Ohio House Bill 214, Its Serious Implications, and Why I Can’t Support It

So this actually happened before Christmas, but deserves some comment, I think, for multiple reasons – the least of which being it got relatively little media coverage, given the GOP’s scramble in the weeks before Christmas to push tax reform through and to pass a funding bill that would prevent a government shutdown. But here it is: On December 15, the Ohio Senate passed a bill, Ohio House Bill 214, that “punishes clinicians for performing abortions that were sought specifically because of either a potential or a conclusive Down syndrome diagnosis“. They are the third state to put such legislation on the books, claiming that it will protect people with Down Syndrome.

The GOP is going about this the wrong way.  But, frankly, I’m not sure that they care.

Ohio governor (then a Republican presidential candidate) John Kasich speaks to a group of supporters during a town hall event before the Wisconsin presidential primary in Madison, Wisconsin on March 28. 2016. He is a white man with gray hair, wearing a dress shirt with black pants. He stands in front of a large American flag. Keyword: Ohio House Bil 214

Image Description: Ohio governor (then a Republican presidential candidate) John Kasich speaks to a group of supporters during a town hall event before the Wisconsin presidential primary in Madison, Wisconsin on March 28. 2016. He is a white man with gray hair, wearing a dress shirt with black pants. He stands in front of a large American flag

Content Note: Ableism, Abortion, John Kasich, Medicaid Cuts, Ohio Down Syndrome Abortion Ban, Sexual Harassment, Trump, UK Austerity Cuts

***

I’ve talked in detail before about how I understand why laws like Ohio House Bill 214 seem like they  should be something that disability advocates should support as a no-brainer…and about why I don’t support them.

I know that women are routinely encouraged to abort fetuses with a Down Syndrome diagnosis.

I know that there’s a movement in support of eliminating the Down Syndrome genotype from the population.

I have loved ones who have Down Syndrome, and I’m grateful for their lives, their friendship, the contributions I see them making to their communities.

But I will never tell a woman, “Your reason for having an abortion is wrong.” It’s not my right. And I’m not the only one in the disability activist community who thinks so.

David Perry’s son has Down Syndrome. He’s made the excellent point that Ohio House Bill 214, under the guise of criminalizing abortion, actually criminalizes discussion between a woman and her doctor:

“…this law doesn’t hinge on the act of performing an abortion, but rather on whether there is “knowledge” of motivation for abortion. If the doctor is aware of a prenatal diagnosis as motivation, an abortion would be a felony. Without awareness, even if that was the woman’s motivation, an abortion could safely proceed. Therefore, the bill functions only to silence women after they receive their prenatal diagnosis—or, even worse, early pregnancy screening (note that such screenings are not accurate enough to be diagnostic)—lest a doctor begin to suspect their motivations and refuse to terminate a pregnancy.”

Ohio House Bill 214 makes it so that a woman seeking an abortion because she knows or suspects that the fetus she’s carrying has Down Syndrome is highly motivated to stay quiet about her reasons for wanting the abortion so that she’s not refused it.  And in this environment, the myths about Down Syndrome and stigma surrounding it continue to thrive – there’s no room for open, honest conversation with medical health providers and anyone who may report to them.

And, as I’ve said several times in this blog – if the GOP cared about disabled children, they would make it easier to raise a disabled child in America.

It’s also worth noting that the Trump administration is removing “guidance documents” about the ADA from its website. There was no explanation as to why, beyond a statement by Jeff Sessions that they were part of a broader removal of “25 examples of improper or unnecessary guidance documents identified by our Regulatory Reform Task Force led by our Associate Attorney General Rachel Brand.”

The GOP in the House and Senate don’t care about disabled people, it seems, except when it can use them as pawns to do an end-run around women’s constitutionally-protected rights to bodily autonomy.

Let’s Break Briefly from Ohio House Bill 214 to talk about Ohio Governor John Kasich

I remember this guy from the Presidential debates. I remember thinking, “Okay, I could live with him as President. He gets that there needs to be a safety net and that it’s unfair to demonize people for needing it.”

