Reproduction issues--again

At the end of this month, a law will go into effect in Arkansas that will disallow abortion unless the person who provided the other half of the fetus's DNA (otherwise known as the "father") consents.  And reproductive rights take a big step backwards.
Many people claim that since the child belongs to the father 50%, he should get a say in whether or not the fetus is brought to term.  But what is a man's contribution, really?  Men provide 23 chromosomes, so half of the child's DNA.  Women provide 23 chromosomes, plus an environment where the gametes fuse into a blastocyst, an incubation chamber for the developing fetus for 36-40 weeks, all of the developing fetus's nourishment, labor and delivery services during the baby's birth, and in many cases, nourishment in the form of breast milk for six months or longer.  Not exactly an even distribution of labor here, is it? 
Some men would argue that if the woman doesn't want the child, she should hand it off to the father.  But this discounts two factors.  The first, as mentioned above, is that there is no "child" to hand off without the pregnancy, labor and delivery all provided by the woman.  And let's not kid ourselves, pregnancy is not without risks.  Prior to the 19th century, complications during pregnancy and childbirth were the leading cause of death for women around the world.  Even now, pregnancy complications can include morning sickness, sciatica, gestational diabetes, ectopic pregnancy and pre-eclampsia (the latter two can be life threatening, even today).  One little gamete is nowhere near a 50% contribution.
The second is that pregnancy is often used as a means of control.  While there are many good men, good husbands and good fathers out there (if you're one of them, I should not have to explain that I'm Not Talking About You), there are also men who use both sex and pregnancy as a weapon.  It's called "reproductive coercion" and it's classified as a legitimate form of domestic violence.  In seven states, rapists can sue for visitation of any children conceived by their crime.  Even in long-term relationships, abusers have been known to sabotage birth control, prevent their partners from accessing it, and force them to carry children to term.  This puts women in a bind because the law now ties them to their abusers until the children reach the age of 18.  Abusers are granted visitation with their children (or in some cases, full custody--yes, it happens), and the former partner must continue to deal with the abusive partner during visitations, give the abuser say in the child's upbringing, live near the abuser to facilitate visitation, or even in some cases, pay child support to the abuser.  Or the victims stay with their partners, reasoning that the abuse only happens to them, and at least they are there to protect their children from the abusive parent.

What did I sign up for--Abuse and divorce

So, it looks like I'm taking a little break from everything wrong with American politics to discuss--everything wrong with Israeli politics.  Specifically, this cute little story out of Jerusalem.
A woman sues for divorce on the grounds of domestic violence.  Naturally, the Beit Din cannot force the man to give a get, but they have the power to sanction in case of refusal.  In this case, they did not use that power because--the husband only assaulted his wife after she left him.
Wow.  Just--wow. 
"When a man takes a wife and is intimate with her, and it happens that she does not find favor in his eyes because he discovers in her an unseemly [moral] matter, and he writes for her a bill of divorce and places it into her hand, and sends her away from his house," (Devarim 24:1).
"She does not find favor in his eyes" are the grounds for a get, according to Torah text.  I'd say assaulting her was evidence that he found her "unfavorable."
The rabbis argue that if she hadn't left, he would never have assaulted her.  However, I would argue that, based on everything I've read about DV, physical assault was the escalation of a situation that has gone very, very bad.  Usually, the wife leaving is a catalyst for escalation of abuse, and this can range from physical assault to murder.  (I actually know someone this happened to.  The wife was a victim of emotional abuse for years.  She left her husband, and he physically assaulted her.)  Moreover, the rabbis' statement sounds a lot like victim-blaming.
To me, there should be no discussion.  The man assaulted his wife.  We have it on the record.  This is grounds not only for divorce, but a restraining order.  The Torah is about compassion.  Where is the compassion for the abuse survivor?  Why do we have none for this poor woman?

