Women as "State Property" Revisited

HAVEN'T WE BEEN HERE BEFORE?

1970 LETTER TO EDITOR STILL RELEVANT IN 2012

Submitted to Shelton Blog by Christine Armond Mason County Progressive

While going through our home files recently, much to my surprise (and interest), I came across a letter I wrote to the Editors of The Boston Globe that was printed (an unanticipated gratification at that time) in March, 1970 with the header: "Women as State Property".

What appalling synchronicity! How can it be that the very same issues I was addressing as a young woman in 1970 continue to be of concern 42 years later in 2012? How long must women in this country find ourselves living the same days over and over again? ANSWER: As long as it takes!

___________________________________________

March 3, 1970

Women as "State Property"

Editors, The Boston Globe:
Re: Abortion Law

This country theoretically has the separation of church and state inherent in its foundation. It also proclaims in its Declaration of Independence, the equality of all mankind, although only relatively recently in its history has it extended this Elysian Field of equality, at least on a political if not yet social level, to encompass those who are black, and regrettably even still later, to those who are female.

If supposedly there exists a political freedom for those of any or no religion, for those of any race, or for those of either sex in this country, then what right has the state to claim the wombs of its female constituents as state property if it is not confusing the religious with the secular, or if it is not perpetuating the now unconstitutional myth of the patriarchy? The state in this country, if it does indeed adhere to the constitution, should be concerned with the collective welfare of its constituents, and not the individual and personal paths that its members may choose that in no way alter the common good.

Therefore, it is difficult to comprehend in what way a woman's personal decision to undergo the medically simple operation of the removal of a fertilized egg (in which only the potentiality for human life is present) from her uterus, a crime against society.

May I also suggest that perhaps those persons who in this era eclipsed by pollution and overpopulation, who prohibit or arbitrarily discriminate in the distribution of birth control information and methods, and who declare self-righteously that abortion is immoral and therefore illegal "in most cases" are the very persons who are committing a crime against society.

To anyone who denies the population explosion as a reality that must soon have a workable solution, I can only say that they need only to glance at our congested cities or perhaps ponder for a moment upon the countless numbers of people that we are already unable to feed. It is no longer, in terms of the continuing existence of human society, merely ignorant or inhumane to have children that are unwanted or to have more children than one can adequately provide for, but is equally ignorant to have an excessive number of children even if they are desired and can be provided for.

If a certain religious organization is so seemingly concerned with safeguarding human life, why did it not speak out against the Nazi atrocities? May I also question the methods in which that same organization dealt with human life throughout history, when it defined it as "heathen" or "infidel". That belief system which has discriminated so violently against those who were not among its constituents to the point of torture and death, now seems to be ridiculously protective of human life not yet born, and which would not be born into its membership. May all religions dictate only to their following, and not the masses existing outside of their dominion. The separation of church and state must be upheld. If one needs a church to tell one what to do, one may easily join such an organization.

Technology has indubitably tampered with the balance of nature, and if we do not soon make amends to restore that balance, our civilization is doomed for annihilation. The benefits derived from the extension of human life through the curing of disease will be undermined by creating a situation in which there will be too many people for this planet to provide a tolerable environment, if steps are not immediately initiated (not to mention the grave numbers of people who already exist today in intolerable circumstances).

We issue fertility pills for those who cannot have children so unaided. Why is it that we cannot, in such a small way, attempt to restore balance to a ravaged nature by making the option of birth control a national policy (if not international), and to legalize abortion so women can make their own choices about their own bodies instead of being dictated to by the state.

Christine Armond
Boston, MA

____________________________________________

Now 42 years later, If nothing else, I can look at myself in the mirror and tell that young woman of decades ago that I have never wavered from pursuing her yearning for justice...and I never will.

Graphic: zazzle.com