The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

Richard Lightbourn stumbled into a room full of FNMs and bumbled around like an old gelding that couldn’t tell the difference between an abattoir and a stable. Either way, he is political dead meat and he will surely be put out to pasture soon. Only the good people of Montagu can save him now.

There is no earthly reason why we should suppose that Richard didn’t know that in 2016, forcing a woman into sterilisation is a crime against humanity as codified by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (although, shamefully, The Bahamas has signed but not yet ratified the statute).

While the good Lord finds time to speak to some of our pastors to warn of the so-called homosexual agenda, the Almighty was apparently remarkably silent on the recommendation that the state set a limit of two children for unwed mothers and thereafter their fallopian tubes are to be stitched-up tighter than Dick’s hatband, by order of King Richard.

Here is what I believe the Shadow Attorney General should have said since he was hell bent on putting his big foot in his mouth. That he was concerned about the strain put on the budget to feed, house, educate and keep healthy all those children who become our collective responsibility.

He could have spun the narrative that we have social challenges where parents are not pulling their weight and that the justice system was never equipped to become nanny to children from single parent households who fall through the cracks in our society.

What Richard may have seen as a solution to our problems turned out to be his political kryptonite. The phrase “compulsory sterilisation” always is. Richard should have been more culturally sensitive and called his rambling, incoherent thoughts something more politically benign like “population control”. Morally, the former is repugnant while the latter might sound like interesting public policy.

Indian Prime Minister Indira Ghandhi tried compulsory tube-tying for women and vasectomies for men in 1976 to disastrous consequences including many deaths.

We already practice population control. We promote abstinence programmes for our teenagers. We have a lackluster campaign to promote the use of condoms. We offer birth control to young women. And as women become more educated they are delaying starting a family.

The problem with Richard’s grand design is that it appears to be targeted at poor people, at least the unmarried ones. It puts the government in the umpire’s chair to determine who has been a “good girl” and who hasn’t.

The government has no right to a woman’s womb. That’s not to say that the government is an uninterested party. It has a vested survival interest in producing healthy, well-educated children/citizens. As our population ages we will need more young workers to sustain our economy. The government can and must advocate policies that nudge and cajole women into doing what’s best for them and their families.

Our social policies must promote family planning education. Our fiscal policies could reward responsible sexual behaviour, rather than punish behaviour we may not agree with. We should pay for higher education for those young women and men, striving to break out of the cycle of poverty by putting careers ahead of progeny.

We must promote the full benefits of condom use. In addition to birth control, condoms help arrest some sexually transmitted diseases that put a strain on our healthcare resources and erode our national productivity which suffers when workers are sick.

Finally, we need to conduct fact-based analysis not the kind of conservative mumbo-jumbo that Richard spewed. It could give the impression of racism to suggest ethnicity rather than socioeconomic class, poverty, education, religion or culture are behind our high pregnancy rates.

For this Richard was wrong and he was rightly chastised for his naiveté. But I doubt he’s a racist as some have claimed. His record of public service puts that to rest. Furthermore, we all know that some black men in high places have an even more backward view of women.

Women must have the right to safe and legal abortions if they so choose, as well as the right to birth control. Women have a right to reproductive education and open access to quality reproductive healthcare whether they live in Bain Town or Mathew Town.

It is their responsibility to provide for their children if they elect to have them, but it’s our collective duty to stitch our safety net to catch these babies when their parents either stumble or fall.

Finally, women must have the right to be free from foolish talk of sterilization. They most certainly have the right to no longer have to listen to men like Richard, telling them what to do with their bodies.

I have no doubt that a few Bahamian women have some creative suggestions for what Richard can do with his body.

What’s next Richard, compulsory vasectomies for poor dead-beat unwed dads?

THE GRADUATE

Nassau,

August 4, 2016