On the Hobby Lobby decision, contraception, and personal responsibility

OK, I really wanted to weigh in on this earlier, but life has prevented blogging!  I have moved out of Builder's house!  (Happy dance, happy dance.)
This Hobby Lobby case has raised strong opinions, and since I have friends who range from very liberal to very conservative, I have heard them all.  I also caught what Justice Ginsberg had to say in her dissent, and I happen to agree.  Supreme Court decisions have had far-reaching consequences, and when they have curtailed individual rights in favor of some other cause (see Dred Scott or Korematsu--which are now taught as examples of the Supreme Court being on the wrong side of history, and proof of a more bigoted time), they usually are overturned by a more enlightened court, or never brought up outside of a college-level constitutional law class.
Now, here's the thing.  CONTRACEPTION IS NOT ABORTION!  Contra comes from the Latin for "against."  Meaning, that contraceptives prevent pregnancy.  Contraceptives by their very nature cannot cause abortion because the woman using the device was never pregnant.  If you're not pregnant, you don't have an abortion.  End of story.  (Any comments which refer to abortion will be deleted.)
Now, let's discuss personal responsibility.
Once we get past the issue of "but, but--think of all the poor baybeez you're killing" (see what I said above--if you use a contraceptive device, you did not create a baby, therefore you did not terminate one), the next comment is "women should take responsibility for their actions."  Loosely translated--if you dumb sluts would just keep your legs closed, you wouldn't have to worry about pregnancy.  (the thought process of the Rush Limbaughs of the world.)
Let's deconstruct this, shall we?
How many contraceptive users are married?  Should married couples completely abstain from sex until the wife reaches menopause?  How many men would agree to that?  What happens if a married couple can't get access to birth control?
I'll tell you what happens.  Journey with me to the hamlet of Kiryas Joel, in upstate New York.  Kiryas Joel is a Satmar Hasidic enclave.  Birth control is unheard of, and most couples who marry are too young to drink at their own weddings.  That translates to a lot of fertile years, and a lot of children.  Kiryas Joel is number one in the country for two demographics--it has the most children per capita of any town in the US.  And it has the most residents per capita living below the poverty line.  So, who supports all these precious little babies?  Why, you and I do, of course!  These "responsible" citizens may not use birth control, but they sure don't have a problem with collecting welfare.
So, where's the responsibility?  All these couples are very religious and very married.  Holding hands out of wedlock, much less sex out of wedlock, is unheard of.  So, by most measures, they are "responsible."  However, they have more children than they can afford, which to me is very irresponsible.  An IUD is about $400 and lasts ten years, assuming it's not rejected.  Try even getting halfway through a single pregnancy on $400.  Can't be done.
Now let's consider a Hobby Lobby employee making $8/hour.  If she and her husband have a child they can't afford, they have to go on welfare (I guarantee you she has no job protection if she takes maternity leave).  Isn't that more "irresponsible" than implanting an IUD?

School's Out! Some thoughts on the year of yeshiva.

For the past year, against my wishes, the Things have been at Small Modox Girls School.  Court-ordered attendance.  True, I could have kept on homeschooling them had I stayed with Builder.  But that would have meant putting up with his abuse.  And he probably would have forced them into school anyway.
To my mind, school serves two purposes--keeping kids safe while their parents work (I'm still looking for a job), and giving them an education.  Let's see how they did on those two areas.
Safety: Here I would have to give the school a very low mark.  The building they were in is old and decrepit, and has some issues.  During Thing 1's siddur play, there was no heat in the auditorium--in January.  During one of the coldest winters I've ever experienced.  It was so cold that we all had to keep our coats on.  Additionally, their school bus managed to lose Thing 1 twice--once when she was with her little sister.  I couldn't reach the school and wound up calling the police.  They almost called in an Amber Alert when a neighbor found the girls.  Since that day, I have not trusted the afternoon bus, and pick up the girls myself.  I was also less than impressed with their attitude towards Builder.  Despite the fact that we have a standing custody order and visitation schedule, Builder was free to "visit" the girls on campus whenever he wanted.  He also took Thing 2 out of school one day, and no one notified me.  I found out from Thing 2.  At the beginning of the year, I informed the menahel and the preschool director that I had an order of protection against Builder.  They ignored me.  ACS also got on their case about the "visits," but the school allowed them to continue.
Education: Here, I'm not sure if I can give a fair assessment, since the school made both girls repeat.  (Thing 1 needed work on her Hebrew, and there was no space in Thing 2's grade.)  I'm not really sure that Thing 2 learned anything, but I'll give them a pass--it is preschool, after all.  Thing 1 was really more of the evidence.  Her writing and spelling improved, so I will give them that.  (This may have come down to a difference in philosophy.  I don't believe in encouraging independent writing for kids who can barely read--they have to rely on phonetic spelling and get into sloppy habits.  Thing 1 did copywork with me, but no spelling tests or anything.)  Her mathematical ability not only stagnated, but regressed.  The work she was bringing home for math was the sort she did two years before she started.  Thing 1 informed me that she did not do math every day in class.  For reading, the school seemed to rely heavily on memorization and whole language--despite the fact that whole language techniques have been discredited.  Thing 1 also told me that one of her teachers could not spell "Wednesday," and had to look it up.  Not surprisingly, the school has lost its accreditation with the Middle States Association of Schools and Colleges (it ran out in 2011, and as of the website, has not been renewed.)
As for the Hebrew, I had two main issues.  Thing 1's reading and vocabulary are not much better than they were at the beginning of the year (so, why did she repeat?), and all the homework assumes that the parents are proficient enough in Hebrew.  The materials I used when homeschooling at least allowed translation.  While I understand that immersion is the way to go, what do I do when I'm faced with a worksheet written entirely in Hebrew script that I have to interpret so Thing 1 can complete it?  So far, I'm still in the range of my limited ability, but what happens when I'm faced with a page of Rashi?  At the end of the year, Thing 1 brought home all her workbooks.  Most of her English workbooks were two-thirds empty.  One of her Hebrew workbooks had another child's name written on it.  Thing 1 told us that the books had been distributed when she was out sick, and she never received her own.  She had to share with another student.  I can understand these shortages in an underfunded public school where there are 40 kids to a class and there aren't even enough desks for everyone (I attended such a school for a year), but in a $10,000-per-year-per-child private school?  The least they can supply is TEXTBOOKS!
My final issue is summer homework.  What sadist thought this up?  Summer is supposed to be a time to decompress after a year of school.  However, on top of attending camp (again, court-ordered), Thing 1 has to complete packets of worksheets in English, math and Hebrew, play a computer game that locked her out within hours of the end of school, keep a journal, and write five "reader responses" to ten books.  I understand the reading and the journal.  However, most of the worksheets amount to raw busywork.  Thing 1 can complete three of them in about 30 seconds.  Also, most kids either do them at the beginning of the summer just to get them over with, or in the last week or two before school starts because they've been putting them off.  This means the effect on "summer brain drain" is negligible.  It makes the school look more rigorous than it is.
Bottom line--I wasn't that impressed with yeshiva education going in.  After a year of experiencing it, I'm even less so.

