning political representation (or the Bureaucrats in Blue), good old Democrats. While one is not necessarily a fan of the “I’m good, he’s bad” campaigning strategy, it is undeniable that some compelling proposals in the realm of access to abortion and other fundamental reproductive rights have come to light, especially since the last DNC. From the reproductive freedom bus tour to numerous statements by the currently crowned symbol of “empowerment” Harris, certain reserves remain.
Why Biden did not, during his term as President, aggressively support federal legislation like the Women's Health Protection Act to codify Roe v. Wade and create a federal law protecting the right to abortion across the country, or lobby these reforms the way he defended the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill or Inflation Reduction Act, points to the probability that perhaps the party’s current stance might just be an attempt to restore their leftist reputation and conceal otherwise deep-rooted structural barriers within its internal conflict of interest.
As Harris blamed Trump for electing pro-life Supreme Court judges, a more interesting realization is that Biden could have done the same to uphold his promise for reproductive freedom. The use of provocative statements like Trump likely passing a national abortion ban upon reelection points to a panicked attempt at disseminating an anti-Republican narrative founded in a spoonful of hypocrisy. Despite the Democrats’ historical support for the Hyde Amendment, the growing opposition towards this ban on federally funded abortion programs points to a confused narrative, one quite likely motivated by the current frustration of the majority of its voters. In other words, a flawed marketing strategy.
The Republicans, on the other hand, are no better. The overarching opinion of most that life begins at conception is a convenient tool employed to dictate women’s rights through a structural inception of anti-feminist sentiments. Even more hilarious is the attempt by social conservatives to paint abortion as a religious issue. If America is as free and secular as it claims to be, how is it that Christian nationalists struggle to make peace with opposing values and that xenophobic and anti-Muslim attitudes are higher than ever? It must not be forgotten that the sole basis of military infiltration in the Middle East was a curbing of extremist Sharia policies that “harmed” human rights, whether in the passive-aggressive Gaddafi’s Libya, Saddam Hussein’s unconstitutional sentence, or the total emancipation of Syrian territories.
A second conviction was the facilitation of state-level recognition of abortion regulations after the decision in Dobbs v Jackson. The decentralization of this autonomy paved the way for stringent abortion bans and the horrible exploitation of rape and incest victims. The insistence on parental consent, mandatory waiting periods, and informal consent laws as well as the controversy surrounding when it is legal for a woman to obtain an abortion, suggests another case of typical male chauvinism and power politics. This stance, combined with the anti-trans statements that have lately been coming out from the Republican side (I am in no way a supporter of gender transition nor gender dysphoria, but even I can comprehend a nuanced perspective beyond the gay-no-gay dichotomy) points to the same aforementioned diagnosis that Trump desperately needs.
The push towards Personhood Laws and Heartbeat Bills quite frankly corroborates a fanatic mentality that the Right is unwilling to let go of. While the advocacy for alternatives to abortion is equally vital, as there is a lot of improvement needed in this area, starting from the funding of organizations like Planned Parenthood, the attempt by the Republicans to paint a perfect victim upon whom these regulations might fall is a depiction of their victim blaming ideals. The voting population has a long record of Trump’s countless statements confirming this very idea, and it is downright utopian optimism to expect anything different, should he come to power.
But a more serious issue with the current state of affairs is the incessant need for the US to break free of the bipartisan structure that has ruled it for decades. The Green Party is a refreshing change from the constant process of vetoing one issue over another when deciding who to vote for, from its proposition of universal access that targets marginalized communities and social advocacy framework that recognizes the need for a divorce between the state and individual when it comes to reproductive decisions. If moral policymaking and religious inclusion are as significant to American voters as the channels of their tax money and human rights violations, then the first step is forgoing the mentality that there are only two votes to choose between. Take it from someone who has grown up in a similar system: the longer you put off giving a third party a chance, the less likely it is for your criticism to be valid anymore. You cannot bite the same hand and expect to be fed from it too.
The fundamental flaw of the American political diaspora, however, is that it is inherently narcissistic. When Roe v Wade was overturned, women and all intellectually-identifying individuals across the globe protested this move. The same uproar will rarely, if ever at all, be reciprocated by these American counterparts. Indeed, pinkwashing is one of their favorite ideologies employed to avoid all tactical confrontation, as if a shift in tyrannical gender has any effect whatsoever on the tyranny in the first place. Therefore, when you cast your votes this November, remember that reproductive rights do not have to be collateral damage. You do not need to choose whether you want one or the other. And most importantly, your choice will dictate not just that but the lives of millions across the world.
Be educated, and choose responsibly.
Photo Credit: Getty Images
Comentários