It’s hard to deny that we are becoming a visually mediated society. The power of visuals to (mis)inform, persuade and threaten is evident particularly when iconic photographs are considered for their power to expose the truths of local and global catastrophes, wars and social unrest. Nick Ut’s Accidental Napalm, and Kevin Carter’s Struggling Girl are images that produce certain truths but they also produce a moral conundrum. Showing these images are representations of reality but they also alienate the public. In fact, the circulation of Accidental Napalm has been considered a pivotal turning point against the horrors of Vietnam War while Struggling Girl forced the world to see the plight of the starving. More recently, Richard Drew’s September 11, 2001 Falling Man was subjected to criticism for being too offensive to publish and for revealing the immorality of the photographer and the news sources entrusted to uphold societal values. Falling Man is troubling because, while it reveals a truth about the World Trade Center attacks, it also exploits the human dignity and privacy of a man and moves us to question the propriety of such a display. The representation of images have ethical implications in that they are a kind of truth that can be shown but can never tell the whole story. It is with this notion of (mis)representations that I want to address three lessons about the power of visuals and recommend using visuals in a more provocative, yet enlightening campaign—as a proposal for the 21st century.
Lesson One
The first lesson addresses this tension between propriety and morality for photographers and for activists who choose to capture and use spectacular images of human beings. For example, for antiabortionists, any propriety about displaying mutilated human fetal images is easily set aside out of concern for a larger moral purpose. In fact, in the antiabortion movement, there are those who use grotesque fetal images that, while inducing both empathy and disgust, raise ethical questions about the public display of these dead bodies. Antiabortion activists promote and distribute these visual materials based on a premise that once Americans see images of abortion, they will reject abortion. And while legal debates over the right to display such images erupt on state-run university campuses, outside the walls of progressive churches and, of course, outside the perimeters of abortion clinics, the majority views these prurient displays as morally repugnant and potentially harmful to young children.
Lesson Two
A second lesson is drawn from campaign materials of the antiabortion activists’ use of mutilated fetuses and from the 2012 presidential election. Both campaigns ignore an essential element—women. While Republicans fell on their collective swords with their anti abortion and rape rhetoric, the so-called prolife crowd (majority Republican) continued with their fetal fetish worship. In hindsight, the lesson is clear. Don’t ignore women and their rights.
Lesson Three
The third lesson addresses the failure of media to address some of the most fundamental and important issues that half the world’s population—women—face. Corporate media, held hostage by capitalistic greed, flourishes on a diet of sensationalism and entertainment. For example, recent news reports focused on Angelina Jolie’s mastectomies but ignored the science about environmental toxins (caused by unbridled, irresponsible industries) that are known causes of cancer. The news of her surgical decision also ignored the enormous costs of media’s relentless messages to young girls and women that their breasts are accessories for voyeuristic entertainment and men’s physical and sexual pleasure. Jolie’s story also ignores a very powerful human right—to be empowered to make a tough choice about her own body.
In another media ruckus over the accessibility of Plan B emergency contraception—political brouhaha about other-the-counter access, age limits and state-issued identification as proof of age—the stories failed to point out the cozy relationship that politics and pharmaceuticals play, failed to address the importance of emergency contraception to those who need it most, and failed to address the personal, social and economic consequences when emergency contraception isn’t available. As with Angelina Jolie’s story about making the choice to prevent cancer, the story about unfettered access to Plan B means women have the choice to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. But corporate media seldom acknowledges a woman’s agency unless she’s a celebrity.
