An Op Ed by ORA Director of Outreach, Amber Parrow
It’s now on record, Vice President Kamala Harris stated in the Presidential debate that, “Let me be clear: the government should not be telling women what to do with their body.”
What did you think when you heard that statement? I took it that there is a line between what the government can and can’t do in the life of a woman. For Kamala that line is clearly drawn with women’s reproductive rights. But I want to show you how that falls short. What about women’s other rights including the right to defend her body in a way that she sees fit? What about the government’s interference in the means a women may choose for self-defense of her body? These are choices women can no longer fully make in states like Massachusetts because of overt legislation making gun ownership nearly impossible. As someone who travels to Massachusetts each year, I know my Oklahoma carry permit is not reciprocated. As a result, I limit where I go by myself and when I can be out. So would that be considered a way the government is telling me, a woman, what I can and can’t do with my body?
This is where we can point out that the second amendment absolutely pertains to the security of a woman’s body, that there should not be restriction on firearm ownership, a specific means of self-defense. Additionally, firearms are one of the best equalizers in all the forms of self-protection, which women should take in consideration. I vividly remember being at a safety seminar for runners when the instructor asked for a female volunteer, a petite woman, who he then effortlessly picked up in a way she was completely helpless. This underscored the biological disadvantage many women have in a situation that requires self-defense. This is also where other means of self-defense can fall short, and so there is an appeal to have a shotgun for home defense or a hand-gun when women are out-and-about. Firearms are an important aspect of women’s equality by taking charge of situations where they may have the physical size / strength disadvantage by giving them control over the safety of their body. This leads to possible mitigation of those painfully difficult reproductive choices women sometimes have to make. So I want to be clear, mitigation of attack through self-defense is also a choice, if not the better choice!
Let’s go even deeper. When we talk about women’s rights, it is often dominated on reproductive policy. In an odd way, this hyper fixation on reproduction becomes yet another way women are limited in policy by their sexuality and reproductive years. Women are more than that. As a woman I am not only a wife, mother, and grandmother, but I’m accomplished, a business owner, a leader, an academic, and there are rights that extend to each of these aspects of my life that are put on the back burner because talking about my sexuality gets more votes and makes for a better headline. Also, not all women are in their reproductive years, so are we forgetting other populations of women and their unique rights? Just because a women can’t become pregnant doesn’t mean that violence against her suddenly goes away. When considering the entirety of a women’s lifespan, the right to choose self-preservation for themselves or their loved ones comes right back to the forefront. With that, when we talk about equality and rights for women, the conversation should cover her entirely, in all her stages of life, including her right to free speech, the right to own and use firearms, the right to vote, the right to assemble, and the list goes on.
If Kamala is saying the government should not be telling women what to do with their bodies, then it cannot tell her what to purchase with her hands, like a rifle, shotgun, or pistol. The government cannot tell her what to think with her mind, attempting to scare her into giving up her right to bear arms. They cannot tell her what places her feet take her, like to the gun range to shoot a few rounds or participate in a match. The government cannot tell her what to say, to silence her passion and love of the shooting sports. And certainly, the government can’t prevent her eyes from catching a glimpse of the clay flying and breaking it aptly with her shotgun.
Kamala, I’m noticing that we have limited the conversation on government control of a woman’s body to reproduction. Why are we falling short in the big picture of women’s autonomy? In limiting the scope of rights, is this a way to gaslight women into thinking they have choice, but legislating away other choices? It makes you wonder, who truly is supporting women’s rights at the end of the day.