Carol Sanger Replies to Khiara Bridges: Medical Care and the “Down There” Problem
In the 1960s, a friend from ages ago went to a new gynecologist for a regular check-up. As she lay there on the table, feet in stirrups covered with kitchen oven mitts in a gesture toward patient comfort, the doctor came in and said, “Hello, I am Dr. [Smith]. I am going to examine your body and then I will look ‘down there.’” My friend replied, “’Down there’ is part of my body.” (I can’t remember if she got up and left or not; it was the 60s and we were still fairly obedient.)
Whether “down there” is part of one’s body for purposes of medical treatment is the question asked and very quickly answered by Khiara Bridges in her post “Abnormalizing Abortion.” The answer is No, not if we use the term “medical treatment” to mean the treatment or prevention of all other medical conditions covered under Medicaid. This was established under the Hyde Amendment, which bars federal Medicaid funds even for a pregnancy that endanger the woman’s health or life, or that was caused by rape or incest. The “down there” issue has now become federal policy, as abortion is now a form of treatment literally segregated from the body politic.
Bridges uses About Abortion, and my interest in how abortion regulation tries to convince women not to terminate their pregnancies through moral suasion (and to punish women who do it anyway) as a point of departure toward other forms of regulation. The Hyde Amendment isn’t a bit interested in moral suasion. Instead, it sets a bright line rule at the poverty level that “coerces indigent women to carry their pregnancies to terms by leaving [the women] to scrape together the $300 to $3,000+ for their abortion procedures.”
Not only does the Hyde Amendment have actual power over an indigent woman by its refusal to fund an abortion procedure, but as Bridges powerfully points out, the denial of funding is rich with “discursive power” “insofar as it creates and legitimates discourses that describe abortion as ‘not healthcare.’” Her point is that while I have focused on normalizing abortion, we ought to be attentive to just how and how forcefully law “abnormalizes” abortion by segregating it from all other healthcare.
By most people’s lights, abortion is a medical procedure even if one thinks the procedure should be illegal. Its status as medicine is the basis of its regulation by the federal and state governments under the police power, that relic of 7th grade physics that still has purchase today in Constitutional Law.
Abnormalizing abortion through funding bans is of a piece with the battle to cover contraception under Obamacare, with the layers of regulation that treat it differently from all other procedures, and the global gag rule. Moreover, the funding ban only applies to poor women, who are more often women of color, so that this form of maternal coercion, as Bridges points out, is tinged with race.