I should have listened more closely to those people who’ve been saying, “Don’t be fooled; John Kasich is no moderate.” In 2016, Politico summarized his actions to limit abortion access in Ohio:

“Laws signed by Kasich prohibit almost all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, mandate ultrasounds before a woman can get an abortion and require abortion clinics to establish formal written agreements with local hospitals about emergency care — a provision that has been repeatedly modified to be even more restrictive and make it harder for clinics to comply. “

It’s too bad, because Kasich reminded me (or he used to) that not all of the GOP are from that school of Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell and their cronies (I’d say Trump, but I figure that Trump only identifies as GOP because he can go the furthest with them; he’s not a Conservative) that don’t seem to have much use for marginalized groups or much interest in helping them.  I know that there are Republicans, because I talk to them, who are quite socially aware: they’ve done their research on social issues, they speak with insight, and while I may not always agree with them on all things, the conversations are always thought-provoking.

I wish more of them would run for office, damn it.  Because it’s becoming difficult – so difficult – not to become totally disillusioned with the current crop of GOP in the House and Senate, watching them throw my friends in the US under the bus again, and again, and again.

(Not that there are Democrats that are doing it too – as I wrote earlier, I’ve been disturbed, and upset on female American friends’ behalf, by some of the Democrat rhetoric around sexual harassment in particular recently. Its hypocrisy seems to have increased in the last little while, and I think it’s important to call that out, because I like to be fair.)

But that, at this point, is not affecting legislation. The tax bill and the repeal of the individual mandate affects especially my disabled friends that are, for a variety of reasons:

  • Most affected by cuts to Medicaid
  • Unlikely to benefit from the tax cut.

Cuts to Medicaid mean that disabled people lose services that they depend on; some will no longer be able to live independently; some will die. This is the way it happened in Britain  with the austerity cuts – the government thought that it could save money by making cuts to supports and services to disabled people and to the National Health Service, and people died – in excess of  120000 deaths were estimated to be linked to austerity cuts, as of November 2017.

But back to Ohio House Bill 214…

America, Meet Me at Camera Three

Ohio’s House Bill 214 is not an indicator that the GOP cares about people with Down Syndrome; it’s a blatant attempt by the GOP to emotionally manipulate the public into supporting an (albeit limited) ban on abortion – after all, who could object to measures designed to stop the abortion of disabled children?

I object, as I said earlier.

Ohio House Bill 214 is  totally typical of a government more committed  to fetuses than it is to making sure that American families have what they need to raise children, and I won’t feel like the monster that Ohio lawmakers want me to because I can’t support it. Using a fetal diagnosis of Down Syndrome as a way to further an anti-abortion agenda is pretty objectionable – a similar law was found to be unconstitutional in Indiana, and another in Louisiana is being blocked by the court –  so he hasn’t got much moral ground to stand on here. Dr. Leesha Thrower, whose daughter has Down Syndrome, said it better than I can:

“These politicians do not care about my six-year-old daughter. If they did, they would be using their valuable time to make sure that every child born with Down syndrome has what they need to live a healthy, full life…I want my leaders to have my back, and my child’s back, instead of using her as a pawn in a political effort that is only going to harm women and make it harder for them to make the right decision for them and their families.”

Well said, Doctor. Well said.
Happy New Year, folks. Let’s make 2018 a good one.

.

 

 

Thoughts on “How Do You See Me?”

On Tuesday I dropped into Twitter to see what people were seeing about Primary Tuesday, and got distracted immediately by a discussion that noted disability writer and advocate David M. Perry was involved in. I jumped right in uninvited, because apparently that’s the kind of Twitter user I’ve become. I felt quite strongly about the topic once I investigated, though, which was this year’s Down Syndrome Awareness Day (March 21) video from Italian Down Syndrome advocacy group CoorDown.

Content Note: Ableism, Assumptions, Erasure, Media Depictions of Disability

 

Cartoon representations of DNA strands, in light blue. In two strands, several chromosomes are replaced by the words "Down Syndrome". Keyword: How Do You See Me

Image Description: Cartoon representations of DNA strands, in light blue. In two strands, several chromosomes are replaced by the words “Down Syndrome”.

