The Interesting Case of Aliza Shvarts

[jackofallgeeks]

"Officials said Shvarts' description of her creative process as well as her
subsequent denial that the description was fictitious were all just part of
her performance."

For those just joining us, a senior at Yale's art program is in the middle
of, I think, a
rather interesting news flurry regarding the controvercial nature of her
most recent project. Pardon me if this is too graphic -- it's definitely a
bit too squicky for me -- but Shvarts claims that she artificially
inseminated herself and then self-induced 'miscarriages' using certain
herbal concoctions. She says she did it so that her 'miscarriage'
corresponded with her period, so she never knew if she was actually
pregnant, but that blood from her period would constuitute part of the
exhibit.

There was, apparently, a big outrage over this, which then turned into Yale
saying the story is a fiction and part of the 'performance' of Shvarts' art,
and Shvarts herself standing by her story and claiming that Yale is just
trying to save face after giving her permission to do the project.

I'm inclined myself to believe it's all a great farce, that the whole thing
is a performance including the school's denouncment of Shvarts and 'removal'
of her exhibit from the art show. I think they're all in on the game and
that her art is in seeing how we the people react to this manufactured
scandal. It's got all the right pieces, from a controvercial (even
grotesque) art piece, and a school's persecution of an artist, and claims
that the institution is putting on a pretty face because they're getting
negative attention. And I think that the fact that this is Yale and not,
say, Maryland University or Boston College, adds credence to this hypothesis
because not only COULD Yale get away with a stunt like this, they'd probably
give it a go, too.

That being said (and maybe this speaks to why I think it's a hoax), I don't
get why this is an issue. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm personally
appauled that anyone could possibly think this exhibit -- the insemination
and the blood and the 'miscarriages' -- would be a good idea. If it
actually happened the way Shvarts says it did I think she's a rather
wretched human being on a number of levels -- but all for reasons that set
me apart from what it is our society seems to think is OK. We have
abortions every day, and while it is a controvertial topic, as it stands now
our society approves of if not condones abortion. Sex itself
is in a strange, half-taboo position in society; we won't talk about
consensual intercourse in polite company (or public TV), but all sorts of
violence is thrown about casually and society condones pretty much anything
that goes on behind closed doors between two consenting adults (unless you
live in Virginia or Utah). And those two points seem to be key in this case
of a girl inseminating herself and subsequently inducing miscarriages -- it
happens every day in America and no one thinks anything of it, she's
just abstracted it and turned it into an art piece -- not art like Classical
Art, I propose, but art in the more modern sense of saying something.

I know why I'm repulsed, because what she's claimed to do is squarely
against a good deal of what I think is right and proper. What I don't get
is why the society that condones this same behavior in private is in an
uproar over it in art.

Comments

[mmeubiquitous.livejournal.com]

As you can probably imagine, as a pro-life Yale alumna, I've been following this pretty closely. And I gotta say... I haven't even *thought* that the university could be in on the stunt. That's *brilliant*. if true... wow. I wouldn't put it past a number of the people involved. Dean Salovey, for instance, is rather known for his use of theatrics in the classroom.

I sincerely hope this *is* just a big study in public controversy... That's far, FAR more interesting, not to say moral, than what it currently purports to be.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Hey! Long time no see. How're you doing?

Yeah, I think it's A LOT more interesting if it's a big hoax and her 'art' is the controversy she's sparked. I think it's a much better topic, too, the social outcry for and against controversial art as opposed to some borderline-grotesque piece on art and the body. And, like you, it would make me feel quite a bit better about the whole thing.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

I think it's almost certainly a hoax. Knowing how universities work (though not Yale specifically), I'd bet that the prof was in on it, but that the university leadership didn't even know the content of the exhibition until someone complained.

