Joan Smith’s ‘The Public Woman’

A review by Lotte Scheel


I’m sure I’d be preaching to the converted if my only comment is that feminism is still very much needed. In a sense, Joan Smith is also preaching to the converted. When I started reading her most recent work, The Public Woman (2013), I had long since been branded as the raging feminist in most of my social circles. I didn’t expect anything she wrote to change my opinion on anything: on the contrary, I expected the entire book to consolidate my already existing views. And in a way, yes, it did. It confirmed what I already knew: that society treats women like shit, despite maintaining an illusion that women are equal.

I read this book with an overwhelming sense of déjà-vu. The points Smith makes and the case studies she uses echo a truth that I, as a woman, am eternally confronted with. Smith picks up on a myriad of issues, using case studies and statistics to make her point. She discusses the way women are treated by society, the way they are turned into a commodity, the barriers they face in politics, in the public sphere, social circles and in the home. The whole book carries a trigger warning for general misogyny and violence against women, but the chapters describing in-depth about torture and murder of women (Possession and The Witches of Perugia) carry massive trigger warnings – I managed to slowly work through Possession, but I started and could not finish The Witches of Perugia, because it was just too distressing, due to extremely high levels of sexual and physical violence.

She explains the problem is that our patriarchal society trains both men and women to accept and in some cases even relish a perverse simultaneous infantilising and hypersexualisation of women, using the glamour model Jordan and the description of a particular strip club as examples.

The title of her chapter on women in politics, Calm Down, Dear, actual words spoken by the current British Prime Minister, David Cameron, to a female Labour politician, perfectly embody the blatant condescension and disdain most male politicians have for women. While this chapter deals with British politics, one could easily switch David Cameron’s name for Tony Abbott’s.

While I said previously that in a way this book confirmed my already existing views, Smith actually managed to change my mind on an issue I had been sure of my stance on. It was in the chapter Buying Power, which discusses sex work and the shocking commonplace of child prostitution in supposedly developed countries.  I already knew that sex workers had very dangerous working conditions, and because of this, I was convinced that legalisation of prostitution was a good attempt at lessening the danger for women in the industry. However, Smith explains that where prostitution has been legalised, both legal and illegal brothels multiply (for example, when Victoria, Australia, legalised brothels, illegal brothels ended up outnumbering legal ones four to one).  I was also horrified to learn that in areas where prostitution has been legalised, the number of trafficked women to the area skyrockets, and the number of underage girls who are groomed for prostitution increases. Since finding out that while it provides security to some sex workers, the legalisation of prostitution actually increases the number of women who are exploited and trafficked, I have changed my stance on the issue and support the Swedish model, where pimps and those who buy sex are punished while women who are selling sex are not and are provided with safe exit strategies.

While I was impressed with the majority of Smith’s book, I did have a problem with Queen Wag, her chapter on Kate Middleton. Here Smith argues that Middleton has always played a traditionally feminine role, first literally being a lady in waiting for her prince, and then taking on the role of princess, dutifully becoming pregnant with the future monarch soon after her wedding. Smith points out that while the princes would serve in the armed forces, Middleton “stuck to the most traditional of female roles, visiting projects to do with children” (p92). While I agree that limiting women to traditional roles is problematic, and there is no doubt that the royal family’s traditions are certainly patriarchal, it seems that Smith is almost attacking Middleton herself for her adoption of these roles. On the last page of this chapter, Smith writes that Middleton has “done little since leaving university except play a supporting role to her boyfriend, marry him with great pomp and ceremony and get pregnant for the first time…unambitious, uncontroversial and bland, Kate Middleton was Queen Wag in everything but name.” This seems inappropriate considering that the main sources we have on Middleton’s life are tabloid newspapers, which offer a sensationalistic representation of everything:  there are many aspects of Middleton’s life of which we are not aware. And regardless, while I am aware it can be frustrating to watch women accept traditional societal gender roles, it is more beneficial to critique the system that constrains women, than to condemn the women who are trapped in its snares.

