Women's Liberation Radio News
Women's Reproductive Freedom & the Purvi Patel Case
[ Music ] >> But through the hallways of academia and on the face of the moon. [ Music ] The footprints of conquest haven't left us any room. [ Music ] To say what we think of. To speak what we know. [ Music ] Greetings and welcome to the first edition of Women's Liberation Radio News. Our goal is to produce a monthly radio broadcast to break the sound barrier women are blocked by under the status quo rule of men. Taking a women's discourse and ideas we see in all sectors of society be they conservative, liberal, mainstream, progressive or radical. The thread that runs through all of American politics and ties it all together is male dominance in all spheres. My name is Elizabeth McEwen and my background is in advocating radical birth autonomy against the patriarchal model. I am the author of in search of the perfect birth and I have a special concentration in reproductive rights for girls and women. I will be reporting later on the party Patel case which is the case of a woman being arrested after a miscarriage in Indiana. >> And hi, my name is Thistle Pedersen. Welcome to the first edition of Women's Liberation Radio News. My background is in sociology and Spanish on the academic side of things but I have developed a small singer songwriter career and I am a volunteer community organizer and activist with Madison Action for Mining Alternatives. An environmentalist organization that stands in solidarity with Wisconsinites fighting big corporate resource extractors that plague our state. I have a background in producing radio programs via the access hour on my community radio station, WORT 89.9 FM in Madison. In the early 2000s I produced programs with Latino youth highlighting and bringing to the airwaves underrepresented voices from the Spanish speaking immigrant community in my city. Most recently I aired a documentary of the last Michigan Women's Music Festival and a live interview with Sheila Jeffries, a lesbian feminist professor of political science and author of Gender Hurts. We are creating WLRN to be a new feminist news service that will bring underrepresented and challenging voices to the fore for a more just and balanced world. But we keep on walking, walking, walking in a haze. Hoping that one day will rise above the burning blaze. Of a society gone mad, of a people insane. The whole world at arm's length our silent efforts are all in vain. On today's broadcast we will interview Leair Keith, eco-feminist author and small-scale urban farmer about the important differences between liberal feminism and radical feminism to give the listener a broad overview of why WLRN is hoping to forge new territory in the field of women's radio news. But now the headlines, and my report for today's broadcast, this past September the state of Indiana denied the appeal of Purby Patel who was convicted of feet aside in 2014 and has begun serving a 20 year jail sentence. The Court of Appeals later agreed this past January to hear arguments from both sides which will take place on May 23rd. The Walk for Life, an anti-abortion demonstration, took place the weekend of January 23rd to 24th in Washington D.C. in San Francisco. Counter protests occurred, including one by a group called Stop Patriarchy. This came on the heels of the anniversary of Roe v Wade, which was on January 22nd. A financial incentive program to bring more women to birth in hospitals in India has shown to be ineffective in reducing the maternal and neonatal mortality rates, particularly in poorer regions. Without adequate socioeconomic support to elevate overall conditions, these in-hospital numbers are not expected to improve, giving credence to the theory that life situation and not childbirth itself is what threatens safety of delivery. A California woman sued her doctor and won after a video captured a disturbing forced episiotomy during delivery. Dr. Alex Abbasi surrendered his license and what his lawyer described as "age related cognitive defects" as his reason. Forced episiotomies and other forms of birth rape are not uncommon, however, although they are not always captured on film. And now here is Elizabeth McEwen with our featured story. Choices in childbirth, including whether or not to go through it, have always been regulated for women against our wishes. When Harvey Patel entered the ER for heavy bleeding back in 2013, a doctor on site who was also part of an anti-abortion group alerted the authorities. Patel was arrested in July of 2013 when it was determined that she had given birth. Patel alleges a stillbirth and disposed of the fetus in a trash receptacle, a point which was used against her to show ill intent. The state worked hard to attempt to prove in court that her baby had been born live and allowed to die, while the charge against her remained feed aside. Curiously, the charge of neglect was added, and apparent contradiction to feed aside. Dr. Kelly McGuire was one of the examiners of the fetus, which was determined by them to not have been born still. Dr. McGuire is a member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The state alleged that Patel took abortion drugs to self-induce a miscarriage, even though taking abortion medication in and of itself is not illegal in the state of Indiana. Ordering the pills online without a prescription is against the law. Abortion itself, however, is legal in the state, only under very strict guidelines with a physician. They were not able to produce any evidence that Patel, in fact, ingested the medication. The proof came from text messages on Patel's phone, in which she informed a friend she purchased the drugs from