The two bills were originally vetoed by the State Governor.  But then both the State House and Senate overrode the veto and passed the bills into law.

Here is a description of the two laws from the New York Times:

Though other states have passed similar measures requiring women to have ultrasounds, Oklahoma’s law goes further, mandating that a doctor or technician set up the monitor so the woman can see it and describe the heart, limbs and organs of the fetus. No exceptions are made for rape and incest victims.

A second measure passed into law on Tuesday prevents women who have had a disabled baby from suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects while the child was in the womb.

The first law essentially tries emotional harassment and guilt-induction to get pregnant women  to abandon their plans to have an abortion.  This is bad enough, and in the case of rape/ incest victims who are already traumatized, completely callous.

But the second law is something you could never have imagined seeing in a Western, First  World country.  Basically, it says that if a woman goes for an ultrasound or amniocentesis (or any other test) and the doctor notices birth defects in the fetus but does not tell the mother because, gee, he/ she (the doctor) doesn’t like women having abortions,  and the baby is subsequently born with a birth defect, the doctor is not responsible. No malpractice suit can be filed against him/ her.

The NY Times quotes the State Governor when he vetoed the bill, and I completely agree with him:

Mr. Henry said, “It is unconscionable to grant a physician legal protection to mislead or misinform pregnant women in an effort to impose his or her personal beliefs on a patient.”

But obviously, the lawmakers thought differently, for reasons best known to them.  And now thousands of pregnant women are going to have ultrasounds and other tests which are as good as useless, because what’s the point when you don’t know if the doctor is going to hide information from you?

What happens if babies are born with Down’s Syndrome or some other disorder – will these lawmakers and the doctor take care of the baby all its life?

What about the emotional agony that the parents will suffer while binging up such a baby – will these lawmakers and the doctor share that agony?  Will they recompense the parents for it? (Not that any amount will compensate them fully).

Will the lawmakers and the doctor pay the medical bills for all the treatments for this baby?

And what happens if the fetus poses a life-threatening danger to the mother – will such a doctor go unpunished if he does not inform the mother even then, because she may abort the fetus?

Can anyone tell me just what these lawmakers are thinking?  Why is it becoming more and more accepted for people to superimpose their beliefs (religious or otherwise) on others?

A lawsuit has been filed against this law, of course, but for now, the law continues to be in force.  The lawsuit has been filed by a New York based abortion-rights group.

But here’s my final question – this bill has been debated for many months; it’s not sudden.  And lawmakers would not have overriden the veto if they weren’t sure their constituents would support them.  So how much have the women of Oklahoma been protesting these provisions?  Have they been writing to their representatives protesting the bill  (now law) ?

It’s not even an issue which affects women alone.  For too long, abortion has been seen as a women’s issue, and there can be some justification because the woman should have the ultimate say in abortion.

But when you get into the area of misinformation (or denial of information) on birth defects, this is not even just about abortion but about denial of medical care.

So what are the good people of Oklahoma – women and men – doing about these laws?  How did they allow their lawmakers to pass such a law?

Ruchika Girhotra (Wiki pic)

We all know the facts of what happened to Ruchika Girhotra – in 1990, 14 year-old Ruchika was molested by Shambhu Pratap Singh Rathore, a police offer who subsequently rose to become the Director General of Police in Haryana (i.e. the highest-ranking police officer in the state of Haryana).  Rathore subsequently started harassing Ruchika’s family because he did not want them to go public with the crime.

Ruchika was traumatized for years by the “molestation”  and she subsequently committed suicide.  Nineteen years after the offence, in Dec. 2009, Rathore was finally sentenced – to 6 months in prison and fined a paltry Rs. 1000.  After the public uproar that ensued at this mild sentence, the case has now been transferred to the CBI.