As Smith concludes her book with the slogan Women’s Rights Are Human Rights, I conclude with my wholehearted agreement with the dominant message of the book. Women’s rights are human rights, and as the book has demonstrated, they are sorely lacking.  Patriarchy is entrenched in our society, and it is up to the younger generation to grow up and enter the world with a new attitude. The Public Woman on the whole gives a wonderful overview of the state of women in the world today, and as such it deserves a place on mandatory reading lists for Year Twelve English in all schools, to educate young men and women: to make them cognisant of the terrible state of women’s rights – human rights, and gift them with an awareness that will ready them to make the world a better place.

~ Lotte Scheel

Gender $tudies – Can We Afford the Cost?

By Laura Howden

*Trigger Warnings: this article contains a brief mention of rape and sexual assault. Reader discretion is advised if sensitive to content of this nature.*

Two undergraduate students at the April 18 rally on UQ’s St Lucia campus, preparing to lead the march. (Photo captured by Laura Howden.)

Two undergraduate students at the April 18 rally on UQ’s St Lucia campus, preparing to lead the march. (Photo captured by Laura Howden.)

“When Gender Studies is under attack, what do we do? Stand up, fight back!” The chant ripples through the crowd as we march across the St Lucia campus of The University of Queensland (UQ); a formidable assembly of staff and students armed with megaphones, banners and copies of an online petition that amassed some 836 signatures of support. Our final destination is the UQ senate meeting, at which representatives from UQ’s Gender Studies Teaching Committee hope to present evidence against the institution’s decision to abolish the major. Close to a dozen police officers await our arrival at the foot of the building. Requests to allow a delegation from our ranks to enter the senate are refused but, at the last, they allow a copy of the petition and two other documents to be handed through the line of officers and tabled by the board. When we finally disperse the protestors’ anger and frustration is palpable, and it is clear that this issue is a long way away from reaching any kind of resolution.

The April 18 rally was organised in response to an announcement by the university’s Executive Arts Dean, Fred D’Agostino, that as of 2014 Gender Studies would no longer be offered as a choice of major for undergraduate students (with existing students given the option to continue on until 2018). One week prior to the protest event, Mr D’Agostino was quoted in The Australian newspaper as saying he “was not aware” of any complaints from undergraduate students – this in spite of the vocal ‘Save Gender Studies’ student collective on campus, which held its first meeting of the year on March 11.

But it has not just been local students standing up and speaking out against the cuts. Director of Gender Studies at Melbourne University, Professor Jeanette Hoorn, spoke both at the rally and at an earlier forum alongside members of the National Tertiary Education Union (NTEU). She noted in each of her talks that UQ would now be the only GO8 university in Australia not to offer a gender or women’s studies program, and urged UQ administrators to recognise its significance beyond the classroom. “I believe you cannot do any gender studies in Iran these days,” Professor Hoorn said at the rally. “It’s a shame you can’t do much in Queensland either.”

Continue reading

Casual Sexism: Myths, Debunked

Trigger warning for misogynist, homophobic language, discussion of sexual assault.

“Grow some balls!”/”That takes balls.” 

Having balls is a compliment or an insult, depending on how it’s used, but it comes back to the idea that being courageous/brave/forward is a male thing. I’m sure no one doubts that these traits are certainly present in women as well, however the problem here is linking such traits with cis-male genitalia. There’s also a bit of an irony to this saying. Testicles seem to be the most sensitive part on a male body. And yet, ironically, they’ve come to represent toughness.

So far, there’s no problem, really. Where’s the sexism?

The problem is when it’s used to describe a woman. And there are two issues with this. First, cis-women don’t have balls. So substitute balls for ovaries? It doesn’t quite have the same ring. We don’t even have a colloquial word for ovaries in english (in common usage, anyway, Urban Dictionary informs me that the kids are calling them “Os” these days), and yet I can think of numerous slang words for testicles off the top of my head. Balls, nuts, bollocks, crown jewels.

