Until Rose McGowan appeared on Tucker Carlson Tonight this week I had no idea that pop-star Britney Spears was under a conservatorship. I could read this as a court presumably in California has allowed others to be in control of Spears' life and has been true since she was about 25.
What's this IUD mentioned in the blog title? Well it's birth control her conservators doesn't want her to have any children. See having children probably would do no good for her conservators if she has to take a break from performing. I could see this as her conservators see nothing but dollar signs.
Well McGowan spoke out about this on Tucker Carlson and we learn that Spears who's almost 40 is asking the court to let her out of this conservatorship. She wants to take back control of her life. And from the LA Times article where I derive the title this is a bit striking:
In response to Spears’ rousing remarks, Jodi Hicks, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, called the pop icon’s account of forced contraception “extremely troubling.”
“Planned Parenthood supports her right and the right of all individuals to make informed choices about their sexual and reproductive health, including whether and when to have children, free from coercion and exploitation,” Hicks said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times.
“Given what we’ve seen in this case, the state must do better to ensure that stronger protections are in place with regard to reproductive decision-making for individuals subject to conservatorship.”
Wait, Planned Parenthood is arguing for an individuals right to determine whether or not they want to have children? You know I always think of that organization as one that promotes abortion in this case I applaud them for taking a stand for Spears. And this is a strange turn for this case. Furthermore
What was your initial reaction to Spears’ testimony?
[Khiara M. Bridges, a law professor and faculty director of the Center on Reproductive Rights and Justice at UC Berkeley]: It was outrageous. It recalled, for me, the long history of the denial of decision-making around reproductive matters that marginalized people — women, poor women, white women without class privilege, people of color, disabled people, incarcerated people — there’s a long history of denying those marginalized people the ability to make decisions around their bodies, their reproduction.
Do Spears’ conservators have a legal right to limit her reproductive choices to that degree?
My understanding is that conservators have the ability to direct financial and medical decisions of the person under the conservatorship. And so, in order for this to be legal, her conservators would have to make a claim that controlling her reproduction impacts her financial well-being, or it’s a medical decision. And I think they could make those arguments, but it still seems like an incredible overreach of the decision-making power that they have as conservators of her estate.
I think this one way to look at this. Perhaps this could open up the door to a lot of issues that could be at play. Could some authority somewhere make these decisions for someone and not just in a conservatorship in a variety of situations perhaps you're in jail or in a detention for immigration based violations.
What I'd be curious about is the reasoning for placing on on a conservatorship? I see on her wiki page that she had some psychological issues and OK at some point in the 2000s she was spotted having shaved her head. I see that she has two children with Kevin Federline and there were some issues there.
Well perhaps more will unfold over time.