That said... while I know you disagree with me on this, surely you can recognize that there's a big difference between thinking that women ought to have the legal right to terminate pregnancies if they believe it is the best course of action, and thinking that having an abortion (or inducing a miscarriage) is morally trivial. There are plenty of things that I think folks ought to be able to decide for themselves that are of the greatest moral import. The mantra of at least one strand in the abortion debate (including, in my experience, most of the folks seriously involved in pro-choice policy, as opposed to internet crazies), is "safe, legal, and rare." Yeah, there are folks who think that abortions are no more morally fraught than appendectomies - but they're only one faction in the pro-choice camp, and not, I think, the mainstream.

[naughtjennifer.livejournal.com]

Sorry if this is inappropriate, but I am forced to wonder: what does "safe. legal, and rare" actually mean?

Safe: If people seek for abortions to be safe, why are there special laws in place which allow women to undergo abortions without being specifically informed of the risks? Why aren't abortion clinics subject to Health Code inspections? Why do people insist that shoving metal objects into a woman's uterus is "non-invasive?" Furthermore, why is there no great outcry from the people to ensure that we guarantee such a procedure be safe?

Legal: People want it to be legal. Legality implies that the government sees nothing wrong in the procedure, giving at the very least a stamp of approval through "benevolent indifference." Yes, people want it to be legal, with no restrictions, so the true sob stories can get it done without playing 20 questions about their personal private life(no, wait, abortion clinics do that for everyone). When they say "legal," does it mean "not prohibited by law" and nothing more or less?

Rare: Yes, people can argue that this is a weighty decision, that people who perform abortions as a form of birth control are the scum of the earth, etc., but we really need abortions for the people who truly need the benefit. But what do we see in actual practice? If a pregnancy is at all unexpected, at least as depicted in the popular media, the first question is "should we get an abortion?" If people really sought it to be rare, why is it so often depicted as a stopgap measure for when birth control fails? If the choice to have an abortion is such a grave and weighty decision, why do these people not cry out against the casual depiction in the popular media? Why is there no angst over the massive number of abortions performed daily? Surely, if people are so concerned about it being rare, they would at least try to reduce the number of abortions, no?

And such is my concern about the "safe, legal, and rare" rhetoric. It's a nice thing to say, if you're trying to take a "moderate" position, but how many people take the extra step to actually DO the things to make it happen?

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure how to respond to your first concern, since I don't know what laws you're referring to. There are no laws I know of specifically exempting abortion from general informed consent rules. The controversies have been over the medical accuracy of some states' rules that are exceptional in the direction of *more* information - such as rules that women must be told about an increased risk of breast cancer (the controversy because the studies purporting to show a link are deeply questionable). And I don't know who you're referring to when you say that "people" insist that abortion is non-invasive. Dude, it's a surgical procedure. Open heart surgery is invasive, too.

No, legal != condoned or approved. Adultery is legal. Sitting on your couch all day instead of going out and doing something worthwhile is legal. At most legal = "not always and everywhere wrong." I'm not sure what you mean at the end of the paragraph - yeah, pro-choice folks typically want abortion to be legal in the sense of "not prohibited by law."

I'm not sure where you're seeing abortion depicted as a stopgap for failed birth control. Maude had an abortion on TV in 1972, and then the next TV depiction (that I could find any reference to) was Everwood a couple years ago. Recent movies dealing with pregnancy have been notable for mostly not seriously raising abortion as an option (with the notable exception of Juno, where it was rejected).

As for what real people are trying to do, well, most pro-choice organizations also fight hard for birth control and comprehensive sex ed (both of which lower the rate of unplanned pregnancy, and hence abortions; Mathematica just finished a study under contract with the DoH indicating no impact from ab-only sex ed). I'd also add that most pro-choice folks tend to have lefty views about poverty reduction, health care, and education as well - and getting folks better educated and less poor in general tends to lower abortion rates.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

So, not sure exactly what NJ's referring to, but a few things I have heard (without citation, unfortunately) is that many abortion clinics are not held to the same medical standards of sanitation, construction, etc as other clinics which perform other comparable surgical procedures.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's usually the other way around - they're called TRAP laws (by their supporters, often! Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers):

http://www.reproductiverights.org/pub_fac_trap.html

M used to track TRAP laws by state for NARAL - we have a big book of state laws on one of the shelves upstairs (again, I'm pleading "it's midnight"), and I'm sure you could find the up to date online version on NARAL's website.