Hong Kong and had taken them for the purpose of ending the pregnancy. The drugs she allegedly took to induce her own abortion were Mysoprostol and Miffapristone. Mysoprostol, commonly called Cytotec, is a drug used to induce uterine spasms or contractions with relative strength and speed. It is used in many countries for abortion, as well as for inducing labor, despite being contraindicated for pregnant women and childbirth due to likelihood of uterine rupture. Prevention and treatment of stomach ulcers is the intended use of the drug, although doctors have been routinely ignoring ill effects in recent childbirth history. While not proven, it is still entirely possible Pervy Patel took abortion-inducing drugs. Cytotec is metabolized rapidly and would be undetectable after only hours or minutes. However, are we going to lock up a woman for 20 years over a text message as evidence? If you could actually prove Patel gave herself an abortion, was the crime of letting herself do it over a doctor worth 20 years imprisonment? And if she is guilty of delivering a live baby and neglecting it, how is that feat aside? When self-induced abortions become a crime, every miscarriage in stillbirth requires us to scrutinize the mother. As it stands now, we live in a society that scrutinizes mothers who truly lack good information on their reproductive health and rights far more than we scrutinize the doctors and other health care professionals who oversee them and are expected to be experts in their fields. So speak out, speak over, speak under, speak through the noise. Speak loud so I can hear you, I want to know you, I want to hear your real voice, I want to hear your real voice, your real voice. Your real voice, your real voice. As promised, we will now be talking with Lear Keith, eco-feminist and author. I began our interview by asking her what the key differences are between liberal and radical feminism. Everybody who calls their self-feminist would agree that women are human beings and we deserve universal human rights and that's why they're called universal because everybody should have them. And because we are hurt when we don't have them. So I think that there's generally a sense, whether you're liberal or radical, that things are not fair in this world and that women are hurt in various ways. From there it diverges and I think there's sort of a classic difference between liberals and radicals generally and then you can apply that to feminism. But to really understand this, you sort of have to understand that difference. So, you know, to make it quick, liberals generally believe that society is made up of individuals. So that's the basic unit of society is the individual person and in fact in this worldview, individualism is so sacrosanct that being identified as a member of a group is where the harm lies. So that's what they say creates social harm or social disadvantage. It's saying that women are women or pointing out that black people are black and that's what the harm is. It's treating people differentially in noticing that. For radicals that's completely different, radicals see society is made up of groups of people and some of those groups have power over other groups. So being a member of a group is not where the affront lies. In fact, identifying with that group is your first step really toward political consciousness and ultimately effective action. You have to make common cause with the people who share your condition. So the things that are happening to you are not happening just randomly. It's not cause your name is Robin and you like to play the flute. It's because you're a woman and you're a black woman and you're a poor black woman. And other women who share that condition will have less experiences that match yours. And it's not until you get together and compare those like experiences that you start to understand. Oh, this is all of us. It's not just me. It's not cause I was unlucky or I was bad or I deserved this somehow. It's all of us. And you put it together. So these various institutions have all made this be true. And the only way we're going to change it is by fighting together. So that's the difference ultimately between sort of liberal and radical viewpoint. The other, I would say the other cardinal difference between liberals and radicals is that the nature of social reality is something different. So for liberals, they call this idealism. So it's idealist. And it means that social reality is formed by attitudes and ideas. And so social change happens through rational argument and education. So that's the liberal side. And for radicals, again, it's really different. It's materialism. So society is organized by concrete systems of power and by institutions. So not by thoughts and ideas. But it's in a material arrangement. So for radicals, the solution is to take those systems apart. Because once you see them, of course, and you realize, well, this is going to have to come down. Liberals, on the other hand, their main goal is always to educate because, of course, if social change happens through people changing their minds. Of course, education is going to be, you know, your main form of struggle. And it's not that radicals think that education is unimportant. I mean, of course, you have to help people come to consciousness. You know, achieve an analysis of their situation. And then, of course, you know, that education does that. I'm a writer. You know, I really, I believe in trying to reach people. But that's just the beginning. That's just an important first step. Beyond that, I mean, the real goal is to change those material institutions. So those are the two differences, I think, between liberalism and