There are at least two issues here:

Issue 1 :  Indian Laws on Molestation and Attempts to Rape:

Current Indian laws look at “molestation” as a minor offence.  Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) states:

Section 509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman
Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, of that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

When you consider Rathore’s 6 month sentence, it is ironic to note that if poor Ruchika had failed in her suicide attempt, she may have received a harsher punishment than Rathore’s.  Sec. 309 of the IPC states :

Section 309. Attempt to commit suicide
Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for term which may extend to one year [ or with fine, or with both].

So what does Sec. 509 mean by “privacy of a woman”? The media and the law use different words while talking about sexual harassment, and none of them are clear.  We need to explicitly define “molestation”, “eve-teasing”, “misbehavior” and every other euphemism we use.  Right now, everything short of outright rape goes by “eve-teasing” , “molestation” or “intruding upon privacy”.  Harassment of women in India takes different forms.  There is the groping that happens in public places – on buses, in crowds and so on, and there is the harassment that happens behind closed doors, where it can turn into an attempt to rape.   Which brings us to the other irony in Indian law – we have penalties for Attempt to Suicide and Attempt to Murder., but as the Supreme Court has ruled in a different case, the IPC does not recognize “Attempt to rape” as a crime.

An unsuccessful rapist can only be charged under Section 354, Assault or criminal force to women with intent to outrage her modesty, which carries a maximum sentence of 2 years – not a very harsh punishment for an almost-rapist.   Let’s be clear, the major issue in rape is not only the physical trauma that the victim suffers, but also the psychological trauma – which she would be suffer even in an attempt to rape.  The social stigma that she would suffer in Indian society wold not be very different either.  So while the victim suffers nearly the same consequences, how can a perpetrator who had every intention to rape get a mere slap of the wrist just because he was not successful in carrying out the rape?

Issue 2:  Offences against minors should carry a greater penalty than offences against adults.

In many cases, minor children may not even understand what has happened to them, or be able to explain the nature of the offence clearly.  Even when they do understand and can articulate clearly, the balance of power between a adult and a  child is so skewed that it is very easy for an adult to cow down a child with threats.

From the perpetrator’s viewpoint, children are an easy target of sexual harassment – whether molestation, rape or  incest, precisely because the probability of detection is so low.

One way to deter this is to make the punishment for a crime against a minor so stringent that even with a low probability of detection, the adult perpetrator will still think twice before committing the crime.  So I believe that the same crime, when committed against a minor child, should carry a punishment which is many times harsher that when committed against an adult.

The message that the judgement in Ruchika’s case has sent out  is that you can get away with a mere slap on the wrist if you commit a crime against a minor.  The Indian government needs to take action to change this perception.  I think it is high time our legislators made the necessary changes in the Indian Penal Code.  That is possibly the best justice that Ruchika Girhotra and all the other silently suffering Ruchikas around the country can get.

“In a few years time, we might see this change (women getting inducted as fighter pilots) coming in with certain pre-conditions that till this age we request you to be happy, be married, but no offsprings,” IAF Vice Chief Air Marshal P K Barbora told reporters. “After 13-14 years of service, investments made on fighter pilots are actually recovered by the government,” he said in an indication that women fighter pilots will be allowed to have kids only after putting in 13-14 years in IAF.

Picture courtesy IBNlive

The news article helpfully goes on to explain:

Now, women in the age group of 21-23 years are inducted into the flying branch and may be allowed to start family after crossing the 35-37 years age bracket. The IAF Vice-Chief said if a woman pilot has to take pregnancy leave, she will be off-flying for around 10 months, which will not be fruitful for both her and the service.

I was indignant when I read his remarks, but I realize I am looking at them in completely the wrong spirit.

For one thing, Mr. Barbora did say women pilots can be  married, which is better than the case with air hostesses and some airlines.  He does not say that women pilots should not even marry until they are 35, see ? Shouldn’t we be rejoicing at that concession ?