[naughtjennifer.livejournal.com]

Well, let's see. I did a bit of homework for some fact checking. I'll admit that some of my information has been out of date or misspoken. I've tried making a point of using non-partisan or pro-abortion sources, if possible. As such, here's my response:

Regarding informed consent, it is questionable how much information in regards to informed consent is actually necessary. The general consensus seems to be that the direct complications have, in theory, been enforced, and the question is more in relation to long-term effects. Admittedly, there is a bit of controversy on this point, but, given this, the best illustration of concerns on this matter would be this article. It is 5 years old, yes, but I have yet to hear any closure on the points it discusses. For safety's sake, however, would it not be appropriate, at the very least, to err on the side of caution, rather than entirely dismiss anything which does not have concrete evidence?

As far as the non-invasive remark, I am afraid that I had mistakenly read the comment out of context, or it has been purged from the internet. The only correlation I can find is in reference to "medical" abortions as opposed to surgical abortions. As they are not surgical, however, I am led to wonder if their "informed consent" restrictions might be less stringent.

My criticism of legal is in part because it is sandwiched between two, in my opinion, sketchy terms with vague meanings. As such, it is only natural to question how sincere people may be with the meaning of the third word.

In regards to the depictions in the popular media, I feel you are taking an unfair cross-section. TV generally skirts from controversial subjects like that, so I find the sparsity there unsurprising. And while modern movies may not be as sympathetic to abortion, there are far too many movies from the 70s, 80s, and 90s which present such a viewpoint for it to be outright dismissed. You can't honestly claim that the average person only watches movies 5 years old or newer.

In addition, there are other outlets of popular media than TV and movies. Those are the most popular, admitted, and you aren't likely to find many radio dramas today, but you are overlooking two other major sources of consumption: fiction works and (to a lesser extent) webcomics. I have seen many webcomics where there is a pregnancy situation, and the first question is "do we abort?" Generally, being the feelgood media they are, it either ends up being a false alarm of they choose to keep the baby(or both), but it is always depicted as being the overridingly noble option, but an option nonetheless. Fiction, on the other hand, is much heavier on pushing abortion. I sincerely hope that I need do no more than gesture ominously toward the filth placed on the "Young Adult" shelves and be done with it, but I'll admit that that is a weak argument.

As noted, though, in Juno and other media, it was approached as an option to "not have" the baby, and, when it was rejected, it was not because there was anything "wrong" in the decision, but more that the woman "didn't feel like it."

Not as militant as in the 70s-90s, but, then again, there are those who argue that we're experiencing a "sexual counterrevolution," so the more modern media would logically be less inclined in that direction.

And, finally, referring to actions by people, let's see...

I am against birth control as well for other reasons, but, ignoring that point, pro-choice individuals don't seem to desire to make any distinction between "fertility control," for lack of a better term, and outright abortiofacients. Situations such as that lead me to question the sincerity of the "rare" claim.

[naughtjennifer.livejournal.com]

As far as sex ed, have you actually taken sex ed classes, or talked to people who have? The general consensus from the people who are actually supposed to benefit from this instruction is that it is "worthless" and "a waste of time." The actual reduction in unplanned pregnancies are more likely to come from the (largely cultural) ideals of taking "the pill"(which is prescribed for nearly any health issue a girl might have, because flooding the system with hormones is obviously an intelligent and healthy way of medicating an individual) and using condoms. Even "pulling out," for that matter, would reduce unwanted pregnancies to some extent. But this education takes no account for people being human, and not keeping with the pill religiously, or not wanting to use a condom, or mistiming, or whatever.