The second problem with this saying is when someone says to a woman “grow some balls”. Meaning get some nerve/drive/courage. It’s reductive because, in light of the fact that women don’t have them, it implies that courage/nerve/the go-getting attitude is A Male Thing. This insult’s close relative, calling someone a “pussy”, perfectly compliments this idea by saying that if you don’t have these things, you are female genitalia.

Finally, this is pretty trans* phobic language. The expression totally adheres to the gender binary, and in doing so, defines internal gender characteristics by reference to physical (external) gender. In this way, gender is represented as a dichotomy rather than a spectrum, and physical and mental manifestations of gender are wrongly conflated.

“You’re such a girl!”

Being a girl in this context is synonymous with being weak, submissive, and crying easily. Of course these traits are feminine, and therefore negative (according to this insult’s logic). The female gender is reduced to an insult. Like it’s the last thing anyone would want to be.

I’ve also noticed people employing this gender essentialist language to describe themselves or others in a positive way. Well in a retro-sexist positive way. Take this for example. “I just love crocheting and baking sponge cakes, I’m such a girl” or this, “my boyfriend eats soo much, he’s such a boy”. In other words “I do [insert gender-essential trait here], therefore I’m such a [insert gender here]“.

Like the “you’re such a girl” line, these expressions reek of gender essentialism. In the world of these expressions all girls wear pink dresses with little bows and like to knit or flower-arrange in their spare time. Likewise, the “boys” don’t show any sort of complex emotion, like “big” things like cars and trucks, and of course have enormous appetites.

“Take it as a compliment!”/”Have a sense of humour”/”Don’t be so serious.”

You know that person who says you look cute when you get angry, or that person who says they’re a feminist and then proceeds to completely objectify you (by being overtly sexual, asking you for naked photos – true story!)? This is one of their favourites.

People like to pull this one out when someone makes a sexist/homophobic joke and you don’t let it slide. If only you’d just stop being such a humourless feminist and appreciate some good old humour! Go on, take those sleazy construction worker catcalls as a compliment! You should like receiving that attention; it means you’re attractive, right?

Just no.

The idea of someone who “wears the pants” in a relationship.

This saying manages to be astoundingly heteronormative, with a generous helping of tired gender roles and gender essentialism.

Re: gender essentialism, first. It’s underscored by the idea that the person who wears the pants is a man (even though women wear pants. Indeed, I’m wearing pants right now). And that this pants-wearing man is the one who wields the power and authority in a relationship. It’s premised on the idea that it’s not fathomable that two people in a relationship, irrespective of their gender, could simply be equal, and that there may actually not be either particular person calling the shots. To think that someone has to be “the one in charge” is just really…weird and paternalistic.

Moving on to the heteronormativity of this. Just…wow. If the saying is based on the idea that one person in a relationship must either be or resemble a man, then what of a relationship where there are no men, more than one party is a man, neither party is a cis-gendered man?

It also assumes that everyone is in a monogamous relationship between two people.

The thing about this saying is that it’s usually aimed at relationships that don’t, or appear not to conform to narrow conceptions of how gender roles should be. Lesbian relationships are frequently targeted by absolutely hilar observers with these sorts of sayings. But even heterosexual relationships, where the female party might be noticeably forward or self-assured, can be targeted. Observers will wryly note, “well she really wears the pants in that relationship”.

“That sucks dick”/”Go suck a dick”.

This saying seems to be underpinned by the conception that fellatio is fundamentally degrading/debasing. Like “sucking a dick” is a really crappy thing to do and should only be reserved for crappy people. Which confuses me because receiving fellatio is like proof that someone’s A Real Man, or just generally awesome. So…it’s a shit thing to do, but if you get it you’re awesome?

Raping/being raped by things.

I’m going to keep writing about this until rape stops being funny to people. But first, let’s go back to a definition of rape, shall we? So (my non-dictionary) definition of rape is non-consensual sexual activity with someone. But it’s more than that. It’s an expression of power over someone, enacted by sexual means.