Legions of unmarried daughters who are being forced by their mothers to get married before they are 30 should also applaud Mr. Barbora.  For isn’t he propounding the theory that women can (and should, if they are IAF pilots) get pregnant only after 35?  So much for the biological clock bugbear that mothers constantly warn about.  Of course, at age 37 and above, some women may need fertility treatment, but I am sure Mr. Barbora will pay for any such treatment at his own expense.

Or maybe he has a secret opinion (reserved for airing at a later date) that IAF women pilots shouldn’t have children anyway.   If they are making all those sacrifices for the nation, why not just add not having children to the list?  That way, he can save on those 10 months of leave (though I wonder, how does he arrive at that generous figure of 10 months?)  And somehow, I can see the IAF has no concept of paternal leave/ family leave.  So male pilots are free to have children whenever they want – it’s not as if they’d like to help with the baby anyway.

Mr. Barbora also seems to show off his chivalrous gentleman personality:

Citing reasons for services not inducting women into combat arms, Barbora said, the armed forces “feel that it is not right to have a lady or a woman exposed to a conflict where she can be a prisoner of war.” “Secondly, psychologically, are we fit? another factor,” he added.

What consideration!  Women, obviously, are fragile creatures who  need to be protected and safeguarded, and the best way is to confine them in the kitchen – they would be safe there, won’t they?  What if they go to war and *shock* get captured ? They might be imprisoned !! Which is why we should confine them to the kitchen.

The last line, of course, is the coup de grace – women aren’t psychologically fit?  I did not realize that all women were raving lunatics.  Can Mr. Barbora elaborate on this?  I’d really like to know more about his er, very interesting thoughts.

I wonder, though – Mr. Barbora said “are we fit?”, so did he include himself in the psychologically unfit category? Nah, it can’t be a Freudian slip.

A couple of days after those remarks, Mr Barbora issued a clarification today, saying that the remarks were “his own personal opinion” and not that of the IAF or the Defence Ministry.  He did not, obviously, feel the need to apologize, but merely to “clarify”.

That’s really comforting to know, I suppose. Women pilots thinking of a career in the IAF will be really happy to know that the IAF itself is not openly and unapologetically misogynistic, only the #2 guy in the IAF is.

And yes, I am still waiting to hear about any reaction/ action against Mr. Barbora from the Defence Ministry/ IAF.

And so the cycle continues.  Women flood into the workplace during times of hardship – like recessions, or wars.  But they leave during the good times.  We all know why they leave – we know about how women earn less than their male counterparts, about glass ceilings and lack of simple facilities like day-care in the workplace.

We have known these things for decades now and yet no one cares enough to fix these things and make women more welcome in the workplace.   Those two headlines tell you exactly why.

Businesses have no incentive to attract women.  In good times, they have enough workers and don’t need the women (except for achieving politically correct workforce  percentages) and in bad times, the women will knock on their doors anyway (and even accept lower wages).

So the old boys club can continue its merry roll while shedding the occasional crocodile tear about the lack of women in business.  They can even go on to blame the women themselves for not trying hard enough to have careers of their own.

Sadly, most men and even some women will believe them.

Picture courtesy The Hindu

I learnt today that “evil spirits”, whatever they are, like to reside only in women.  Not in men, and certainly not in male priests.

I learnt that anyone can diagnose at a glance that a woman has “evil spirits” in her.  I wonder how one trains for this, but no diplomas seem to be necessary.

Also, once someone “diagnoses” evil spirits in a woman, those spirits will have to be removed.

Most importantly, apparently, the only way to dislodge the evil spirits is to whip said women multiple times.

The women themselves have no say in any of this, from the “diagnosis” to the “cure”.  They  are flogged against their will.  (What, the very idea! You need permission from an evil spirit-possessed-woman?)

This whole flogging is part of a “festival” and happens, of all places, at a temple. Did I mention that the women are flogged by a male priest?

This practice is not criminal because “It is a belief of devotees and the practice is in vogue for long. We cannot alter [that].” Yes, that was the priest.