***

The video in question is entitled “How Do You See Me?”, starring AnnaRose Rubright, a 19-year-old woman with Down Syndrome, and actress Olivia Wilde:

 

 

I understand what CoorDown was trying to do with “How Do You See Me?” They were using the Olivia Wilde character, “normal”-looking and someone that anyone would expect to make those statements to get people interested, and then there’s the “gotcha”: the narrator isn’t the Olivia Wilde character, like you assumed, but a person with Down Syndrome. How does that change things for you, CoorDown, asks? How do you see AnnaRose? What assumptions do you have about her do you need to challenge?

CoorDown’s intent with “How Do You See Me?” wasn’t bad. But the messaging  is bad. The optics are bad. David Perry was trying to tell a CoorDown representative this yesterday, but the person wasn’t very receptive.

Here are some things about the video that were problematic for me

Disabled People Shouldn’t Be Required to Identify as Non-Disabled

There’s an implication in “How Do You See Me?” that in order for people with Down Syndrome (and, by extension, disabled people in general) to “see” or perceive themselves as people with valued social roles, and a well-rounded personality, and dreams, and a life in the community that brings them fulfilment, they also have to self-perceive as a white, non-disabled person. Not only should it not be necessary in this day and age for disabled people to self-perceive as non-disabled in order to live like a non-person person (period…forget about skin colour), it explains why this video is drawing criticism from disability advocates everywhere.

In “How Do You See Me?” AnnaRose Looks and Sounds Like She’s Waiting to Start Her Own Life

This isn’t the case, by the way. AnnaRose goes to college, works at a physiotherapy clinic, and is a Special Olympics athlete.

Yet, in “How Do You See Me?”, we hear her voice talking about “seeing” herself being and doing a lot of things while we watch Olivia Wilde do them.

As Kim Sauder says on her blog, “Crippled Scholar”:

“The video would have been far more poignant and entirely less infuriating if it had shown the narrator engaging in the activities she described rather than Olivia Wilde.”

Mixed Messages in “How Do You See Me?”

The video posits, presumably unintentionally that it’s better to have Olivia Wilde’s face than it is to have AnnaRose’s face, with the distinguishing features found in most people with Down Syndrome. For a video created for Down’s Syndrome Awareness Day, by a Down Syndrome advocacy group, that sends a rather mixed message to me.  Piggybacking a bit on my last point, it would have been nice to see more of AnnaRose in the video, not so much of “Olivia Wilde plays a girl with Down Syndrome” and “Olivia Wilde has Down Syndrome…”, which seem to be the ways the preview for the video appears on Twitter when it’s shared – without AnnaRose’s name.

Bottom Line

Again, it’s not that I think that CoorDown intended to film something that was problematic.   But there’s an implication “How Do You See Me?” that disabled people should see themselves as non-disabled simply because of an ableist assumption that non-disabled is better. And I can’t get behind that, especially from a video that’s supposed to raise awareness about Down Syndrome.

 

 

Save

Bishop Kevin Doran Knows that Down Syndrome isn’t “What God Intended”

Content Note: Ableism, Catholic Church


Cartoon representations of DNA strands, in light blue. In two strands, several chromosomes are replaced by the words "Down Syndrome". Keyword: Kevin Doran

I put this article up about Irish Catholic Bishop Kevin Doran on the Facebook page yesterday, and it’s getting a lot of attention – enough that I thought it deserved some more.

Kevin Doran is getting attention from the disability community because of remarks he made during an interview about Ireland’s upcoming referendum on gay marriage. There’s an interview with Kevin Doran, rather hard-hitting, at the bottom of the article, which is quite interesting if you get the time, because it really shows how muddled and not-completely-formed the theology of at least Kevin Doran’s school of Catholicism is on this issue.

(Full disclosure: I don’t pretend to know what Kevin Doran’s particular school is, as I don’t know a whole about the Catholic Church, but I do know my Bible and I do have at least a working knowledge of and grudging respect for theology.)

I’ve heard his sorts of arguments before, and they made me sigh. But let’s get to what really brings me here today.

Kevin Doran’s Thoughts on Disability

I don’t think that Kevin Doran saw himself as being offensive when he said, in response to the question of whether homosexuality was something God intended, that “That would be to suggest that if some people who are born with Down Syndrome or Spina Bifida, that that was what God intended either.”

But it was very offensive nonetheless. And extremely problematic, because Bishops have authority within the Catholic Church. People believe that what they say is right. If the Bishop says that people with Down Syndrome or Spina Bifida weren’t what God intended, there are going to be people are that take that seriously, and that attitude is going to inform their actions.

