The Handmaid’s Tale: Dystopian Fiction or a Blueprint for the Future?

Photo: Fiona

When Hulu announced Margaret Atwood’s dystopian classic The Handmaid’s Tale was being adapted for a TV series, so many people involved refused to call it a feminist story — even though the entire plot centers on a society that has stripped every right away from women. The book’s female characters are forced to take the name of the man who possesses them, changing it as they are passed between men. Their worth is based solely on their ability to produce children, having been turned into “hosts,” or breeding units for the elite. And if you think that terminology originated in Atwood’s head, you’d be wrong — that term wasn’t from the book or show. It was from Rep. Justin Humphrey of the Oklahoma House of Representatives, just last February.


If they can take away our agency over our bodies, the rest doesn’t matter.


Ms. Atwood has stated that nothing in the book is new. Every degradation, every dehumanization is something that has happened, or is currently happening, to women somewhere in the world. And many people were quick to point to the parallels between the dystopian society painted by Atwood decades ago and the vision of a society idealized by many of our most conservative lawmakers.

Case in point: The Republican Administration recently signed an executive order allowing states to deny funding to Planned Parenthood, which will make it difficult for many low-income women to access contraception — an invaluable tool in asserting control over one’s fertility and destiny. (Vice President Pence should have known better; after all, his home state of Indiana is still fighting one of the worst outbreaks of HIV in decades, which was caused in part by defunding a major provider of HIV testing and treatment.) And attacks on access to contraception are just the tip of the iceberg.

But still, this was not really something I was going to write about, until late last month when I was listening to NPR. They talked to a young woman who stated that if Planned Parenthood would “just stop giving abortions,” then they could keep their funding. Although she liked the health care that Planned Parenthood provided, she wondered, “at what cost?

I am going to tell you the cost of not having access to the services Planned Parenthood provides — including contraception, screening for domestic violence, and, yes, abortion. Continue reading

Pro-Choice Friday News Rundown

  • Oh look — a bill that would cause even more burdensome nonsense for Arizona abortion clinics. (Rewire)
  • The stress and very real trauma of receiving a false positive for breast cancer has been shown to cause women to skip future mammograms. (NBC News)
  • Ohio Republican Jim Jordan is worried the 2015 budget reconciliation bill might keep Planned Parenthood funded! Mr. Jordan is adamant in referring to himself as “pro-life” and has four children — none of whom he adopted (according to my research). He has no history of fostering or coming to the aid of children in need. Additionally, he has provided no meaningful suggestions, solutions, or outreach to women who will be left without a health care provider if Planned Parenthood is defunded. Jim = FAIL. (CNN)
  • From the headlines: ACA Repeal Would Have Outsized Impact on Women of Color. Isn’t it interesting how most of the awful legislation Republicans champion always seems to have a higher penalty for minorities and poor people? Hope everyone realizes that is not a coincidence. (Rewire)
  • However, the road to repealing the ACA is a loooong one. Longer than the Republicans anticipated, so HA at that! (NY Mag)
  • But, like, seriously … this is not going to be a cakewalk for them. At. All. (WaPo)
  • Rep. Justin Humphrey, who is so pro-life he has never adopted or fostered any children in need, recently suggested that women who choose to have an abortion are “irresponsible” and should merely be treated as a “host” for the embryo or fetus they are carrying. This is how the forced-birth crowd views women. Our humanity is secondary or non-existent to them once we become pregnant. (RawStory)
  • Melinda Gates Pledges to Help 120 Million Women Access Birth Control by 2020! (Glamour)
  • South Dakota Republican, Steven Haugaard, says his bill to increase the penalty for performing abortions after 19 weeks of pregnancy isn’t an attack on women because it would protect some “female fetuses.” According to my research, Rep. Haugaard is very “pro-life,” but not enough to adopt or foster children in need. Additional research shows he hasn’t championed LIVING women’s rights in any tangible way EVER. It’s both ironic and repulsive that he is using the gender of an embryo or fetus to pretend he’s any sort of advocate for women. (Rapid City Journal)
  • Sheryl Sandberg tossed a cool $1 MILLION our way! We are ever so grateful. Thanks, girlfriend! (CNN)
  • 8 Countries Are Starting a Fund to Counter Trump’s Anti-Abortion Gag Rule! (NY Mag)
  • Why the &%$# are members of the Senate Agriculture Committee in Wyoming voting on anti-abortion bills??? (Jezebel)