// Home // Johnsen's Comments Should Offend

Johnsen's Comments Should Offend

John Nelson
Thursday, April 9, 2009

The Thirteenth Amendment is known by every average American, and is as follows: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation."

The average American, however, would probably be baffled upon being asked what pregnancy has to do with slavery. Dawn Johnsen, a professor of law at Indiana University, and President Barack Obama's choice to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, has an idea for you. Currently, Johnsen is facing a potential filibuster to block her confirmation as head of the OLC. For those who do not know, the OLC is responsible for providing legal advice to the executive branch on questions on, and reviewing pending legislation for, constitutionality; in addition the Office takes care of other legal issues. Any and all decisions by the Office legally bind the executive branch.

In a brief to the United States Supreme Court, Johnsen once wrote, "Statutes that curtail [a woman's] abortion choice are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude, prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment, in that forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest...[the woman] is constantly aware for nine months that her body is not wholly her own: the state has conscripted her body for its own ends. Thus, abortion restrictions 'reduce pregnant women to no more than fetal containers'."

Throughout the Bible, God shows us what a blessing children are (Matt. 19:14, Matt. 18:1-3, Psalm 127:3-5, Mark 10:14-16). He never said that pregnancies or raising children were easy tasks, however. On the contrary, it would take an incredible amount of patience and perseverance. Frustration and stress are completely understandable. All this considered, Johnsen still had no place making her remarks. The thought process describing a woman, not legally allowed to have an abortion and thus 'forced' to carry a new life into this world, as a slave is deeply flawed. Look back to the Amendment. I'm not sure what part of slavery Johnsen believes has anything to do with being pregnant; what crime did the woman commit that she should become a slave?

Although Johnsen has also played a major part in many pro-abortion bills and other related activities, my intent is not to get into the vast and ugly abortion debate in this article. Rather, I find it startling that an individual selected to head such an important organization as the Office of Legal Council would say something like this. Think of this topic outside the realm of abortion. Up until Roe vs. Wade in 1973, abortion was not legal in the United States. Thus, before this time, a woman had no choice but to give birth. Were all pregnant women helpless slaves? I tend to disagree. Mothers have traditionally been held in honor in our culture and respected for the sacrifices they go through to bring a child into this world, not pitied as forgettable slaves. Psalm 113:9 says "He makes the barren woman abide in the house as a joyful mother of children. Praise the Lord!" It's pretty hard to mistake the enthusiasm shown that comes with being a mother. Proverbs 31:28 describes a mother's family: "Her children rise up and bless her; Her husband also, and he praises her..." Johnsen is doing a great disservice to women with her misguided interpretations.


Comments

To help you understand Johnsen's statement.

Johnsen is obviously referring to women who seek to prevent or terminate a pregnancy, but are denied their reproductive rights. The status of slavery does not apply to women carrying a planned or wanted pregnancy. However, as Johnsen states, "forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical servitude to the fetus," this phrase being her assertion of a situation that can be compared to slavery. This distinction between forced and consensual pregnancy is one that you ignore in your opinion piece. Not all pregnant women are slaves, because some chose to become pregnant or chose to continue an unplanned pregnancy, which is an active, affirmative choice a woman should be able to make about her body and her pregnancy. There is no doubt that pregnancy and motherhood are physically and emotionally demanding work, although you avoided using that word in your piece. If work is unpaid and involuntary, it is slavery. If work is unpaid and voluntary, it is not slavery. Even women who are carrying a wanted pregnancy consider it a burden. Pregnancy and childbirth are strenuous, stressful and dangerous, but women who intend to get pregnant, or who embrace an unexpected pregnancy accept this risk willingly and rejoice in their decision. This is, of course, in contrast to women who do not wish to carry their pregnancy to term. Johnsen is simply supporting the idea that women who do not wish to undertake the risk and responsibility of a pregnancy should not be forced to do so. You also made a comment that before the Roe v. Wade decision, women had no choice but to give birth. I would just like to remind you that women in that time, instead of having access to safe, legal abortions, instead died trying to induce miscarriages or obtaining unsafe and illegal abortions. You also ask the question "what crime did the woman commit that she should become a slave"? Are you insinuating that premarital sex, or sex not for the purpose of procreation is a crime punishable by slavery? I hope not. I would also like to point out that most slaves, especially the ones held for centuries in this country, were not slaves because they had committed any crime, they were slaves because another culture or tribe physically forced them into slavery. Johnsen does not demean women with her opinion, she is insisting rather that each woman's individual choices about her body and life be recognized and respected. By suggesting that forced pregnancy is slavery, she actually giving more value to those who bear and raise children by asserting that these women are working women. She implies that this work has such a significant value that for a woman to do it against her will is slavery. It is not a disservice to women to recognize and value motherhood as work, nor is it a disservice to women to demand that this work only occur in instances where the woman gives her consent. What is detrimental to women is the idea that pregnancy and motherhood are an obligation, and to force a women who are unwilling or unable to perform these tasks to do them against their will.
Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 04/19/2009 - 22:16.