Disabled people aren’t fighting enough harmful rhetoric as it is (and in the UK in particular, where the government-generated and media-driven “scrounger” continues to fuel catastrophic cuts to benefits and services?)

I know a number of intellectually disabled people who attend church every Sunday, who take great comfort from it, and great pleasure from being part of a church community. They are welcomed as any non-disabled member would be. That a Bishop not only believes in his heart that disability and the diversity and opportunities for learning (for everyone) that come along with it are not what God intended, but would publicly state it and use it as justification to deprive another group of rights that others enjoy is despicable to me.

But then again, Kevin Doran did seem to be out to out to offend just about everyone that he could with this interview, including gay and lesbian parents, and women who have been raped that are considering abortion. Perhaps he thought he should fit disabled people in there somehow as well.

Won’t you join me as I roll my eyes?

Christopher McFadden: What Do We Do When a Judge is Wrong?

Note: There’s an update on this story that became available to me just as I was about to post this: Christopher McFadden recused himself from the case late Friday afternoon. I will comment on it this week.

I still wanted to post this. After reading the update, nothing about what I believe about this story has changed, and this one really upset me.

Content Note: Rape and rape culture, victim-blaming, revictimization by justice system, ableism

A gavel and the scales of justice sit on top of law books. Keyword: Christopher McFadden

Image Description: A gavel and the scales of justice sit on top of law books.

***

A Facebook friend brought this story to my attention on Friday. Let’s all welcome Judge Christopher McFadden of Georgia to the blog. I doubt that this will be “one time only” appearance, as I plan on following this story.

The controversy rests on the 2012 trial of Jeffrey Dumas. Dumas was tried for raping a woman with Down Syndrome multiple times in 2010. She was 24 at the time, staying with family friends while her parents were out of town. Dumas visited the friends’ residence and, according to the woman’s testimony and to physical evidence, raped her three times in the twelve hours that he spent there. He was convicted by a jury and is currently serving 25 years. Christopher McFadden presided over the trial.

And now he has reversed the jury’s verdict and called for a new trial.

Wow.

Just a note before I get into this that for the sake of simplicity, I’m only going to talk about women and rape in this post. But I’ve not forgotten (and no one should ever forget) that men get raped, too. The statistic that I found in my go-to essay on rape culture (I’ll talk about that later) said that the number is 1 in 33, and that was in 2009.

Let’s unpack this. The woman’s name is not mentioned in the media. I’ll call her Jane, instead of “the woman”.

Christopher McFadden’s Concerns

Christopher McFadden apparently has some concerns with discrepancies in some witness testimony, the specifics of which I haven’t been able to find in the media. If he’s so concerned by these discrepancies that he feels that they affected the outcome of the original trial, then it’s my understanding that overturning the jury’s decision is a step, albeit one almost never taken by trial judges, that’s within his judicial power to take.

The media is giving those concerns only a passing mention, however, if mentioning them at all. And, in my opinion, he’d better be pretty damn sure that they’re worth giving a convicted rapist a new trial over.

Because Christopher McFadden hasn’t got a leg to stand on legally about anything else that concerns him about this trial, and needs to be called out properly on it.

You see, Christopher McFadden also believes that a new trial is necessary because Jane didn’t “act like a victim” and Dumas didn’t “like someone who had recently perpetrated a series of violent crimes”.

Welcome to living in rape culture in America, folks.

A Lesson in Rape Culture for Christopher McFadden

When I’m talking with people about rape culture, I refer them to Melissa McEwan’s excellent essay on the topic. For anyone who wants to understand how truly scarily pervasive rape culture is, how it thoroughly saturates our culture and keeps both women and men at risk, McEwan’s website is an excellent resource.

Christopher McFadden wonders if what happened to Jane is truly rape, apparently, given that her testimony that the rapes happened over a twelve hour period and she waited until the next day to report them. He posits that she had plenty of plenty of time and opportunity to report what was happening her caregivers and to ask for help before she did so.

