Mary Pilcher-Cook; feminist extraordinaire! Except, is she? For starters, this Kansas Republican, responsible for the proposed bill SB 302, aims to impose a law that would fine ANYONE involved in surrogacy in the state of Kansas up to $10,000 and one year of imprisonment. That includes hospitals, agencies, surrogates and the surrogate parents. Reasons? Well the explanations seem viable, but inherently flawed. In a case of what seems like mortification, Pilcher-Cook decided to heroically take on the weight of all women and their reproductive organs, because she doesn’t want them to be commoditized and potentially exploited. As such, Pilcher-Cook claims that having the money to afford surrogacy or other means of IVF create and sustain the hegemonic socio-economic privilege system.
While this seems solid- it defeats the right of freedoms through ‘protection’. Pilcher-Cook’s argument vies that surrogacy is “creating a child that you know is purposely not going to have either a biological mother, biological father or both.” Purposely? So it’s a scam? Must be. It pushes my buttons even further how she makes up the mind of women for them, women who genuinely cannot have children or who want another option. Who NEED another option. And not only does she insult families who seek surrogacy, but she consistently overuses harsh rhetoric describing gestational carriers as “sitting ducks for exploitation and fraud.” Damn. That’s cold…
While I may seem overly condescending, I know that these basic freedoms that we live with perpetuate the shitty patriarchal system we live in- but through making rules for the sake of making rules, where are we heading? I don’t believe ANY law should exist that limits what someone can do to or with their bodies. If I was born with it, I want to be the one to make every. single. decision. About what I do with it. And that goes for the girl sitting across from me in the library. My mom. My professors. Everyone. While I don’t believe my opinion is necessarily the right one, I this issue needs discussion from people who’ve been directly effected. Not some fairy god mother republican looking to end anti-choice at its alternative levels.
When it comes down to it, my main confusion stems from Pilcher-Cook stating herself as a member of the Kansas National Organization of Women and a long-standing feminist. What do you think? Is this protecting women or harming them by imposing more rules on their bodies? Does she have the best intention for women? For families?