Archive by Author

Abortion Rights and the Alberta Election

30 Apr

A guest post from  Jane Cawthorne.

My home province of Alberta, Canada just had an election in which the right wing party that has held power for 41 years (yes, you read that correctly) was challenged by an even further right party who were widely expected to win. The far right were stopped in no small part by controversy they created over abortion and other social and human rights issues.

The new Wildrose party ran on a message of change. Change was something Albertans wanted. After more than four decades in power, the reigning Progressive Conservative party had more than enough baggage weighing it down. The Wildrose were ahead in the polls even on election day.

So what happened? The power of bloggers, independent media and social media cannot be underestimated in this election. I am happy to be one of the bloggers who played a part in revealing the agenda of this party. As I always do, I asked each of the parties to answer a few abortion related questions, all of which were clearly pro-choice. Usually in Canada, no one says anything surprising, so abortion doesn’t become an issue. Tampering with abortion rights is widely understood to be political suicide in Canada. In fact, even I was a little bored with the questions I was asking. But what happened next shows we can never become complacent.

The Wildrose party replied that they would put “social issues like abortion” to citizen initiated referendum. I almost couldn’t believe my eyes. I put it out there and my sleepy little blog was suddenly getting hundreds of hits. Then the mainstream media started calling. The Wildrose couldn’t dodge the issue, in spite of the fact the holiday Easter weekend intervened. By Monday, it was still in the news cycle and the leader of the party had to repeatedly promise she would not bring abortion to referendum. What she did not promise was that she would not bring abortion funding to referendum. Then her past statements that she did not believe abortion should be publicly funded came to light, and the issue stuck to her like dog doo on a shoe. She couldn’t shake the stink of it.

At the same time, another blogger dug up some disturbing dirt on several of the Wildrose candidates, and yet another blogger who had been a Wildrose party supporter in the past got upset about their promise to implement conscience rights. Conscience rights would allow doctors to refuse to refer women for abortions, allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense birth control or emergency contraception and allow public marriage commissioners to refuse to marry homosexual couples. In Canada, we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and these conscience rights would override Charter protections.  Questions were asked about where the line would be drawn and if human rights could be protected at all with such a policy. Gay rights and reproductive rights were front and centre.

The Wildrose party also promised to disband the Alberta Human Rights Commission. No one seemed to care about this until these other issues made it to the centre of the stage. Just when Albertans were starting to wonder about the social agenda of the Wildrose party, things got even more interesting.

One of their candidates said that homosexuals would burn in the “lake of fire.” Seriously. Another of their candidates said he had the best chance to win in his diverse riding because he was white. I’m not kidding. Then the leader herself came out as a climate change denier. The bloom was off the Wildrose, and the party was starting to be referred to as “Tea Party North.”

Yet, while all this was going on, polling still had the party in the lead and projected they would win. To the mainstream media, the biggest misstep in the Wildrose campaign had been some poor placement of graphics on the campaign bus. They hadn’t caught up with what everyone else knew; Wildrose did not represent the values of most Albertans.

What are the lessons? First, we can never be complacent about our rights. Ask the questions. Every time. Every candidate. Every election, from dog catcher to President and Prime Minister. All it takes is a group of single issue misogynists to get into power at any level and we’ve got trouble. Second, although they are getting pretty good at it, the powers that be can’t always control the narrative. We have the internet and we know how to use it. This election narrative changed. Any narrative can change. Third, we progressives have more allies and more power than we sometimes recognize, even in Alberta.

Abortion on TV: New Girl vs Girls

26 Apr

A guest post from Sarah.

In the last week, much ink has been spilt over the new HBO comedy Girls. Many of these critiques, from questions about lack of diversity to nepotism in the casting process, are legitimate, and in the case of the former, important to keep talking about. However, Girls is unlike anything else currently airing in its frank discussion of abortion. In a pop culture landscape riddled with “schmashmortions,” hearing a group of friends talk honestly and humorously about abortion is a pretty daring act.

