Via Daisy: Brand-spankin’ new Feministe contributer Cara highlights a story that FRIDA has followed in detail (h/t cripchick), all about “KEJ”, a disabled Illinois woman whose legal guardian was petitioning to have KEJ sterilized against her will (for KEJ’s own good, of course *cough*). Thankfully, a state appellate court recently ruled in KEJ’s favour, affirming her right to bodily autonomy. Score one for the good guys, right?
Well, hold on, tiger. According to some oh-so-enlightened commenters, maybe we’re being too hasty in championing the reproductive liberty of a disabled woman. Cripchick selects the following gems (and deserves some kind of an award for not justifiably engulfing the original thread in an inferno of righteous magma):
“…Who exactly IS supposed to raise a child born to a woman who is truly incapable of doing so on her own? I realize that abuses have been and may still be rampant, and many disabilities do not affect a person’s ability to parent, but honestly, if this woman gets pregnant, who’s on the hook for raising that child? The aunt, who is already caring for KEJ?”
– Comment 4, by Ruth
“Who in the world is going to raise that child? Our tax dollars? Relatives dragooned into service through state power or shame? What if the disability is congenital and the child needs as much or more care than the parent? I agree with your basic point, that forced sterilization is something to be avoided. But people who are emotionally, or physically, or financially incapable of providing a decent quality of life for their children shouldn’t reproduce.”
– Comment 8, by felagund
“…I do think it would be unfair to push that child on someone else (the mother’s parents or private caretakers). It’s unfair to the others, and it’s unfair to the child. It’s like giving a puppy to your friend, but your friend doesn’t have the time/patience/love/etc. to take care of it and pushes it off on her roommate, who grudgingly obliges because her roommate doesn’t want the puppy to be unhappy and starve to death. That’s not how children should be brought up!”
– Comment 14 by danakitty
Many commenters on the Feministe thread have rightfully pointed out how close the argument that disabled women should not be mothers is to the long history of policies and policing based on the idea that poor women should not be mothers. By talking about who will raise or pay for the child we are already talking about class— class and disability, like race, are very much tied together. I believe there are certain aspects of disability (poverty, housing, employment) that can somewhat be canceled out by class and white privilege (look at Christopher Reeve) but recognizing this does not give people the right to determine who are “good” parents and “bad” parents. Though the discussion is on disability, it is very much about criminalizing a perceived poor woman for wanting to have children.
The ableism in these threads always scare me. Partially because it’s on feminist blogs, partially because the internet allows people to say what they really feel. KEJ’s case is a victory but I’m still left to question whether we’re making any progress.
I’m sure many people reading this remember the disturbing-yet-perversely-enlightening trainwreck that occurred at Alas, a Blog a while back over The Ashley Treatment. The ablism being expressed by many commenters who I normally have respect for was utterly disheartening. One couldn’t help but note the cruel irony of watching people who would in any other case unequivocally stand up for a woman’s bodily sovereignty suddenly balk at the notion–all because the person in scenarios such as these who many able-bodied individuals automatically relate to is the able-bodied caretaker, rather than the disabled woman.
And, once again, the empathy has unfortunately (but not surprisingly) been entirely misplaced. Whether consciously or unconsciously, the “I’m not for forced sterilization but…” peeps have chosen to let their privilege (and, I would contend, ablist squick) blind them to the basic principles of bodily autonomy that are so obviously at stake here.