Pacific Views

A Reproductive Justice Marker

A marker bill, as you may know, is a piece of legislation that's more like a proposal than an actual bill. It's a concept paper, if you will, expressing the ideals of the congresscritter who introduced it. For reproductive justice, this would be mine:

Whereas it should be recognized in the law that women are full citizens with all the rights and responsibilities that entails, that they should be presumed competent to handle their own affairs, we hold it to be self-evident that they should be accorded the full right to manage their own reproductive health and to have access to such treatment as makes that right meaningful. Therefore:

(1) No law shall be passed regarding the zoning or building code requirements of a women's health clinic or facility where abortion procedures are performed that burdens it more greatly than any other facility where gynecological or obstetric procedures are performed.

(2) No law shall be passed requiring a woman of childbearing age to abide by reproductive healthcare laws that restrict their governance of their own bodies. Including,

   (A) laws requiring women to inform or seek the consent of any other person besides a doctor of her choosing when making decisions about her reproductive healthcare; or

   (B) laws requiring waiting periods for a procedure or treatment that a woman has agreed on with her doctor; or

   (C) laws requiring her to view or listen to information whose content is neither supported by the preponderance of medical opinion nor deemed medically necessary by her attending physician.

(3) No law shall be passed allowing a medical professional to oppose the express treatment wishes of a pregnant woman, nor allowing any court to hold a woman liable for the outcome of her preferred course of treatment during pregnancy.

(4) No law may be passed allowing the forcible restraint or shackling of a woman during labor unless she is medically deemed to pose an immediate threat of suicide or criminal violence. Particularly, she may not be restrained during labor:

   (A) to impose on her a medical treatment that goes against her wishes; or

   (B) while in the custody of the state, unless medically deemed to be an immediate flight risk.

(5) No law may be passed restricting a woman from travelling to obtain reproductive health care, nor may any individual who knowingly assists her with her full consent be held liable for such assistance.

(6) No law may be passed requiring women, uniquely, to sacrifice their lives, health, physical autonomy, or well-being for that of another, nor permitting them to be coerced into doing so.

(7) No other law may be passed whose effect is to require a woman to remain pregnant against her will.

If you can't imagine why it would even be necessary to pass such a set of laws, in addition to the links above, well, read up:

April 19, 2007 - Without a Health Exception: Men (and 'Concerned Women') Hate You

April 19, 2007 - Forced Pregnancy, Forced C-Sections

April 19, 2007 - Without a Health Exception: No Respect For Life

April 19, 2007 - Without a Health Exception: For His Sister

April 19, 2007 - Without A Health Exception: Hyperemesis

April 18, 2007 - Intact Dilation and Extraction (D&X) Ban Upheld

And for a nightcap, a fascinating paean to the rights of the unconscious and soon-to-be-dead when they've previously signed an organ donor card:

The third principle is respect for persons: (1) respect for the dignity of each individual; (2) respect for the right of everyone to govern the disposition of his or her body after death, including whether to donate organs for transplantation; ...

See? If women have the courtesy to be dying or dead, then they get to have dignity and the right to govern the disposition of their own bodies. Tough luck if you still want to tool around in that body for a while.

Posted by natasha at May 17, 2007 12:23 AM | Women | Technorati links |