If you plan to use any key words to discuss the prospect of Planned Parenthood defunding, limit yourself to heads, shoulders, knees and toes. For anti-choice legislators and supporters, this anatomical terminology is fine. But there are some words that are simply inexcusable.
In 2012 Rep. Lisa Brown, D-Michigan, was barred from speaking after she used the word “vagina” when testifying against a bill that would result in abortion clinic closings throughout the state, according to NPR.
This week the Philly Voice reported that a staffer for United States Sen. Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, scolded a Philadelphia woman for using the word “menstruation” when she called to explain the ways Planned Parenthood helps women with all aspects of the reproductive system.
Apparently some things shouldn’t be spoken of, even during discussions associated with abortion.
Not mentioning words like vagina, menstruation and other shes-who-must-not-be-named are similar to circumventing medical accuracy that anti-choice lawmakers so often rebuke.
State Rep. Dan Flynn, R-Texas, coauthored the 2013 Texas abortion law HB2 that would require abortion facilities to adhere to building standards for invasive surgical centers, which the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional earlier this year. Either Flynn, his coauthors and the bill’s supporters didn’t know abortion is not an invasive surgery or they didn’t bother to find out. Regardless, the bill conflated medical abortion with surgical or aspiration abortion without knowing the true definitions of either.
Intentional elusiveness isn’t just for those behind the bills and laws — it’s fun for constituents, too. On Nov. 9, post-election civic engagement in Bloomington began at the Monroe County Courthouse hearing for Planned Parenthood and All Options Pregnancy Center funding.
I went to see the event for myself. The strangest takeaway was during public comment when a young child argued for defunding due to the ways hormones in birth control pills harm fish ecologies in nearby rivers and streams while reading from a script his mother printed out for him. The mother, reported by the IDS as Rhonda Branham, eventually testified about the dangers of abortion. Funding for both was eventually approved.
As the U.S. approaches another peak in the debate about reproductive rights, the silence from anti-choice advocates’ lack of medical accuracy on women’s health is deafening. As the dissidence escalates, their focus on the non-issues is becoming harder to ignore.
This isn’t just a request for maturity — this is a request for respect. Anti-choice rhetoric has always swerved around the crux of the issue. Anti-choice legislators and advocates of this breed will have to hide their nausea, bridle their displeasure and stop evading the reality of women’s health because they’ll soon have to face the majority of Americans who don’t want to move backward from Roe v. Wade with 69 percent reporting opposition to a complete overturn of the landmark decision, according to Pew Research Center. Women in that camp are sick of the same people instructing them how to live sidestepping the reality of their bodies, lives and dignity.
If anti-choice members of Congress continue to insist legislating women’s bodies is fair game, they’ll have to put on their game faces. Maybe it’ll even make them look a bit more like adults.
jsbourkl@umail.iu.edu