radicalism and how this applies to feminism. You know, we may have common goals sometimes. But I think that, you know, the ultimate goal for radical feminism is to bring these systems down. And for liberals, it's not necessarily true because they don't see the overall power structure as the problem. It's just that women don't have parity inside it. And I remember when I was, I don't know, maybe 19 or 20, you know, already a very radical kind of young person. And I took a women's studies class and I remember the professor being asked a question, "How will we know when feminism is one?" And she said, "I still haven't forgotten this, like 40 years later, 30 years later." She said, "We'll know when half of the CEOs are women." I mean, my jaw just about hit the floor. I was like, "Are you kidding me? I don't want to be an equal member of a society. It's based on, you know, I think about hierarchy and domination and exploitation. The point was to bring that all down so that we all had equal say. We all had equal say over the conditions of our lives." And, you know, it would seem intense to me. But, you know, that I think the big dividing line is that they don't. Overall, you know, the nature of the system as a whole is just, you know, in any given situation are women being treated the same. And, you know, again, that's not really the issue. I don't really want to be treated the same as a rich white man. I don't want anybody to get treated as a rich white man. And likewise, I mean, on the other side, I don't want anybody to get treated like the least of the least of us, either. I mean, nobody should be lacking human rights and, you know, water and food and medicine and, you know, all those really things that we all need to have a decent life. And so, you know, the power structure has to come down and the people at the very bottom have to be lifted up. So, you know, that, that ultimately to me is the goal of radical feminism. And, you know, when you can look at campaigns like, you know, reproductive rights certainly would be, I think, a big one where you can see that radicals and liberals are certainly going to work on that both. But we're going to have goals that are different, you know, at the end of the day. So, you know, there's always, I mean, any movement, if it's going to make social change, it's got to be broad enough to encompass a lot of people. And I'm, I mean, I'm not someone who wants to vilify people who are liberals. It's not really the health, but it's good to know what the differences are because when you have these kinds of conflicts in groups, it's often, when it's a political nature, it's often about the division between liberals and radicals. And when you see the pattern, you can say, oh, wait a minute, this is because you're really coming from a liberal framework. So, we're never going to see eye to eye, can't wish to work together, and then at least you can get something done. That was Liere Keith speaking on the differences between liberal and radical feminism. But I'm afraid to speak. I'm afraid. What I've got to say. I'm afraid you'll wake. And then go back to sleep. But in the early morning when I rise. And now to conclude this first broadcast of WLRN, we will interview Elizabeth Hungerford, feminist writer and non-practicing attorney living in Massachusetts. Her work is primarily in the subject of gender identity with an interest in the difference between sex and gender. Laws such as feet aside uniquely impact female-bodied people, so we're happy to have her here today to hear her input. Hi Elizabeth. Hi Elizabeth. Thanks for joining us. Oh, thank you for having me on. So, I wanted to ask you, could you start by just talking a little bit about the history of feet aside as a charge in terms of its origin and intended application? Absolutely. Facebook laws are not a new phenomenon. They have been on the books in many states here in the US for decades. But the original intent of this statute was to protect pregnant women and their unborn fetuses from third-party actors. So, for example, if you had a domestic violence perpetrated against a pregnant woman, the fetus side laws would allow for prosecution of harm to both the mother and the fetus. They're starting to be applied in a way that was not originally intended. Okay, so how can feet aside be proven for a conviction? Well, it depends on the age of the fetus, and that's something that can be difficult to determine. For example, in the case of Harvey Patel, there was no way to determine when she first became pregnant, and the age of the fetus was contested. So, this is a place where law and medicine don't exactly match. Okay, so last year, Harvey Patel was convicted of feet aside for what would have possibly been a miscarriage. And then a few years before that, Bebe Schwey tried to kill herself with rat poise and while pregnant, and was also charged with feet aside. Both of these took place in the state of Indiana, and now just recently we have the new law in that state against aborting a fetus with certain abnormalities. Do you have any insight into what is going on with reproductive justice in Indiana, or is Indiana unique in its law and the way it's prosecuted? Those are great questions. The Indiana law is not unique in a way that it is written, and that's part of what I think is so scary about the situation. The difference in the Patel and the Schwey case is the way that the law was utilized to prosecute women themselves rather than the third party actors. So, in Patel's case, the charges that the prosecutor chose to bring were unique, and the way that the case was put through the trial was also unique. So, for example, one of the issues in the Patel