A Proposal
In the spirit of Jonathan Swift, I propose a 21st century campaign that speaks directly to real women’s lives—the on-the-ground reality of women as they attempt to hold up half the sky. To begin, I suggest that legislators draft laws that require obstetricians, crisis pregnancy centers and abortion clinics recite narratives with accompanying displays of women killed by unsafe and illegal abortions, with displays of bodies that succumbed to pregnancy-related deaths, and with bodies who, devastated by post partum depression, committed suicide. While it may sound too far-fetched, consider that there are currently laws that dictate what doctors in abortion clinics tell their clients. In particular, there are numerous states that require that physicians provide specific information about fetal development, pregnancy options, abortion complications, and about voluntary, non-coercive decision making about abortion. Euphemistically called A Woman’s Right to Know, the law is the ironic work of conservative legislators—the very same conservative who cry “I don’t want big government coming in and telling me what to do with my healthcare” but actually want big government to tell doctors what they can do to women. So, the precedence is in place for legislators to continue practicing reproductive medicine without any education or without a professional license. Despite the long-standing tradition of fully accredited abortion clinics providing comprehensive counseling about pregnancy options, state legislators use their bully pulpit to impose their morality on others with these laws. What these right-to-know tactics ignore are the realities of illegal abortions and complications of pregnancy. So, it’s appropriate to suggest that legislators enact laws to more fully inform women with a new campaign.
A proposal such a mine would comb the world for images of the approximately 219 women who die worldwide each day from an unsafe abortion. With that many images of dead women, there would be plenty of material to use in pamphlets and in educational materials. Such a visual bounty would provide a deliciously, deadly assortment to post on blogs and to add to the Op Ed sections of local newspapers. As with the antiabortion activists who wear their fetal focused messages around their neck, counter protesters could sport an image of a woman in a blood-soaked bed with the words “Keep Abortion Safe” written in large letters. The thought of such a poster borders on pornographic, unethical and downright obscene. And while such a poster aligns with antiabortion impropriety, at least it’s honest in demonstrating the truth about women who want and need but cannot access safe and legal abortions. Perhaps we could further underscore the situation by showing all the children left motherless because safe abortion is not available.
At the very least, the displays should show the very real complications of illegal abortions with up-close-and-personal representations of pelvic abscess, septicemia, lacerated cervix, perforated bowel, exsanguination, and gangrene. And should anyone charge that these images are obscene, recall that obscenity laws cover material that deals with sex in a manner appealing to prurient interest, i.e., material having a tendency to excite lustful thoughts. A dead woman’s gangrenous bowel or an exsanguinated body certainly cannot be considered titillating. In an effort to ensure a woman’s right to know, as so many conservatives are determined to legislate, a campaign such as this would more fully inform women of all the potential harms.
Let’s face it. The antiabortion activists use fetal images, as they claim, to expose the injustice of abortion. In reality, their images are a misogynistic attempt to shame women and to alter the realities of safe abortion for religious and political dogma. On the other hand, a display of women’s mutilated and dead bodies would expose the discriminatory, immoral violations of their human rights including the dishonorable reality, specific to the United States, that
- this nation is 19out of 134 countries in terms of gender equality
- this nation is 50th in world for maternal health
- 68,000 women nearly die in childbirth annually
- 1.7 million women suffer a complication that has an adverse effect on their health
- the annual maternal morbidity is currently between 500-600 deaths
Equally important to my proposed campaign would be evidence of the endless attack on women’s reproductive rights through targeted regulations against abortion providers, through defunding of family planning services, through state-directed funneling of monies to (mostly religiously-affiliated) crisis pregnancy centers, through imprisonment and subsequent poor treatment of pregnant women (often resulting in miscarriage, preterm delivery and poor birth outcomes including neonatal death), through the rise of sexual assaults in the military and through the silent war being waged against poor women through cuts in Medicaid for abortions, cuts in state support (food stamps and welfare ) after one year and cuts in Head Start programs. Finally, a Google map of the United States using hyperlinks could locate the draconian politicians’ current laws as well as proposed legislation to further obstruct or outlaw access to abortion and contraception. Further details of such a map should include their political party affiliation, their religious affiliations and their financial supporters (such as PACs).
My modest proposal would visually depict the inexcusable health and human rights violations that occur due to the corrosive effects from religion, corporate greed, politics, military and government obstructionism for women of reproductive age, particularly for the poor in urban and rural areas, for minority women, and for those with limited or no access to health care. My campaign would be a much-needed corrective for media’s drive for entertainment and sensationalism, programming that’s foisted on the public as relevant and objective. Moreover, my proposal would illustrate the true nature of the conservative, right wing as misogynistic, anti-science, anti-medicine and anti-woman.