Let’s let Melissa take this one:

“Rape culture is the pervasive narrative that there is a “typical” way to behave after being raped, instead of the acknowledgment that responses to rape are as varied as its victims, that, immediately following a rape, some women go into shock; some are lucid; some are angry; some are ashamed; some are stoic; some are erratic; some want to report it; some don’t; some will act out; some will crawl inside themselves; some will have healthy sex lives; some never will again.”

The fact that every woman reacts differently to rape isn’t ground-breaking news. Anyone who works with rape victims will tell you that. But this is the power of rape culture.

Or ignorance from a highly-educated individual of one of the most very basic elements of personal aftermath after a rape.

Or both.

In any case, it’s first-order victim-blaming, and a judge should know better.

And by the way, what *does* a man who has just raped woman 3 times behave like? What is he *supposed* to behave like? Why does this matter, when the jury found that the physical evidence supported that Dumas raped Jane?

Fayette County State Attorney Scott Ballard, who prosecuted this case, reacted to Christopher McFadden’s ruling with “disgust”.  After reading Christopher McFadden’s ruling,  the District’s Attorney’s office filed a motion asking him to recuse himself from the case, but he denied the motion.  The motion is being appealed (to the same appeals court that McFadden sits on.)

Obviously Christopher McFadden’s attitudes about rape would be problematic (to say the least!) regardless of whether the woman was disabled. But the fact that this woman is makes all this an issue of ableism as well, as Jane has Down Syndrome.

The Ableism Issues

If Christopher McFadden feels that discrepancies in witness testimony actually are significant enough to call for a new trial, that’s one thing. But this “she didn’t act like a victim” nonsense is especially unfair for a woman with an intellectual disability who, depending on her level of understanding, education and experience, may have a very limited understanding of how people “act” after consensual sex, let alone rape. There’s still a perception out there that disabled people, especially when the disability is intellectual, aren’t sexual beings, and don’t need education about sexuality, sexual relationships, and sexual safety.

I have no idea about Jane’s particular situation, of course. But, unless these issues were explored in the original trial, Christopher McFadden is assuming that she would even be clear after the initial rape that what had happened to her was wrong or why. After all, even some women who aren’t facing the challenges inherent in having an intellectual disability sometimes aren’t sure after an assault that what’s happened to them was rape.

These are factors that need to be considered by the entire support team helping a woman with an intellectual disability work her way through the issues involved with a rape, including the judge if the case goes to trial.

The evidence doesn’t seem to point to Christopher McFadden having awareness of these issues. I could be wrong, but I’m willing to bet that I’m not.

I’m also asking myself if this idea of “she didn’t act like a victim” isn’t somehow tied in to assumptions about people with an intellectual disability. I don’t think it’s an unfair question, although I’m sure we’ll never know the answer.

But ultimately it doesn’t matter whether Jane is disabled or not, does it?

Meet Me at Camera Three, Judge Christopher McFadden

I’m just sick about your ruling.

Not just because it means that a woman with Down Syndrome will have to go through a trial again, when the man charged with raping her was found guilty, when she she thought that he would stay behind bars for 25 years.

Because a *woman* will have to will to go through a trial again, when the man charged with  raping her was found guilty, when she thought that he would stay behind bars for 25 years.

Some of the articles about this don’t even mention that you had concerns about testimony. All of them mention that this is happening because you didn’t think that Jane acted enough like a victim. This not only demonstrates ignorance on a basic level of how women react to being raped, it’s an affront to rape victims everywhere. You ignorance is revictimizing this woman, and further proves that in a rape trial, the victim is just as much on trial as the rapist. Her sexual history is used against her. The way she dresses is used against her. And now, the way she acts after the rape is used against her.

And God help her if her rapist doesn’t “act” like a rapist.

If you are thoroughly convinced that witness testimony had discrepancies that could have affected the outcome of the original trial (not that I’m buying that), call for the new trial on that basis.

And then recuse yourself! How does this woman have a ghost of a chance in this new trial if you preside?

And yet, when she was told that the trial was going to be reopened, after her tears, she said that she was ready to do this again.

I can’t do much for her, but I can make sure that people know what’s happening, and get as much support as I can behind her.

Be a responsible judge and a decent human being and don’t force yourself into this young woman’s life again. She’s been violated enough.

This article by Bill Rankin and Steve Visser really helped me to get needed background information and to better understand the legal aspects of what’s happening with this case.

 

Save