Going Back To Medical Apartheid

On 103rd Street and 5th Avenue in Manhattan, New York stands a statue of a man. This man is Dr. J. Marion Sims, commonly referred-to as the father of gynecology. His biography provided by the City of New York Parks and Recreatino department, which can be found here: http://www.nycgovparks.org/parks/centralpark/highlights/13315 gives a wonderful description of a man who founded a hospital for women in Manhattan. What they leave out, though the information is available, is that this despicable human performed experiments on slave women, including pregant slave women, without anesthesia. With his wonderfully Southern and racist upbringing, he felt that these beings were chattel, not fully human, and worthy of no empathy or luxuries of something like pain relief, while being carved like a Jack-O-Lantern for services they would not be able to receive until decades later. These slave women were not seen as human, and certainly not as women. Why? Think cognitive dissonance. The ability to concurrently think the sensible and the absurd, while justifying the absurd with the nonsensical. For 4 years, from 1845 to 1849, those who could make a difference stood by and allowed crime after crime to be committed against slave women, simply because they were Black. Why is this relevant today?

Last week, Georgia Representative Terry England, in support of HB 954, suggested that it be lawful, and even prudent, if women were forced to carry stillborn babies to term, labor, and then deliver then naturally. What was his rationale- pigs and cows do it, and women are no different from pigs and cows in terms of childbirth. England was able to complete his entire statement, while comparing chicken-fighting legislation to abortion rights, without an argument or an uproar. This wouldn’t just affect Black women, because we can clearly see that when only Blacks are affected, few care. My question is, what will it take for women to come together under the cause of womanhood?

Both Republicans and Democrats have been able to simplify a very complicated situation. This Big Government vs. Small Government is obviously subjective. Republicans want small government, unless it involves the uterus of a woman or the sexual practices of LGBTQ persons. Democrats want small government, unless it involves subsidies for the elderly and poor. What is at stake, however, is so much more complex. The laws in the House and Senate are suggesting that we return to a time when only certain people were able to vote, receive medical care, or receive an adequate education. What is it going to take to change the tide?

I am aware that the past does not give much hope. The Founding Fathers were able to fight for their independence while insuring that Africans and America would not be free. The Seneca Falls Convention barely gives attention to the fact that voting rights for women would not include Black women, since, well, they were not considered women. Remember Sojourner Truth’s “Ain’t I A Woman” speech calling on ALL women to unite for the cause of joint suffrage. We also know that the Feminist Movement did not always speak to the unique contexts of Black, Latino, or Asian women in America. Can we hope that this new fight against women, this fight that would relegate us to a gender-based medical apartheid state, can be met with a united women’s front? I can only hope.