It’s a modest proposal that I’d like to think Jonathan Swift would admire.
May 23, 2013 at 9:24 am
What a thought provoking article!
The mentality on the anti side regarding photos of aborted zefb’s is the same mentality that was behind publishing photos during the civil rights era of black people being bombarded with fire hoses, attacked by police dogs, beaten and imprisoned because they had the audacity to order a cheeseburger and a coke in public, or heaven forbid, register to vote.
The belief was that when people saw the brutality, they would support the civil rights movement.
On the surface the anti mentality makes sense.
However, there are a couple of differences that are very important.
For one thing, the photos in the civil rights era were in papers and magazines. They were not enlarged and made into huge posters that were paraded on city streets where others were forced to look at them.
Sure, everyone has a right to free speech, but that does not obligate anyone else to listen, no matter how righteous someone feels their cause to be.
Another is that some of the photos of zefb’s that have been aborted are intellectually dishonest.
In my opinion, there is no moral difference between electively aborting a 9 week gestation and one of 22 weeks. But some people would beg to differ and others would have no moral qualms with aborting a pregnancy at any stage.
But to try to present a photo of a later term abortion as being one of a first trimester abortion is not only medically inaccurate, but it is also intellectually dishonest.
I remember when Ms. Magazine published a graphic photo of geri santoro after she had died from the results of a back alley abortion. Yes, I am that damn old.
But there were no posters of her made forcing others to see.
I believe in the humanity of the zefb, just as I believe in the humanity of the woman. That is why I am an anti. Of course laws which place the humanity of the zefb ahead of the humanity of the woman is where I see the conflict between the camps truly being, but that is a different topic.
When antis march with huge posters of aborted zefb’s it serves to strip the zefb’s of their humanity.
In books, magazines and literature, as long as they are medically accurate and intellectually honest, which often, they are not, I see it as a different story.
the civil rights movement.
LikeLike
May 23, 2013 at 2:04 pm
Rogelio,
The civil rights photos are also majority news media driven. What’s missing in so many civil rights stories are all the personal narratives and the involvement of the ordinary, non-celebrity foks. What’s also missing are poignant moments where women baked pies to support the bus boycott, the families left behind from the church bombing that killed the little girls, the raging racism in white communities as well as the overwhelming anti Jim Crow support in other white communities. Just as there are many, many stories that illustrate a far richer discussion of the civil rights movement, there are many, many stories that illustrate a far richer discussion of the prochoice/prolife battles.
Thanks so much for contributing so graciously.
LikeLike
May 24, 2013 at 7:14 am
So true, We have got to vote Stupid out of government!
LikeLike
May 24, 2013 at 6:57 am
More news about legislators and anti abortion activists ignoring the needs of women:
Riding on the coat tails of Kermit Gosnell’s shop of horrors, conservatives (majority Republicans) have signed on to support a bill Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act which essentially nullifies abortion after 20 weeks. But a closer look at who is testifying in judicial hearings reveals the intersections, again, of religion and politics. For example, Maureen Condic, writing for “First Things” (published by The Institute on Religion and Public Life, an interreligious, nonpartisan research and education institute whose purpose is to advance a religiously informed public philosophy for the ordering of society), uses her position as a neurobiology professor to conflate neurobiology, religion, ethics and law into this conclusion:
“A consistent definition of what constitutes human life, both at its beginning and at its end, requires that current legislation dealing with prenatal human life be considered in light of both biological fact and accepted legal precedent regarding the definition of human life. If current legislation enables and supports the killing of human beings based on a scientifically flawed understanding of human life, laws can and should be revised. Clearly, such a revision would not be without political cost. Yet allowing life-or-death decisions to be based on arbitrary or capricious definitions is also a course of action that is not without considerable social and moral cost. ”
Note that there is, again, no consideration for the woman. And in her judiciary hearing, she concludes that fetal pain is very clear and “this unambiguously requires a 20 week fetus to be protected from pain, as propopsed under H.R. 1797”. Here is evidence, again, that women’s needs are ignored.