What did I sign up for--Domestic violence

I had another court date last week.  As I sat waiting on the Integrated Domestic Violence (IDV) floor, I saw two--two--different women with covered heads who were not related to Builder.  Nor were they attorneys. 
Two more.
Another at the Children's Law Center.
More than I care to count at the Family Justice Center.
And, if you go off the "iceberg theory," (only the tip is visible), for every one of those women, there are how many more who DON'T report?  Nine?  Ten?
Since Builder is now on his third arrest, this means that I am very much on the radar with the local precinct.  Every so often, the DV officers check up on me to make sure I am safe. The last time they were there, they told me that they were in the area, and happened to notice that I was home.  Apparently, there were a few other families on the block that they were checking up on.
The block.  Not Boro Park.  Not the neighborhood.  The block.
It should be mentioned at this point that most of my neighbors are very frum.
Is it any wonder that I see frum men as predators?  Is it any wonder that I don't want to remarry?  Is it any wonder that I am more "tifrosh min hatzibur" than before?  Is it any wonder that I walk through boro Park and mentally ask every frum woman I see, "Does your husband hurt you, too?"
When we are told to "walk modestly with G-d," we are also told to "do justice and love mercy."  How, then, can that be compatible with spousal abuse?  How can a Torah-observant man justify hurting his own family?  Moreover, how can it be so common that frum abuse victims keep turning up everywhere? 

Independence Day?

Well, once again I was in court.  Once again, it was a lot of nothing.  Builder is now obligated to pay support.  (Thank you, Judge DV).  My lawyer is too expensive, so I'm going for court-appointed counsel.  And AriSparkles, who has been BFF, babysitter, and bodyguard all rolled into one, is now enjoined from seeing the Things until she passes a security clearance.    (Shouldn't take too long.)  Also, we have to be seen by a "forensic evaluator," which I am preparing for like ACS is coming. 
Some lessons here:

1. Be VERY CAREFUL what goes onto social media.  I think my FB was hacked, and I know my blog was read, since it was referenced in court.  Because my comments are usually oblique, the worst thing they could say about me is that I like my sister-in-law.
2. "Zealous representation" clearly means different things to different people.
3. Sometimes the judge is your best ally.
4. If Builder can play games and split hairs, so can I.
5. This thing requires seriously dirty pool.

Happy Fourth of July, everyone!

Bureaucratic fumbilng

Wednesday was my court date.  Because Builder violated the restraining order, I had him arrested, and the case was transferred to Integrated Domestic Violence, or IDV court.  The IDV judge would decide everything having to do with the restraining order and with custody.
Now, when most of us think of "court," we think of scenes of witnesses testifying and being cross-examined, Law & Order-style.  However, because this was "return of process," this basically meant a lot of quiet talking between Builder's attorney, my attorney, and the judge.  The judge extended the restraining order into August.  Then, it was time to deal with custody.  However, Builder's lawyer said that Builder tried to have me arrested for kidnapping.  This was not a smart move.
First of all, mixed among the various petitions, reports, and orders, there was no police report accusing me of kidnapping.  None.  There was a Domestic Incident report that said he violated the restraining order, but there was nothing on me.  Secondly, I sat in my local precinct for two hours trying to get Builder served with the original restraining order.  No one said anything to me about kidnapping my kids.  Somehow, I don't think the NYPD has been taken over to that extent by the Keystone Kops. 
Builder also stated that he had never been told to leave his house or escorted off the property.  Again, since the police have done this far too many times (and once is too many), the judge did not believe him.  Then his lawyer ordered a fact-finding hearing, saying that the restraining order was groundless.  The judge, who by this time was getting thoroughly annoyed with Builder and his attorney, said that the original petition was sufficient, but that she would order a fact-finding hearing for July 2.  That wasn't good enough for Builder, who wanted one that day.  The judge snapped, "I have 750 cases on my docket today!  I don't have time for this."  Then Builder, who has been avoiding any and all responsibility for his children since Thing 1 was about six months old, tried to pass himself off as Father of the Year (copyright, trademark, patent pending).  However, because of the earlier lies, his credibility was shot.  The judge gave me custody, and Builder got visitation supervised by Rabbi Brooklyn.
We're back in court next month.  The wheels of justice turn slowly.