Sunday Douchebaggery Interlude

Take a gander at this shit:

"The billboard depicts an Alamogordo businessman, [Greg] Fultz, 35, holding what appears to the outline of a baby in his arms as he is looking down at it. Next to the picture, in large print, is the statement, 'This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!'"

Last week the woman targeted by this billboard brought suit against Mister Douchebag, on the grounds that he's violating her privacy and causing emotional distress. The judge ruled in her favor, ordering the billboard to be removed and granting the plaintiff an order of protection. Thank goodness.

Further gross details and aspects:

A) As Greg "Douchebag" Fultz admits in the rest of his letter, he is "not sure" that his ex actually had an abortion! He doesn't have proof so is guessing. The plaintiff says she miscarried.

B) Of course, whether or not she had an abortion remains HER business alone, anyhow! We don't need to explore her medical history to determine whether she did or did not "deserve" this.

C) Aside from the violation of privacy, to me this also sounded like a violation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which prohibits intimidation to prevent people from receiving or providing reproductive health services. Unfortunately, it's not that straightforward; it turns out the language of the law forbids the use of "force, threat of force or physical obstruction" -- so, although I'd argue that this could constitute intimidation with a chilling effect on care-seeking ("If I have an abortion my manipulative douche of an ex may put up a billboard about me, like what happened to that woman in New Mexico"), a judge might not agree. But I still wonder about all the things that happen when women have good reason to fear stigma and public excoriation; one woman who survived the dangerous care at Kermit Gosnell's illegal practice (but not without lasting injury) said that she initially headed to Planned Parenthood but turned around when she saw the protesters.

D) Bonus grossness! Mr. Douchebag is 35; the plaintiff is 20. Twenty. Twenty years old! Jesus Christ, that adds a whole OTHER layer of slimy sleazy selfishness to this guy's actions. As though they didn't already sound enough like intimidation and punishment for not doing what he wanted, on top of that he's nearly twice her age and she's still at practically the beginning of her life, and HE's the one who feels robbed? Because he didn't have the right to decide how the rest of her young life was going to go?

Indeed he does feel robbed. In statements to newspapers and to the New Mexico legislature, he says:

"Women have all the power when it comes to pregnancy. The men get no say when a woman wants to go and have an abortion without the say of the father. I believe that is wrong because men are 50 percent of the result of the pregnancy."

and

"I'd like to get a bill created in honor of my baby (Baby Fultz) for all fathers. My idea is to get a bill introduced that gives biological fathers equal rights as to the welfare and decisions being made of the unborn child with exceptions to those of rape and incest and other means of illegal fatherhood."

Of course, the fact that a spermatozoon and an ovum contribute equal numbers of chromosomes doesn't really mean that "men are 50 percent of the result of the pregnancy." That's not how it works; I've never seen a male partner carrying and feeding a fetus for 4.5 months. Simpleton's math aside, I do honestly want to know, exactly what would he consider "equal rights" to a decision about abortion? If one partner (or ex-partner) decides in favor of ending the pregnancy and the other doesn't, what should happen? How do you make that a 50/50 decision?

EDIT: Further information highlights just how much this abortion-billboard stunt is part and parcel of Mr. Douchebag's manipulative, abusive strategy. The billboard reads "Created for N.A.N.I. (National Association of Needed Information"; turns out Nani is his target's first name. He abused his then-wife and has harassed and stalked her and other exes; he created a website named after his ex where he publicized her contact information; he published gross comments and "jokes" about extreme violence toward women and toward his ex in particular; he may or may not have been lying about always wanting a child, as there are allegedly court documents concerning his child-support deadbeatery. Can't say I'm shocked, as divulging private and socially-stigmatized information is a common weapon in the abuser's arsenal; but I sure as hell remain grossed out.

Legislators think they are our daddies (and good daddies make things harder on their children)

Happy Fathers' Day! I was going to write you a post about dads, but it'll have to be tomorrow, because I got distracted by an entirely different kind of paternalism. Today I'd like to direct your attention to this post at The Curvature: Anti-Choice Ultrasound Laws Don’t Change Abortion Rates, But Continue Getting Tougher. It's about the wave of state-level legislation that's been passed in the last year or so, much of it having to do with forcing a woman to pay for a medically unnecessary ultrasound, look at it, and/or hear a description of it from the sono tech.

Now, many clinics use ultrasound as a way to determine at what point in the pregnancy the abortion is going to be performed -- there are important technical distinctions between, say, six weeks and sixteen weeks, though ultrasound is not the only way to figure this out -- and I'm all for patients having access to their own medical records if they want it. However!

(a) There is really not that much to see on a sonogram that's made for the purpose of determining gestational age. The screen is pretty dark, the image is fuzzy, and 90% of abortions are performed in the first trimester, a time when all the print-out shows is a roundish grey blur. 

(b) Instructing, as some laws now do, that the technician must turn the screen to face the woman but the woman "may avert her eyes" is pretty ludicrous. So is the idea that a woman averting her eyes must still hear the doctor or tech "describe the fetal development at that stage" (no provision for "averting her ears" in such laws!). If it's in some way relevant to care, a doctor should -- and would -- explain this sort of thing. If it's not relevant to care, well then, it sounds to me like legislators are trying to alter medical practice for political purposes, and as we know that's not OK. Actually it sounds to me like our state reps are practicing medicine without a license -- which happens to be illegal, you know? 

(c) Most of the laws make no provision for victims of sexual trauma who may be re-traumatized by this process. In fact, the Oklahoma bill which was vetoed by the governor even specified that if the abortion is taking place very early in pregnancy, the ultrasound must be done with an intra-vaginal wand, rather than over the abdomen, to "give a clearer image." I was struck to the core when I read this. Like the state was mandating a second rape -- yes, that's what it's called when someone puts something in you that you don't consent to -- if you wanted an abortion. 

(d) Most strikingly: I have never seen a patient change her mind about her abortion because of an ultrasound. My clinic does perform a sonogram before every procedure. By law, clients fill a form indicating whether they want to see the image, listen to the "fetal heart tones if present," both, or neither. We get back forms with all sorts of answers, meaning plenty of clients do choose one or both, but I don't know of anyone who has said, "Oh my god, you know what? I had NO IDEA there was an embryo in there! I thought an abortion was something to do with my bladder! Now that I know, there's no way I can go through with this." 

(e) Which brings us back to the conclusion at The Curvature: it's probably not at all about changing patients' minds, but simply yet another approach in the campaign to guilt, shame, isolate and traumatize women who choose abortion. To punish them for having made this choice that we know she will go through with, because women are not stupid and women are not children, they understand their lives better than a stranger ever could and they already know in their guts what they are capable of at this moment. 

Sometimes that's giving birth and giving her parental rights to another family. 

Sometimes it's leaving high school or going on public assistance in order to afford a wanted, or perhaps unwanted, child. 

And sometimes it's selling her furniture to scrape together 400 or more dollars (have you ever had someone count dollars and nickels on your desk for a medical appointment?), facing a crowd of clueless shame-mongers, listening to maudlin scripts written by state legislators while her pants are down and a high-tech stick is moving around in her vagina, watching a video about a screaming fetus, spending six hours in a crowded waiting room, and having a safe five-minute procedure before going back into the world, back through the clueless crowd, back to her loved ones and not asking them for reassurance that she is still a worthy human being, because they might rebuke her, because they might not understand, because they've heard from ten thousand shame-mongers that anyone in their right mind who's seen an ultrasound would change her mind and leave the abortion clinic. Yes, sometimes women are capable of all that. But god forbid we make it any easier on them.