So do we take the word of one neurobiology professor or the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology who opined about the proposed ban in 2012:
The medical profession produced a rigorous scientific review of the available evidence on fetal pain in Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 20051. The review concluded that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. No new studies since the publication of the JAMA paper have changed this dominant view of the medical profession. Supporters of HR 3803 only present studies which support the claim of fetal pain prior to the third trimester. When weighed together with other available information, including the JAMA study, the supporters’ conclusion does not stand.
Or how about this white male, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), justifying his support for an abortion bill, by denigrating a woman’s choice.
LikeLike
May 24, 2013 at 9:30 am
Anti Choicers are Anti Science!
LikeLike
May 24, 2013 at 1:05 pm
how you know if a post is a good one? by the number of comments!
LikeLike
May 26, 2013 at 3:27 pm
you may speak only for yourself,
*I* determine what i think is and isn’t a good post
LikeLike
May 24, 2013 at 3:16 pm
As a former lobbyist for the pro-choice movement, I absolutely love the idea of pro-choicers trying to add amendments to anti-choice bills that require the doctors to talk about illegal abortions and/or show pictures. A new “Woman’s Right to Know”! I hope that someone at NARAL or PPFA is reading this blog because they should be talking to our pro-choice legislators on the Hill and getting them ready to offer such amendments, if just to start the discussion. Of course, they would not pass in the House of Representatives but what the heck. But I’m not sure it will work. Our friends up there are very tentative, they dont want to get down and dirty, they are not willing to draw a line in the sand. Generally, they are not willing to be as “fanatical” as the antis, perhaps to their credit. It is a conundrum……Great piece, as always, Kate. Welcome back!!!
LikeLike
May 25, 2013 at 5:20 am
Stephen Fincher (R) proclaims a prolife position, anti abortion position and, now, a anti children position by supporting cuts to SNAP. What is wrong with folks like this? Why do people support Republicans who are anti life?
https://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/05/24-8
LikeLike
May 26, 2013 at 4:32 pm
I wonder the same EXACT thing..did you also know that in Oklahoma there was no money in the budget for storm shelters for the schools in Moore City Oklahoma, A RED, REPUBLICAN lead state because they thought that giving TAX CREDITS to the oil and gas companies was far more important than a child’s life. Two things we know about REPUBLICANS, that they hate education and they think it is GOOD COMMON SENSE to give TAX-CUTS to billion dollar companies. Oh yeah they call themselves “pro-life”….
The Oklahoma legislature did vote to fund school districts to arm employees with guns but not with storm shelters that would of saved how many lives…because the only thing that stops a bad tornado is a good guy with a gun…Still don’t know why people support such Anti-Life Republicans…
LikeLike
May 27, 2013 at 12:17 pm
It is because of him and people like him that I refuse to apply the label “pro-life” in regards to abortion.
Respect for human life shouldn’t end at the delivery room doors.
LikeLike
May 28, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Just wanted to let readers know that we’re thrilled to have Kate back with us and since she just posted, I delayed my regular Sunday post. I’ll be posting my much-awaited next post tomorrow!
LikeLike
June 20, 2013 at 7:47 am
Information, a collection of internet data is
associated that has information. This sport has become single purpose favorite among people these days.
LikeLike
July 3, 2013 at 10:53 am
In that way most women you should never register to internet dating.
This type of course will also emphasize public notions and ethical items
in biotechnology.
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 5:08 pm
NOTHING about the 3rd trimester or whheter or not restricions could be made. Frankly, while I consider myself to be pro-life, I do find myself sympathetic to situations of rape and incest and health risks. I would hope that legislators would place some kind of restrictions on certain procedures, such as the partial-birth procedure, which many Democrats would agree is a horrible procedure. Of course, my wanting to see ANY restricutions probably make me a right-wing reactionary (nut-job, Nazi, whatever) in the minds of liberals. Well…so be it. I happen to think that my view on the debate is rational.
LikeLike