And I agree that abstinence-only sex ed is a joke. Saying "don't do it" and expecting it to happen is the same as not having sex ed in the first place. My objections to sex ed are on matters of implementation, and the fact that attendance is compulsory. But that leads us into an alternate discussion on problems with the educational system as a whole.

As a final note, particularly in regard to your comment on lefty ideals, I find this PDF document to be highly interesting. I don't know much about Third Way, but they claim to be nonpartisan both politically and in the pro-life/pro-choice debate, yet consider themselves "Progressives." To my understanding, Progressives are left-leaning. With that in mind, it is telling that these statistics imply that poverty reduction, health care, and education would actually have little effect on the abortion rate.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

You're still making lots of generalized, unsourced claims, which makes this difficult to reply to.

1. 33 states have specific informed-consent laws for abortions (every state has general informed-consent rules that require doctors to give relevant information to people undergoing any surgical procedure - the only difference is that in 17 states the information given for abortion is, as with any other procedure, up to the discretion of the physician). Many of these do include mention of the breast cancer and pre-term birth concerns, even though those are rejected by the medical consensus. Guttmacher Institute has an overview article here and a state-by-state breakdown here (pdf), including a breakdown on your issues of concern (see p. 3).

As for the "precautionary principle" - I think the best way to go is with the medical/scientific consensus. If you want to tell women considering an abortion that there was one, debunked, study, that claimed to find an abortion-breast cancer link, that's fine with me (see NCI for a quick discussion of the state of the evidence). If you load someone up with every possible drawback to a procedure, you're going to defeat the purpose of informed consent by overloading them with information they can't sift through. Some people have believed that removal of the heart will prevent you from passing through the Gates of Ma'at in the afterlife, but we don't warn organ donors about that.

2. I have not seen every movie of the past three decades, no. I grabbed a couple of prominent recent examples. I *did* watch movies during the 70s-90s, but none that paint abortion in a good or trivial light are coming immediately to mind. Without some examples, I don't know how to continue that part of the conversation. I also read relatively few webcomics, and the only one I read in which abortion has come up is Something Positive - but if you're reading S*P for role models, you've got bigger issues. In any event, I'm not sure webcomics mentions constitute any sort of pop culture onslaught.

3. "pro-choice individuals don't seem to desire to make any distinction between "fertility control," for lack of a better term, and outright abortiofacients"

I have no idea who you're referring to. I just explained the difference between RU-486 (an abortifacient) and the "morning after" pill (emergency contraception) to jackofallgeeks. If more clarity is needed, I will re-emphasize that EC operates either by interrupting ovulation or by preventing implantation (though there's generally no way to tell which way it operates in any particular case). Medically, pregnancy is typically defined as beginning at implantation, hence EC is not classified as an abortifacient. If you believe pregnancy begins at fertilization, then your view of it may vary. I'd just note that a fertilized ovum failing to implant for natural reasons is a fairly common occurrence, spontaneously. Most pro-choice folks I know could, and will, and have, done the same. I'm sorry if you've met someone who didn't know the difference - every group has some uninformed members.

4. "Medical" abortion (as opposed to surgical abortion) is a term sometimes used to refer to abortion via the administration of RU-486 (mifepristone). Unless there are complications, no, this procedure is not invasive. As I pointed out to JoAG, it's still not the sort of thing I'd do for kicks on a Sunday afternoon.

[naughtjennifer.livejournal.com]

I apologize for the lack of sources, but it's been difficult finding relevant information in the short periods I've had available to respond.