Rape isn’t just having sex with someone when they weren’t really into it. It goes far deeper than that. So, again, that really difficult exam? That long day at work? That nauseating hangover? That person hacking into your facebook and changing your status? Not rape. Next time you think about using ‘rape’ to describe any of those things, (or basically anything that isn’t non-consensual sexual activity with someone) think about all those sexual assault survivors whose experiences you’re dismissing.


~ Rosie Cuppaidge

Slut: A Myth

This article will be featured in Wom*news 9: Myths

Trigger warning for discussion of sexual assault.

You are fifteen and dislike your crush’s girlfriend. You call her a slut. You are eighteen and about to go out clubbing for the first time. Your mother looks you up and down and says she didn’t raise a slut. You are twenty and the boy you are fucking calls you a slut the one night you refuse to have sex.

Everyone knows that the word “slut” has power, whether we agree with it or not.
It is used to shame and degrade women and, more importantly, to put them in a box with a label that says “you’re not human here” and to make sure they stay there. Whilst there are many different variables in the slut-shaming game, the objective remains the same: to ensure women’s behaviour is deemed “acceptable” by societal terms, and to make sex a source of shame and not power. In a culture that is so concerned with labels and definitions, one has to pose the question: what is a slut? After years of being called a slut, of hearing my friends being called sluts I can only assume that a slut is a woman who doesn’t adhere to every societal expectation heaped upon her. Continue reading

UQWC’s Reply to ‘Fabulous Feminism’ in Semper Floreat

In this year’s first issue of the UQU student magazine, Semper Floreat, there was an article published titled “Fabulous Feminism” by Vivienne Hartwig. It was far from fabulous. The UQ Women’s Collective, concerned with the warped view of feminism Vivienne presented, wrote a reply. We’ve submitted this reply to the Semper Editors in the hopes of it being published in issue two of Semper. This seems unlikely, but not that this matters; we’ll be publishing our reply in the upcoming issue of our magazine, Wom*news, and it will stay here so everyone can share it with their friends.

Vivienne’s article is first, with our reply below it.

Fabulous Feminism by Vivienne Hartwig:

Fabulous Feminism

The UQ Women’s Collective’s Reply:

UQWC Reply to Fabulous Feminism

Thanks to Emma, Lorelei, Rosie, Julia for writing our reply, and to Emily for designing it in feminist purple! And thanks to you for sharing this around!



My Perception of Feminism in Chile

Since I was little, I had the notion that in the majority of families the man was the one that worked and the woman was at home taking care of the children and the household. I started to question myself: “what if I do not want to do that in my life?” A similar questioning happened when I wanted to play soccer; the answer was “that is a sport for men”. Every time when I heard an expression like that, I felt a small pain inside my stomach, which was anger; it was a feeling of “that is not fair”. I do not know from where I achieved this way of thinking being so young. Perhaps it came from the encouragement received from my family to study, or maybe it was just in the air at that time.

I was born in Chile in 1983 under the dictatorship period (1973-1990), but it wasn’t until I went to college that I could understand the relevance of this part of the history of my country. The reason was that in many families the subject became a taboo, and it was “not appropriate” to talk about it. Or perhaps people just wanted to forget the events happened during that time and keep going with their lives.

During this time the sense of injustice against women’s rights was expressed with an immense force, especially in urban areas. Brave women carried on such protests against a tough authority, and as a consequence, they created a wide awareness about women’s rights. I believe that these events have triggered significant improvements to reach equality in our society.

Although there are many relevant issues that remain unsolved (due to several reasons such as influence from religious beliefs, tradition, fear, lack of open-mindedness, or a combination of these factors), in the present day there is a larger conscience about gender equality than in the past.

Continue reading

Flashback to 1981: UQU Bans Sale of Magazines Exploiting Women

This fabulous piece of herstory will be featured in the upcoming issue of Wom*news: #8 Flashback!