More than 2000 women were publicly flogged in a Hindu temple near Namakkal, Tamil Nadu.

In the photo of the incident above, you can see that there were at least two policemen on the scene. One was controlling the crowd. The other was watching (is he grinning or is that a grimace?)

But neither of them seem to have thought it necessary to prevent the proceedings.

Besides, the presence of police seems to imply that they had advance warning? What, really, is the administration doing about this?

Isn’t it in the natural order of things that women should have more shoes than men??? Shouldn’t women have much more dresses and shoes and shouldn’t their closets be bigger than men’s?

She realized she was the victim of grave injustice.? Gender equality had been ruthlessly trampled down, and she hadn’t even noticed.? So she went in search of him.? (What, you thought he would have been nearby, helping her organize his shoes?)

“You have much more shoes than me,” she said in an accusing voice. “Your shoes are completely filling up the closet!”

“Well, you can always buy more shoes for yourself, then”, he said. “Have I ever asked you not to buy shoes? I always want you to buy more shoes.”

“But I don’t need more shoes right now!” she said. “That’s not the point.? I don’t want to buy more shoes. But how can you have so many shoes?? You don’t use half of them anyway.? I never see you wearing most of them.? I am going to donate all the shoes you don’t wear.”

“Come on, there aren’t that many shoes, are they ?”, he said, ever the calm one in a crisis. “There are just my four pairs of sneakers, 4-5 pairs of black shoes which you’ll agree are absolutely essential, 4 pairs of brown shoes which are also essential, then my golf shoes, my hiking shoes, winter boots and a few others.”

“I am not discussing this.” she said, putting on a stern face.? “Which one do you want me to donate?”

“I need all of them!” he said, picking up his favorite pair.? She wondered if he was going to hug them like a tree-hugger. Save my shoes! “Why don’t you buy more shoes if you want to have more shoes than me?”

“Well, for a start, this organizer does not have enough space for more.? Actually, this closet will not have space for new shoes.”

But he wasn’t listening, he had already turned away.? So she decided to do the next best thing.? She decided that at least, she needed parity in closet space.? So she stacked all his shoes on the floor, and made sure there were equal pairs of his and her shoes in the organizer.? That was fair, what?

Days later she realized that in hindsight, it wasn’t such a good idea.? He now happily leaves all his shoes on the floor, and all her organizing has been a waste of time.? She keeps tripping over his shoes every time she enters the house.

Plus, he buys more shoes now that he has all the space in the floor to fill.

So last weekend, she took the only choice left to her.? She bought more shoes for herself.? And a new organizer.? She still has much less shoes than he does, but she has learnt to make peace with it.

At least her handbags outnumber his wallets.

Or perhaps, it’s the body’s own way of rejecting a foetus that was not developing well.

No one can say why miscarriages occur. They are just nature’s way of deciding not to proceed.

Niketa Mehta wanted very much to end her pregnancy. I had argued here why she should have the final say on aborting her foetus.

I would like to think that while the courts may have overruled her, Nature herself sided with the mother.

And I may add, this is still a sad event.? The best outcome for everyone would have been a healthy foetus.? A? voluntary abortion and an involuntary miscarriage are both painful events.? I can only imagine Niketa’s grief.

The background – Niketa Mehta approached an Indian court for permission to abort her 26 week old foetus which has a congenital heart defect. The Court did not permit the abortion.

To start with, let me summarize everyone’s arguments for and against abortion in this case.

The arguments for aborting the 26 week foetus:

1. The foetus has a congenital heart defect that would require a permanent pace maker. This may or may not disable the child for life depending on which version of the same hospital’s report you believe.

2. The treatment for the disease is expensive. The pacemaker costs Rs 1 lakh and would have to be changed every 5 years.

3. The child would have to undergo some amount of suffering throughout life. This will also cause mental anguish to the parents.

