Making the Cut: Our Hypocritical Stance on Non-Consensual Genital Modification

You know, a lot of people are going on about how the recent ban on circumcision by a German court violates religious freedom, and to be sure, some courts in the US have been unable to uphold such a ruling on those grounds.

Let me be clear... I support religious practices that don't overtly harm people.  Okay, you might say, where do you draw that line?

Here in the U.S., we obviously don't draw it at the mutilation of a child's genitals.  But we do have express bans on other forms of violence sanctioned by religious texts, such as the stoning of women who have sex out of wedlock [Deuteronomy 22].  In fact, we in the U.S. rail against such literal interpretations of religious texts as practiced in countries under a fundamentalist version of sharia (and we use this as justification for the occupation and destruction of those countries... just sayin'). And we have no problem speaking out against the mutilation of female genitalia in Africa, even though that practice is congruent with religious tradition as well.  Are we so hypocritical in our disdain for religion-induced violence that we only accept the kind practiced by people who live in our neighborhoods and look like us?

Unfortunately the religious freedom card continues to dominate the conversation about circumcision in particular.  But what about the discussion of sexual freedom?  We need to be talking about how the mutilation of child's genitals is a huge sexual rights issue.  When it comes to female genital mutilation, the implications are obvious: no clitoris, no sexual pleasure.  What we don't always realize is that the removal of the male foreskin removes a wealth of nerve endings as well, scarring the penis and removing a lot of sensation.  Obviously the organ can still function enough to perform its "biological task," but what about the quality of that child's future sexual life?

The other socially accepted form of genital mutilation not discussed nearly enough is the mutilation (sometimes called "modification") of organs that are considered "ambiguous" at birth.  Seeing how we all have differently-sized-and-shaped genitalia, I find it ethically repugnant that a parent might opt to have their baby's organs cut to look "more normal" without the child's consent.  Still, I'm sure any parent who's had their child's genitals "modified" for this reason would tell you they thought it was for the best.  After all, we live in a world where only two variations of sex organs are considered acceptable, and parents don't want their kids growing up in a world that might persecute them on the basis of something that can be cut away.  It's amazing, really, that our society is so homophobic and transphobic that parents would rather have their children endure major reconstructive surgery than just leave it be.

By now I've probably offended dozens, and really that's okay.  The non-consensual modification of a person's genitalia is a topic many are passionate about, and many of us have strong opinions one way or another.  But the conversation, so often about either "religious freedom" or "normalizing the child for her/his own sake", misses too many points to not be taken to task.  We can't discuss the above without also taking into account the child's future as a sexual being in charge of her/his own body, and we need to start thinking about the inherent problems with putting things like religious tradition before sexual autonomy.

Vagina

That is all.

Why Birthing Rights Matter to the Pro-Choice Movement

In the more abortion-focused circles of the pro-choice movement, birthing rights often go undiscussed.  My mentions of home birth rights specifically have brought varying responses, from supportive to ambivalent to outright hostile ("Well that is not safe!"). 

But let's be clear about something.  Reproductive justice means that everyone has complete control over if, when, where, how, and with whom they bring a child into the world.  It means that people have accurate, unbiased access to information regarding all facets of their reproductive lives, from contraception to pregnancy options, from practices surrounding birth to parental rights. It means that our choices are not constrained by politics, financial barriers, or social pressure.  In other words, how can the right to give birth at home - safely and legally - not be on a reproductive justice advocate's radar?

I mention this because we in North Carolina are enduring yet another vicious attack on the rights of pregnant and childbearing individuals.  Women seeking home births may have the legal right to do so, but just like the women seeking abortion care, these laws do nothing to protect access.  As far as home birth attendants go, our state only recognizes certified nurse midwives (CNMs), and in order for these phenomenal women to legally attend births, they must be supervised by an MD currently licensed to practice obstetrics in the state.  As you can imagine, physicians that will supervise homebirth CNMs are few and far between, and this week one of them was advised (under threats of sanction) that he cannot sign off on CNMs who are not under his direct employment.  Even though the law does not dictate these terms, the medical board's sanction left seven of our eleven home birth CNMs without a licensing MD, and countless women without a care provider.

The research is abundantly clear: when labor is progressing normally, a woman under the care of a trained midwife is as safe giving birth at home as she would be under the care of an obstetrician in a hospital.

Anti-abortion birth advocates are already taking a hypocritical stance on the matter as they decry abortion rights while asking why women's reproductive decisions are limited.  I've been biting my tongue while reading the Facebook comments of fellow birth professionals all week.  One such statement went, "It is legal to have an abortion but a woman can't choose to have a home birth with a midwife! This is crazy!"  Another, "A mother can kill her baby in all three trimesters but can't give birth at home.  The government is nuts."  [Fact-Check Sidebar: North Carolina restricts abortion access after the 20th week of pregnancy (hardly "all three trimesters"); additionally, this ruling didn't come from the government, it came from the NC Board of Medicine, an agency independent from the state's governing body.]  These ramblings are usually followed by the contradictory co-opting of pro-choice language, ripe with phrases like "right to choose" and "my body, my choice."

The abortion rift amongst birth advocates is really nothing new.  After all, to simply be an advocate for varying birthing options does not encompass any official position on the politics of pregnancy itself.  Birth advocates come to the work for a variety of reasons, while it certainly seems odd to me that a person could support the "right to choose" in one pregnancy outcome but not another, the social stigma surrounding abortion means that this rift is bound to exist. 

That home birth rights are not at the forefront of the reproductive justice movement, on the other hand, is beyond me.  The struggles are just too similar.  Every time someone points out that women might have to cross state lines to access a home birth midwife, I think of the women who still - in the year 2012 - have to seek abortion care in a state with fewer restrictions or more providers.  When we worry that women will have to give birth with midwives who operate illegally (or go unassisted), I think of the women who risked their lives going to see illegal abortion providers with no public credentials, or the women who simply did it themselves.  Medicaid and many private insurers restrict access to home birth midwives just like they restrict access to abortion, making both more or less a privilege to those with the means to pay out of pocket. 

Reproductive justice advocates who are involved in birthing rights see both - the right to an abortion and the right to give birth at home - as the same struggle.  We understand that any assault on reproductive freedom comes from a system of patriarchal self-interest that sees women not as autonomous beings, but as objects to be regulated and "fixed."  We know that any women who choose home birth have done their research and don't need "warnings" from government institutions, just like women seeking abortions don't need the ideological jargon in "Right To Know" legislation.  We know that women and their families are capable of making the best possible decisions regarding the births of their children, and we seek to create a world where access, stigma, and social pressure don't sway these decisions.  In other words, we live up to the full spectrum of our ideology... we Trust Women.

I call on the reproductive justice movement to make birthing rights a part of their pro-choice consciousness.  If we are to create a world that ensures sexual and reproductive well-being for all women and girls, no struggle to protect our choices or desires can go unsupported.