Anna Bligh and Kerry Boman explain why magazines which exploit women's bodies were banned from sale by the UQU.

Anna Bligh and Kerry Boman explain in Semper why magazines which exploit women’s bodies were banned from sale by the UQU.

This article from a 1981 edition of the UQ Union students’ magazine, Semper, showcases ex-Queensland Premier Anna Bligh and fellow UQ Women’s Collective member Kerry Boman explaining why magazines that exploited women were removed from sale on campus. Anna Bligh went on to become the students’ women’s officer during her time at UQ. There are also some interesting related women’s and queer issues raised in the other replies on this page.

~ Emma Di Bernardo

Continue reading

“Dear Premier Newman: Stop Defunding Sisters Inside” from UQWC + QUTWC

The following is a joint effort from the UQ Women’s Collective and QUT Women’s Collective: a letter we posted today asking Premier Campbell Newman to address the reasons why Sisters Inside Inc. was defunded, and to reconsider the defunding of this amazing service to women. It was mailed both to the Premier’s office and his Ashgrove electoral office. We’ll keep you updated as to his reply.

If you would like to show your support for Sisters Inside, you can sign this petition!

Dear Premier Campbell Newman,

This letter is written on behalf of the members of both the University of Queensland Women’s Collective and the Queensland University of Technology’s Women’s Collective to express their significant concern regarding the state government’s recent decision to withdraw funding for the service, Sisters Inside Inc. Our collectives implore the government to reconsider this withdrawal for three reasons.

Firstly, the reasons given for withdrawal of funds are not empirically credible. The Collectives’ research suggests that the government funds saved by the work of Sisters Inside greatly exceeds the cost required to enable that work. Secondly, the organisation provides crucial services directly contributing to the prevention of female crime and incarceration, and consequently, the wellbeing of women, their families and society at large. Finally, even if defunding was not likely to drastically impair these efforts, the symbolic nature of this withdrawal is psychologically damaging, socially unacceptable and ideologically invalid. The Women’s Collectives of both the University of Queensland and the Queensland University of Technology therefore urge the LNP not to undermine an organisation whose work is vital if the government is to fulfill its primary role – to uphold the welfare of the people of Queensland.

The services provided by Sisters Inside are crucial to the maintenance and advancement of the welfare of women in prison. It not only provides counselling and support to help them overcome underlying issues and re-enter society after their sentence is served, but advocates fair treatment and fundamental rights whilst in gaol. Sisters Inside is an organisation that is there for women – mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, friends like yours or mine – when no one else will be. It directly addresses the difficulties women have faced – often abuse and addiction – and provides them with the tools necessary to overcome these difficulties so they might lead happier lives and better contribute to society. Sisters Inside has been an outstandingly successful service that has greatly supported a vulnerable and otherwise disregarded demographic, and thereby has benefited the Queensland community at large. This benefit has not only been felt sociologically, but also economically.

It is clear to us that defunding Sisters Inside will cost the government money in the long run, rendering it a purposeless and overwhelmingly damaging act. As a party that is intent on cutting costs to the Queensland electorate, it is surprising that the LNP has chosen to collapse an organisation which saves government money. It costs taxpayers $70,000 to keep one woman in prison for one year. Sisters Inside has directly contributed to the prevention of the incarceration of countless women – saving the government hundreds of thousands of dollars. Further, the services and support provided by the organisation help women avoid criminal behavior once out of prison, thereby preventing further gaol sentences and decreasing government expenditure even more. Defunding Sisters Inside will not only inhibit these efforts, but cease them altogether. No other organisation provides these services, and they cannot be provided without the support of the government. The government’s decision is therefore counter-productive. Without Sisters Inside, the Queensland Government, and furthermore its taxpayers, will pay more money for a worse outcome.