When is it alright to kill the slaveholder then?

Question: If a woman did not "choose" or "want" to become pregnant, then who is to say at what age the child is before it is no longer slavery? If it is permissible to murder an unborn child because the mother is "in bondage" by being pregnant with the child, then why don't we REALLY apply this anti-slavery-abortion thing to the max. After all, if justice against "slavery" is really the desired outcome, then what is to stop Johnsen and other people from applying it to children ALREADY BORN? Lets face the grim facts: there are no doubt ENORMOUS amounts of children whose mothers no longer want them, or whose mothers wish they had never been born. Should we kill all of these children in the name of abolishing slavery? Is it really so different than Johnsen stating that abortion is right because the mother is a "slave"? In the case of a mother who has a child out of this "slavery", does she have a right to do away with the "slaveholder" whenever the bondage is too much to handle? Before the baby was born, according to Johnsen, the mother is in a state of "slavery." After the baby has been born, nothing has changed; the mother is still in "bondage." This type of comment that Johnsen has made in and of itself is a put-down to women, pregnancy, child-rearing, and all other things motherly. It also belittles the ordeal that the slaves in America endured. While this alone is shocking and rude, there are really more terrifying possibilities. As I said before: what is to stop the abortion of already born children in the name of "anti-slavery"? You may laugh at the idea that killing born children may become legal, but think of this: 100 years ago abortion was pretty much non-existent. within the past half century abortion has become legal. Recently, bills were drawn up to make partial-birth abortion (killing the baby as it is being born) legal. To my knowledge partial-birth abortion is completely illegal now. But who can tell if that will change? Especially considering that our current president favours using federal funds to support abortion groups. Besides, let us keep in mind: in the 1800s, the anti-slavery movement did not try to abolish slavery by making it legal to murder slaveholders. Johnsen favours the "I don't want to be pregnant so I think I'll murder my own child"-technique, only her version is more frightening: abortion in the name of anti-slavery; an argument many people are too ignorant to refute.
Submitted by Beleg Heronion on Fri, 04/24/2009 - 18:19.

Let's stick to the facts.

I would like to discuss some factual inaccuracies before I address your argument.

Partial Birth Abortion is not illegal in all states. The federal ban that was passed was ruled unconstitutional in several states, and others have their own law on the books. Also, "partial birth abortion" is not a literal term. It is not "killing the baby as it is being born." The actual term used by medical professionals is "intact dilation and extraction." Again, laws vary by state, but most elective abortions are legal until the 24th week (six months), and any abortions performed after that time are for emergency situations regarding the woman's health only.

Also, your anecdotal comment that abortion is a new invention is also inaccurate. The earliest recorded reference to abortion in history is from 1550 BC, and most likely there have been herbal and physical methods to induce miscarriage for as long as there has been pregnancy.

I would also like to say that within the context of this discussion, bringing up radical factions of the abolitionist movement (the whole "murder slaveholders" part) is just inflammatory rhetoric. I never mentioned anyone as the slaveholder. Please engage in good faith.

As to your main argument, while I recognize the theoretical connection between forced pregnancy and slavery, I do not consider the two to be literally the same. I have no intention of detracting from the experience of slavery, nor do I seek to demonize motherhood. Again, I would like to make the distinction between forced pregnancy and voluntary pregnancy. Forced pregnancy can be likened to slavery, while voluntary pregnancy cannot.

You seem to have stretched my argument to what you think is its logical conclusion by asking if I am suggesting that women who are stressed should be allowed to kill their children. I admit it may have been confusing in my previous post that I was talking about both pregnancy and motherhood as work, and then using the argument of forced labor as a reason to compare forced pregnancy to slavery. However, I would like to make the distinction that once a fetus leaves the woman's body and can live separate from her, it is no longer part of her body, and she no longer has jurisdiction over it. Of course I recognize that an infant still needs care and attention, but the fact is that someone other than the birth mother can provide that once the child is born. I do not agree with child neglect, abuse or murder as a solution for an overstressed mother. There are serious issues that need to be addressed with respect to parents who are at their breaking point trying to raise their children, but that is not what this post is about. So, to clarify for you, a child is no longer the "slaveholder" (your words, not mine), when it is born and can survive without the mother.

Just a note, I was not logged in before, but the response I posted earlier was as anonymous.
Submitted by Jennifer Heise on Tue, 04/28/2009 - 12:37.