Pregnant with potential

A week or so ago, I was on a conference call with a woman named Lynn Paltrow, who's founded an organization called the National Advocates for Pregnant Women, or NAPW. We talked about the problems with "choice" rhetoric, which imply that everything about pregnancy and reproduction are somehow in women's control; the way that "pro-choice" has been reframed as "pro-abortion"; the problems those of us who are pro-choice run into when we try to talk about abortion as not only a political issue but also an emotional and ethical one; the division between individuals who are personally pro-life and the so-called pro-life leadership; the war on birth control; the problems with hospitals and doctors exercising their decision-making powers over the heads of their women patients; the ways that drug policy gets used as a tool against women generally and pregnant women specifically; and a whole host of other things. This is a fascinating and, from what I've seen, energetic new organization that's dedicated to bringing *together* the political, social, economic, and legal issues that tie up our abilities to make informed decisions about fertility and childbearing, and that together prevent (and perpetuate) personal and cultural distrust of individual women.

I honestly think that this child-bearing (or not) question is the root of contemporary feminism. For the most part, women without children are seen by society as "honorary men": cool, go to college, go to grad school, have a career, make money, own your own property, keep your name, run for office. But underneath all that, there's a lingering suspicion and set of questions about why you didn't "choose" to have kids. And if you do have kids, then suddenly you're caught up in a series of so-called "choices" about work and family and ambition and mobility and are you really doing things "for the children," or are you selfishly doing them for yourself?

But the thing is, women *create* children. With help from men, of course; but virtually all the work of turning a blueprint into a person is done by women. The vast, vast majority of women do not see or act as if their interests are opposed to their children's interests--except inasmuch as we, as a society, force them to do so by creating structures that insist on a false choice between being a person (who doesn't have a uterus) and being a woman (who does). The real opposition isn't between women and kids. It's about who controls your uterus and its reproductive capacity: you, or us?

I think, therefore, that a research and advocacy organization dedicated to the rights of pregnant women has ramifications for all women, pregnant or no. It's the ability to become pregnant that makes women "different," and that difference affects us all--fertile, infertile, mothers, childfree, childless, straight or lesbian, sexually active or no. Their website is well worth perusing. And they have a blog--check it out.

Even better, they're going to have a conference in Atlanta this coming January, which I plan to attend. I apologize to you all, and to NAPW, for not posting this in time for readers to apply for scholarships in order to attend; but if you can afford it or (as I plan to do) write it off as a business expense, I expect it to be both very educational and a fabulous organizing/networking opportunity.

Plus I, personally, will get to see my real-life sister. Maybe if enough readers go, we can organize some kind of bitch and sister shindig: a one-time opportunity to not only meet me, but get the real scoop. Because who knows any of us better than a sister?