1. Okay, your informed consent information seems good on paper, but the presentation raises a few questions:

-A significant amount of this information is placed under the header of "written." This is, obviously, a bit unclear. When people speak of requiring informed consent, my impression, at least, has been that such includes signing a waiver asserting that you have been "provided with the information and are aware that the risks include: ... ." Having "written" information "offered" sounds to me like there is a pamphlet tray with "What You Should Know About Abortion." Cynical, yes, but your list doesn't positively assert anything more than that. And, similarly, "giving" this written information could be little more than handing the pamphlets along with the paperwork they need to fill out.
-Out of the 33 states, only 8 of them specifically say that abortion cannot be coerced, and only two of those instances are told in person. Based on what has been said by Third Way, as well as a plethora of concerns(search for coerced abortion), this seems to be a major issue. Despite this, it appears that there are pro-choice individuals who oppose legislation to prevent coercion.(apologies for the markedly pro-life site)
-In addition, there is concern over the quality and competency of counselors and counseling.(section on "Known Deficiencies of Abortion Counseling")

2. I've admitted the weakness of this argument on both fronts you mentioned, and I'm not currently equipped to follow up on it, but please keep in mind that it may be more prominent than you realize.

3. Again, this would have to be personal experience. I have met many people, and read many articles, which seem to imply a lack of distinction, or care to distinguish. In regards to EC, I'm forced to wonder: medically, life begins at conception; if pregnancy doesn't start at implantation, what is the termination of life in the time between these two points?

4. My concern here was if "medical" abortion fills the same stringent requirements as surgical abortion. The "non-invasive" claim implies that there is less concern about informed consent. Speculation, mind you, but a concern nonetheless.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

5. Yes, I've had sex ed, and know several sex ed instructors. I'm sorry your sex ed teachers weren't compelling. The "pill" is sometimes prescribed to help regularize periods, or to treat polycystic ovarian syndrome (or other ovarian dysfunction), or endometriosis. Some other forms of hormonal birth control are used for other conditions. I'm not sure how to assess your claim that it's prescribed for "everything."

6. I know Third Way, they're a good group. I used to work with a guy who's in their Nat'l Security program. I'm not sure what you're seeing in their demographics pub. Finding 1.6 just points out that the data is unclear on why more poor women have abortions. Fair enough. I'd point out, however, that the Third Way document lists unplanned pregnancy as the most prominent reason for abortion. Unplanned pregnancy rates are highest (and have risen) among the poor and those with less than a HS education (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3809006.pdf, see chart on p. 4).

[naughtjennifer.livejournal.com]

5. First, though you don't intend it, the "I'm sorry if you didn't receive the same benefit," comes off as extremely patronizing and dismissive of the issue. I'll assume that this is not the case, but please bear such in mind. Also, that it was not merely my experience, but that of those with whom I have interacted. I also have issues with the entire educational system and its failings, and the presence of a few good men does not merit saving the flawed institution, in my estimation, but that's a whole other issue.

As for my claim of birth control being prescribed for "everything," this stems in part from actual women I have known who have had birth control prescribed for trivial problems(as you stated, regulating your period? I know an irregular period can be quite a nuisance, but does the cure really fit the disease?). Also, I have often seen "the pill" billed as a miracle drug, with the many(often trivial) ailments it, and other birth control, can cure. Again, personal experience, but, if nothing else, I'd like to know how you consider "regulating your period" worth flooding your system with hormones.

6. Well, using your information, let's look at some raw numbers for perspective:

830 unplanned pregnancies from age 19 and younger; 878 less than high school education
1681 from 20-24, 1566 from 25-29; 1699 High School Diploma/GED, 1,501 "some College"

I'm not seeing a "lack of education" here. I'm seeing people being exactly at the level of education one would expect at such an age. Unless you think we need more college graduates. But I'm not certain you need a college education to learn how to reduce "unplanned pregnancies."

The poverty indication also follows the age demarcation pretty closely. I'm honestly seeing very little argument here. Looks exactly, like Third way's claim.

The only argument on the left side you'd be able to argue, in my estimation, is education and dealing with poverty in relation to the 21% that cite abortions as economically motivated. And the main argument I have there is in relation to how people, as a whole, tend to manage themselves financially. Of far greater concern to me, and, I'd imagine, those who wish too keep abortion "rare," would be to address the concerns of "not ready to have the responsibility"(not to be confused with "too young and immature") and "Life would be changed too much," as they account for 40% of abortions. I also find "already have enough children" somewhat concerning, though you may not. Also of possible concern is "Relationship Problems/Unmarried," as relating to the aforementioned issue of coercion.