As you must be aware, the UQ and QUT Women’s Collectives are not alone in voicing opposition to this decision. There is currently a petition by Get Up! with 16,132 signatures as of August 22 – and doubtless, more will have signed since we have sent this letter. The goal is to reach 20,000 – that will be 20,000 individuals who do not want to see this invaluable service lost from the Queensland Community. You can find the petition at The public outcry this represents reflects the real benefit to the people of Queensland provided by Sisters inside, their appreciation for what the organisation has given the community, and a strong desire to ensure its services continue.

We strongly urge the Queensland LNP to rethink its decision, and perhaps more importantly, to consider the philosophical implications of ignoring the people it deems to support and represent.  This service supports women who need it most, when there is no one else to support them; and furthermore, it actually saves Queensland taxpayers money. There are plenty of reasons to fund Sisters Inside, but no valid reason to defund it.

We look forward to reading your reply in regards to this matter, especially the government’s explanation as to why Sisters Inside inc. has been defunded.


Emma Di Bernardo and Caitlin Gordon-King
on behalf of the UQ Women’s Collective
and the QUT Women’s Collective.

The Disintegration of Rights: A History of the American Abortion Debate

by Lorelei Links

You can find this article in the current herstory issue of wom*news!

Trigger warning for the discussion of abortion.

Here in sunny Queensland, we don’t enjoy the ability to exercise our right to reproductive autonomy by means of an abortion. In the United States, a landmark Supreme Court case called Roe v. Wade, 1973, established a constitutional guarantee that our American sisters could access that which we cannot. And yet, over the last six months, I find myself thinking more and more that I would rather be an unhappily pregnant woman here, and secure myself an illegal abortion, than be in the United States and seek out a legal one. The US has gotten way scary. Almost weekly we hear new horror stories of women being forced to endure traumatic circumstances due to the war on women’s rights that has been raging for 40 years. But we don’t live there, so what should we care, right? We should care, because this literally constitutes a violation of human rights (according to the United Nations) perpetrated by the Leaders of the Free World. Over decades when other civil freedoms have improved, the United States judiciary continues an unrelenting attack on women. The world is a scary place for all women when in a country which has constitutionally guaranteed your right to an abortion, the pursuit of that right still leads women to coercion, prosecution, emotional trauma, physical trauma and yeah, like, death.


Roe v. Wade established that a person’s right to privacy extended to their right to an abortion. This was probably the first mistake. The United Nations thinks that abortion is a human right under headings like women’s health, safe and respectful relationships, good community-building, and equality between men and women, but it was ‘privacy’ that stuck in the States. The Supreme Court meant privacy in the sense that the state should stay out of the home, and the women fighting Roe were looking to secure the ruling via any route, so they took privacy and ran with it. But ‘privacy’ misses the point – it’s not about the state being in or out of our bedrooms, it’s about a woman owning her uterus. This was going to become an issue later on. Roe also established the trimester system to determine the point at which a state’s interest could override its obligation to protect individual liberty. According to Roe, in the early stages of any pregnancy, the state had no legitimate interest whatsoever in getting all up in our bits. Oh how times would change.


No one even really cared about abortions being legal until about the mid-eighties. Unsurprisingly, the legalisation of abortions across the country didn’t lead to an epidemic of women rushing to their local clinic every day to fix themselves a fun dose of un-pregnancy. But in the 1980s, the New Right took hold of America, and scary shit started to go down all over the place. Women were one of their favourite targets. In 1989, the first ‘chipping away’ of Roe happened when Webster v. Reproductive Health Services failed to overturn a range of Missouri abortion access restrictions as unconstitutional. The restrictions included things like married women getting consent from their husbands, minors getting consent from their parents, a mandatory waiting period – the usual bullshit obstacles we see popping up all over the show these days, designed singularly to dissuade women from having abortions. 1989 was also a dark year for the women of America trying desperately to limit the frenzied abortion hate-speech; the Supreme Court failed to even address the Missouri law’s preamble, which referenced babies as “unborn children” and the made the unqualified declaration that human life begins at conception. This is as scary as the ruling itself – it was a huge win for the anti-abortion movement, which sought to attach connotations of ‘humanity’ to their staunchly anti-woman position and had just had that position as good as endorsed by the freaking Supreme Court. I bet I don’t need to tell you that that trend got out of control real fast.


