Freedom to slut shame
by digby
From Jezebel, the latest attempted assault on women's rights in the great "laboratory of democracy" called Arizona:
A proposed new law in Arizona would give employers the power to request that women being prescribed birth control pills provide proof that they're using it for non-sexual reasons. And because Arizona's an at-will employment state, that means that bosses critical of their female employees' sex lives could fire them as a result. If we could harness the power of the crappy ideas coming out of the state of Arizona, we could probably power a rocket ship to the moon, where there are no Mexicans or fertile wombs and everyone can be free to be as mean a cranky asshole as they want at all times! Arizona Heaven!
Yesterday, a Senate Judiciary Committee endorsed Republican Debbie Lesko's HB2625 by a vote of 6-2, which would allow an employer to request proof that a woman using insurance to buy birth control was being prescribed the birth control for reasons other than not wanting to get pregnant. It's all about freedom, she said, echoing everyone who thinks there's nothing ironic about claiming that a country that's "free" allows people's bosses to dictate what medical care is available to them through insurance.
Ah yes, freedom. After all, the owner of the business has a right to spend his money on anything he chooses and if he only wants to pay for endometriosis and not for SluttyWhore sex then he has a right to do that. And assuming you are a privileged person who has many opportunities to make a living, you have a right to quit.(See Corey Robin on the libertarian relationship with workers, here.) That's what they call freedom -- it's only your imagination that the people with money and power have quite a bit more of it than you do.
But let's talk about this specific bill and what it's saying. These people aren't being vague about "individual conscience" or "religious liberty." There's no sugar coating this one. They want to allow employers to force women to prove they aren't using birth control for sexual purposes.
Now I would guess that many doctors would give their patients a "note" saying that they needed the pill for cramps or skin problems, but imagine the conversation you're forced to have with your boss about your health in order to get this coverage. I don't know about any of you, but I've had many bosses in my life with whom I would rather not have any such personal conversation --- not to mention that since I don't consider women slaves, I don't believe anyone should have to.
This is just a straight up slut shaming exercise, designed to make women feel embarrassed about having sex. Back in the bad old days, this was common, but I haven't seen it so blatant since I was young. And it brings up an interesting question. I have long wondered if one of the reasons that a lot of people are as passive about abortion rights as they seem to be is because female sexuality and single motherhood have become so acceptable in society. Since the stigma of being unwed and pregnant was gone, I thought some people might have adopted the view that forced childbirth wasn't that big a deal because any woman could go through nine months of pregnancy and give up the child for adoption if she didn't want to raise it and no one would call her a whore. (And even cases like this famous one which is credited with shocking people into a recognition that abortion had to be legal, would be different today with different sexual mores and laws governing divorce and domestic violence.)
Obviously, I think that's ridiculous --- nine months of pregnancy isn't some lark that doesn't matter and it's a very rare woman who just picks up and carries on as if nothing happened. It's a life changer regardless of whether or not you raise the child. (And in any case, women have the right to abortion because they are autonomous human beings who should be allowed to decide whether or not to reproduce.) But I have wondered if these social changes might have had the perverse effect of making some people less sympathetic to abortion.
So what to make of the fact that the right is now pushing a full blown attack on female sexuality? It's not new (it goes allll the way back to the Garden of Eden) but it's been on a low burner for several decades. We knew the social conservatives were against birth control, but I don't think anyone quite anticipated that they would so blatantly attack women for having sex. Maybe we were overconfident, thinking that their fetus obsession was going to carry over into this debate and it would be all about "abortifascients" and adorable little babies because that had worked for them in the past. But that's not what happened. Indeed, you can't help but have the feeling that this slut saga is an authentic, reflexive reaction, not a strategic response. This is what they've always felt, deep inside and for some reason they were unable to contain it this time.
Whether or not this assault on female sexuality wakes up those I suspect became complacent about abortion remains to be seen. But one thing I can say with certainty: this slut shaming will result in more abortions, not less. If a large segment of society decides that women who have sex outside of marriage are sluts and whores again, women will still have unplanned pregnancies (as they always have and always will) but some who might otherwise decide to give birth will seek abortions instead.
I know these people all want to put women back into traditional roles in which they are virgins until they get married and then have as many children as nature allows, but that's something that's not likely to happen any time soon. What will happen instead is that they will succeed in making some women feel guilty for having sex, subject all women to misogynist outbursts like we saw from Rush Limbaugh, more unplanned pregnancies and more abortions. And if we're really lucky and they finally succeed in making abortion illegal and birth control difficult and expensive to obtain, we'll end up with this. Again:
.