case was whether her fetus was born alive or not. And in Patel's case, what they're trying to determine was the fetus alive or not at the time that she allegedly missed her. And the judge allowed some particular evidence to come before the jury. That is called the float test, and just briefly, they take the fetus's body and surgically remove the lungs and place them in water. If the lungs float, in other sense, the fetus took at least one breath. Now, this is a test that has been discredited for almost 100 years, and there are other ways that error can get into a fetus's lungs. It's not to mention that just because the fetus took a breath does not mean that it was a sustainable life. And this evidence was potentially pivotal to the outcome of the case. The judge's decision to allow that information to come before the jury was necessary for the conviction. Is there potentially something strategic about the state of Indiana targeting women of color or these particular women of color? Well, you are certainly not alone in asking that question. I think it is certainly suspicious. I think that strategically what Indiana is doing is targeting more vulnerable women who may not have access to healthcare or legal resources in order to establish a precedent that they can then apply to all women. And I know, in Beveshua's case, she did not have access to legal representation at the time. And she ended up spending, I think, about a year in jail because of that. We can see that establishing that precedent has many potentially damaging downstream consequences for other women in the state, and possibly from the country. Some of these laws have been used in other cases such as women who have delayed cesareum surgery. I believe it was because of a woman who was falling fell down the stairs and was prosecuted under a fetus by law. So basically any woman who cannot guarantee a positive or a "normal outcome" to her pregnancy could be vulnerable to prosecution under these laws. Right, and that is exactly one of my concerns. Actually, that does lead into my next question for you, which is what are the legal implications women face when potential natural miscarriage or even self-induced abortion can be criminalized as if it were homicide. I think you kind of touched on that there, but is there anything else that you could elaborate on with that? Well, some people call it the criminalization of pregnancy, or that you could be prosecutors for murder if you had, God forbid, a miscarriage. That is just terrifying. Yeah, I mean, I'm thinking about, you know, a world where a woman has a miscarriage or a stillbirth, or is proven to have induced her own abortion at home. But with any of these being brought in, like, to trial or having doctors give their determinations where we're using these really archaic means that apparently aren't scientifically accurate or useful is really alarming because a lot of women just, they have no control over these, but now they're being held completely accountable. That's, to me, that's very frightening. The idea that something like that could result in a prosecution for murder is hard to believe. When it comes to the reproductive rights of women and girls, are there any approaches within feminism, which turn out to be sort of detrimental to the cause, or just like our overall freedom and autonomy? Um, choice is something that we hear a lot, "Oh, women have choices, it's empowering." Um, but you look at Permit Patel or Bebe Schway, they were in a state where abortion was legal. They, you know, ostensibly had the same choices as other women, but that did not protect them. There's financial access, there is even cultural access. One of the concerns in Permit Patel's case was that she didn't want to share her pregnancy with her family. You have to ask what good is a choice, you know, it's strictly legal, and so I think that, you know, that approaching the right to abortion or access to abortion merely as a choice is a very privileged approach. You know, abortion has to be not only legal, but it has to be accessible, and it also has to be socially acceptable. Is there anything that our listeners can do to help Permit Patel or to just stop this from becoming an increasing trend within the justice system? Something that I noticed in, in weaving about the Bebe's case was that public pressure on prosecutors and judges is one way to potentially support women who are in this situation. And the need remains to document these cases. And that concludes our first program of women's liberation radio news. Thanks for tuning in, and if you'd like to get in touch with us to volunteer or comment, please email women's liberationnews@gmail.com. We are looking for other radical women to join us in this new radio news service and would love to see a copy of your resume and references, though you need not have experience in radio to apply. We are all volunteer-run people-powered radio and are happy to work with you at whatever level of experience you have in radio journalism. Thanks again for listening. I am Elizabeth McEwen, your co-host. And I am Thistle Pedersen, signing off from this first edition of women's liberation radio news. Be sure to tune in next time for our monthly program. We are always interested to hear what you think, so that email address again is women's liberationnews@gmail.com, all one word, women's liberationnews@gmail.com. We would love to hear from you. But how will we find our way out of this? What is the antidote for the patriarchal kiss? How will we find what needs to be shown? And then after that, where is home? Tell me, where is my home? ♪ 'Cause gender hurts ♪
Women's Liberation Radio News (WLRN) 1st Edition Podcast