In 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey changed the game regarding when the state could and couldn’t intervene in the abortion process. Casey took the onus off the state to prove that any barrier they imposed was necessary, and said instead that states just had to prove (if challenged) that a particular barrier did not constitute an “undue burden.” This has meant that states can get away with all manner of fucked up shit, like the mandated vaginal ultrasounds we saw in Virginia earlier this year, and forcing doctors to supply certain ‘information’ to their patients which can include things like how to put your baby up for adoption. It also scrapped the trimester system and basically told America that a baby was  a baby as soon as it was capable of surviving outside the womb (“viability”). With this, a whoooole bunch of women waved goodbye to their ability to access, uninhibited, early-term abortions.


In the mid-1990s, the hottest new target of the anti-abortion movement emerged. It was known as “partial-birth abortion”, and it reared its ugly head in 1996 and 1997 but was vetoed by President Clinton. In 2003, however, old mate George Bush Jr. adopted the policy as a personal favourite and passed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act through congress. Despite being neither an actual medical term nor a single procedure, but rather a provocative term for a collection of rarely-performed late-term abortion methods, the Supreme Court stunned us once again by upholding the Act in Gonzales v. Carhart, 2007. Carhart was the first unconditional ban on an abortion procedure since Roe declared such a ban unconstitutional in 1973. And when I say unconditional, I mean unconditional – even in cases where “partial-birth abortion” might be deemed necessary to save the life of the mother, it’s 100% illegal in the good ole USofA. To add insult to injury, the majority opinion, courtesy of Justice Anthony Kennedy, explicitly cited the state’s responsibility to stop women making regrettable choices as the justification for the ruling. Yep. Women, according to Justice Kennedy, had to be protected from themselves. By endangering their lives. All-round champ Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a thing or two to say about that when she wrote her dissent: “Eliminating or reducing women’s reproductive choices is manifestly not a means of protecting them.” She also pointed out the fact that for the first time “ethical and moral concerns”, unrelated to any discourse of rights, liberty, the preservation of life, or state responsibility, were being given priority in the Supreme Court. She blasted the majority opinion for likening ‘partial-birth abortion’ to infanticide and condemned their ill-concealed disdain for the Roe ruling of 35 years earlier. But of course, no one listened to Justice Bader Ginsburg, the only woman on the bench. And five years later, the menz are still doing us all kinds of favours.

So where exactly has 40 years of judicial debate gotten us? In March, the Governor of Alaska approved production of “Choose Life” license plates. In April, the Governor of Arizona declared that pregnancy starts two weeks BEFORE conception (wot). In June, the Michigan House of Reps introduced a bill that would essentially serve to shut down all abortion facilities in the state. Also in Arizona, doctors can legally lie to their patients about the health of a fetus if they suspect the truth might lead women to choose abortion. In Georgia, abortions have been banned beyond 20 weeks based on the “fact” that fetuses can feel pain at 20 weeks (NB: this is not a fact). In Texas, 24 hour waiting periods are mandatory and doctors are required by law to force their patients to not only view but hear a description of their mandated ultrasound, and in Utah you have to wait 72 hours for this privilege. Several states are also considering laws which will make it a prosecutable offense to ‘coerce’ a woman into having an abortion (although coercing a woman into a pregnancy is of course still fine). Shall I go on?


The short answer is the 40 years later, the United States has done nothing but regress on the issue of reproductive rights. The situation is dire. Frankly, if a woman living in a place where abortion is still illegal in some kind of bizarre nineteenth-century timewarp feels safer than a woman living in the land of the Free & Easy Abortion, something is very wrong. Get your shit together, America. It’s a slippery slope from here to the end of legal abortions altogether.

~ Lorelei Links