The arguments against abortion in this case are:

1. As per current Indian law, abortions are only legal as long as the foetus is less than 20 weeks.

2. The foetus at 26 weeks can feel pain. It needs to be aborted through partial birth abortion, which is a very painful procedure (for the foetus).

3. People with congenital heart disease and pacemakers don’t really suffer or are disabled, says a 35 year old man in India with a pacemaker since age 9.

4. Performing an abortion at this stage may even pose a risk to the mother’s life.

5. The judges offered to have the government pay for the foetus’s lifetime expenses for the pacemaker. The plaintiffs rejected the offer, saying they did not trust the Government. They seemed to fear that the Government would not deliver on its promise.

6. Jaslok Hospital in Mumbai has offered to bear the entire expenses for the delivery and post-natal care of the baby. It is not clear if the offer is for the baby’s entire life, though.

There are two issues here:

1. The specifics of this case.

2. The overarching issue of whether a woman should have a right to abort her foetus if she so chooses at any time during her pregnancy, irrespective of whether the foetus has any defects or not.

The specific case of Niketa Mehta: If you look at the specifics of this case, it looks like the foetus has a choice between a painful death before birth and a perhaps somewhat painful but certainly expensive life. If the experience of the 35 year old man above is anything to go by, the child may even lead a full life despite the pacemaker.

There are people willing to pay the expenses of the child, and there are always such a thing as fundraising, so the finance issue alone should not be a cause for aborting the foetus. Is a child’s life just worth much less than Rs. 1 lakh, then? If the parents are still not willing to bring up the child, they could always give it up for adoption. I am sure there would be many (Indian and foreign) parents willing to adopt the child, or donors willing to pay for its medical expenses.

So if you look at the specifics of the case, I can see the logic behind the Court’s argument. But are they right to stop Niketa from aborting?

Let’s look at the bigger picture here.

The issue of a woman’s right to abort at any stage of the pregnancy: Then there is the issue of whether a woman should have the right to abort a foetus at any stage of the pregnancy, i.e. even if the foetus is more than 20 weeks into development. Currently, the law in India allows abortion when the foetus is below 20 weeks into development.

Twenty weeks is a long time to cover a situation where the parents are not ready for a pregnancy. It will cover teenage pregnancies, unplanned pregnancies where the parents decide they are not financially or emotionally ready. This is also the time when the foetus cannot yet feel pain.

I admire the fact that Indian laws are pro-abortion and give people a choice, and a long window to exercise that choice. In the US, the laws are highly restrictive, and on-the-ground implementation is even worse.

Twenty weeks is a long time. But twenty weeks is not enough to cover the scenario where the foetus has medical defects. Too often, defects show up much after the 20 week mark. The question then arises, if the foetus has medical defects and the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy after 20 weeks, should she be allowed to do so?

Here are the issues to consider:

The commonly raised issues:

1. The risk to the mother: Abortions after 26 weeks pose a medical risk to the mother. But then, pregnancy itself, even with a normal foetus, can pose medical risks for the mother. Then comes delivery. Normal delivery is quite painful, and Caesarian delivery is also not without its aftereffects and pain.

So the risk to the mother can exist in any case, and the risk of a late abortion is only one of the risks in the mother’s palette. Surely, as a rational adult she should be able to decide which of the risks she would rather take?

2. The issue of pain: Yes, abortion after 26 weeks is painful to the foetus. But the mother also suffers a lot of pain during this entire process. If she chooses to abort, she suffers a lot of emotional pain (and some physical pain). But even if she doesn’t abort, pregnancy and childbirth are quite painful too.

So what are we comparing – a foetus’s pain during abortion versus a mother’s pain during childbirth? Are we saying one is acceptable, but the other is not?

Are we forcing the mother to experience the pain of childbirth to spare the foetus the pain of abortion?

Let’s face it, the pain aspect is applicable to both parties, and is best left out of the picture.