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Well, yeah, and a good number of my friends are just such pro-choice advocates. While it's not a position I can agree with, it's at least a line of reasoning I can follow.

But my point is, given the society we have I can't understand where the outrage is coming from. I mean, what did she do wrong? She didn't hurt anyone, she didn't break any laws, it's (almost) entirely confined to her own body... She claims that she had no way of knowing if she was ever pregnant when she treated herself, so it seems to me that her project is little different from sleeping around and taking one of any number of "morning after" medications.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

"it seems to me that her project is little different from sleeping around and taking one of any number of "morning after" medications."

Well, sort of, and not really. First, "morning after" pills (there's actually pretty much only one kind, though several producers) prevent ovulation or implantation, they don't induce miscarriage (which is what she claims to have done). It'd be more similar to sleeping around and then taking RU-486 (which *is* an abortifacient).

Second, once we're talking about abortifacients, there's a difference between the serious consideration that most women give abortion (when it comes up) and just deciding that you'll randomly induce miscarriage because you can't be bothered to take any precautions (incidentally, another point in favor of the hoax theory is that, if there were safe, reliable, and widely available "herbal" alternatives to RU-486, which is what I understand she claims to have used, they'd be much more widely known). I mean, that's like saying that you don't see the difference between putting an airbag in your car in case you get in a crash and just slamming into trees willy-nilly because, hey, you've got an airbag (OK, an inexact analogy/disanalogy, but it's midnight, so I'm going to call it "close enough").

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

But that's not even the right analogy. This isn't just a story about some girl being irresponsible. It's more someone saying they ran their car into a tree (but they're OK, because of the airbag) in order to do a piece on art as it relates to dynamic physics -- and then people getting mad at her for it. Even less than that since, as I said, possible irresponsibility aside she didn't do anything wrong. Unless maybe it's your tree on your property and no one else was involved in any way, I think there's still probably legal ramifications from crashing a car into things.

And yeah, I was just thinking about the "herbal remedy" angle tonight. There's a LOT of risk for her to be accepting without a sure solution.

I can't recall if RU-486 was ever approved; there were non-trivial medical issues with it, weren't there?

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

Alright, fair enough. So it's about slamming your car into trees for art. Still, I think the point is that liking airbags doesn't entail liking smashing your car into trees for art.

Now, you might say - "yeah, but if abortion is legal, then you may think she's doing something wrong (or would be, if any of this were true), but you'd be powerless to forbid her from doing it." That may be true, but that's a different thing. Laws protecting free speech limit my power to stop people from saying hateful things. It happens.

Of course, that doesn't mean we need to be complacent about these things. Part of the basis for most pro-choicers' view is that the better place to address the question of abortion is in the doctor's office than the legislature. The "herbal remedy" part of the story is pretty key - real abortifacients (but not "morning after" pills) are administered under medical supervision, and any adequate doctor would be asking hard questions of a woman who was having repeated abortions in quick succession - if s/he weren't, at the very least it'd be a professional ethics violation, and possibly malpractice (since abortions are invasive and non-risk-free procedures). I'd also argue that comprehensive sex ed is a necessary support to women's ability to make good choices about things like contraception, abortion, etc. - educating people about the consequences of their actions is often a much more effective way of changing their behavior than laying on prohibitions.

On the technical side, RU-486 is approved in the US (I believe in 2000). Taking it is, at best, the sort of experience it sounds like I'd prefer not to have. And yes, there are some serious associated risks, mostly of bleeding (and I believe *some* fatalities). Again, not great, but there are lots of medical procedures that carry risks - most of the time, we deal with those by requiring doctors to inform patients of the risks and options. There are other procedures and drugs that carry risks.