The real questions to ask:

1. Who is more important, the mother or the foetus? The crux is, can we force a mother to

(i) carry an unwanted foetus to term, with possible medical complications to the mother during delivery or childbirth,

(ii) endure postpartum blues, and

(iii) post-birth, force her to care for an infant that she does not want,

all this just because we believe the foetus is a living creature and is therefore considered a citizen?

Let’s assume the foetus should be considered a fine and upstanding citizen. What about the mother then, an adult productive member of society? Whose rights are greater?

A mother makes an enormous investment in a pregnancy. She can suffer complications that last life-long (like osteoporosis), or during the pregnancy (like diabetes and hypertension). So there is a real physical cost to the mother. Let’s not even get into the aspect of risks during childbirth and complications there.

So do we ride roughshod on the mother’s rights and wishes and force her to act in a way against her interests and her desires, at a cost to her body, because “we” place a higher value on the baby’s life than the possible risks to the mother? What kind of rationale is that?

2. If the foetus is an independent entity and an individual, can this individual live outside the mother? No, of course not. Foetuses born prematurely, i.e. before 37 weeks, may suffer complications even if treated in pre-natal intensive care. Absent pre-natal care, they cannot survive as their organs aren’t developed yet.

If we continue to take the position that the foetus is an independent legal entity (even though it cannot survive independent of its mother), then extending that argument, by requiring a mother to complete her pregnancy for a foetus she doesn’t want, we are forcing her to provide prenatal care (using her own body) which is not of her own choice, and for which she is obviously not being compensated either. The question is, is that a fair and just law?

Think about it, the only other persons whom the State forces to work without compensation are prisoners.

3. The issue of individual rights versus common good:

The other issue here is that the State is also, in essence, controlling a part of the woman’s body itself. It is claiming that it has overarching authority to decide on a part of the woman’s body. This is the scariest part. Where do an individual’s rights begin and the State’s rights end?

If the woman delivers the baby and immediately gives it up to the State for adoption, what she has done, in a way, is to rent her womb to the State.

If the State can force a woman to use her uterus to carry a baby she does not want, where can this slippery slope lead to? Can we, then, see any of the following scenarios happen in the future?

1. Can prisoners (especially those imprisoned for life) be forced to donate blood or body organs (one kidney, portion of liver) to save the life of a patient in a government hospital?

2. Can women prisoners be forced to rent their wombs to act as surrogate mothers? Or can the State attempt to harvest eggs from prisoners?

These arguments may seem far-fetched right now. But I can see arguments beginning with “common good” being made for each of them. Argument #2, for instance, can be made in countries with low fertility rates and declining populations, while Argument #1 can be made anywhere.

My conclusion: Women are rational creatures. No woman wants to abandon a foetus unless there is some compelling reason for her to do so.

Given this logic, if a woman wants to abort her foetus, the State can reason with her, offer her financial incentives for keeping the baby, offer free medical support if there are complications and offer to help with adoption of the baby. The State can try to change the woman’s mind by addressing whatever issues the woman may have. If the foetus is viable, then the State can bear the expenses and medical care for delivering the baby and treatment for the premature baby.

But the State has no right to force a woman to put all her energy and her life-blood into bearing a baby that she is strongly against carrying to term. A woman should have the right to make the final decision on very part of her own body.

Post Update: With news reports of Niketa Mehta’s subsequent sad miscarriage, it appears that Nature had the final word, siding with the mother.

Anyway, the other day there was a Dad asking whether he could drive with his four month old daughter in the car pool lane – did she qualify as a second person ?? Duh, of course.? Though the columnist warned Dad that he could be pulled over if the cop couldn’t see the baby.? Tall bonnets are very important, we are told.

This got me thinking – shouldn’t pregnant women be allowed to use the car pool lane?? Life begins at conception, right?? So doesn’t the baby make two?

Where are all those pro-lifers?? We need them as traffic cops