In its second episode that aired last Sunday night, Hannah, Marnie and Shoshanna meet at the clinic where their friend Jessa is scheduled to have an abortion. Jessa is late to the appointment (“These things never start on time,” she says to the bartender, needing a drink before she heads to the clinic), leaving Marnie, who scheduled the appointment to get angry. “You’re a really good friend,” Hannah mollifies Marnie,  “… and you’ve thrown a really lovely abortion.” Earlier in the episode, Hannah’s sorta-boyfriend Adam registers his disapproval that she’s accompanying a friend to an abortion, or at least what he perceives as her nonchalance about the abortion. Hannah’s response? “Uh, what was she supposed to do? Have a baby and then take it to her baby-sitting job?” Adam is appropriately chastened.

Towards the episode’s end, Jessa seems to suffer a miscarriage ex machina (or possibly, just gets her period, having never been pregnant). This might seem like a copout, and this being only the second episode, we don’t know enough about the character to say otherwise. Perhaps Jessa is the type of person who wouldn’t take a pregnancy test before scheduling an abortion but we don’t know the character well enough yet. But even if the ending of Jessa’s pregnancy is a copout, we still got close to thirty minutes of frank discussion of abortion. Which means Girls has given us, oh, twenty-seven more minutes of abortion talk than any other show this year, even shows that purport to be about the lives of women.

Take, for example, Fox’s New Girl, starring Zooey Deschanel. New Girl is actually something of a network television sibling of Girls. Both were created by screenwriting wunderkinds (Elizabeth Meriwether of New Girl, Lena Dunham of Girls) and both premiered to huge hype that highlighted their hip, young sensibilities. And on a recent episode of New Girl, a character was also forced to contemplate a possible unplanned pregnancy. The main character’s best friend CeCe thought she might be pregnant from her casual, no-strings-attached relationship with Schmidt. Obviously, I don’t expect network television shows to included honest discussions of abortion; I do expect half-hearted lip service, payed mostly via euphemisms.New Girl couldn’t even do that. In the course of the episode, before it was revealed that the character wasn’t actually pregnant, the only choices discussed were baby names, whether Schmidt would propose to a woman he’d never been on an actual date with and who’d be godfather.

No one would ever accuse New Girl of being grounded in realism; most of my criticisms of the show in general stem from its insistence on making Jess a child-like cartoon. An earlier episode centered around her inability to say the word ‘penis,’ and no functioning adult believes that unironically shouting “Hey, Sailor,” in a bar will get you laid. From what we can tell of Girls (again, only two episodes in) the show’s decision to treat adult women as, well, adults is paying dividends with stories like Jessa’s aborted abortion.

However, New Girl’s obfuscation may indicate a new normal, where not only is saying the word abortion is off the table, but even implying it is. That makes Girls, miscarriage copout and all, that much bolder. I think pro-choice audiences are allowed to have high standards when it comes to the pop culture they consume. In recent years, several TV shows have demonstrated it is possible to portray abortion in a nuanced light (Friday Night Lights and Grey’s Anatomy have both done this well). We should continue to demand stories that honestly portray the experiences of women across the spectrum of reproductive choice. But I think we should be appreciative when a show (even a flawed one) demonstrates an honesty we’d otherwise go without.

 Sarah lives in Boston and volunteers with Eastern Massachusetts Abortion Fund. You can follow her on twitter @SBHudson108.

A Different Kind of Pro-Choice Education

13 Apr

Guest post from Kat, aka @meadowgirl

May 2009 was the turning point for me as a feminist, a human being, an activist. Dr. George Tiller was murdered during a church service in Wichita, KS. Twitter exploded over the horrible news and my heart broke. People ask me all the time why I’m so “abortion obsessed” and my answer is: because if not me, then who? If I can’t find a way to speak up for those who are too afraid to, then who will? I managed to find my voice and a place for me doing what makes my heart happy without a degree, without having any real idea what I’m doing! I have passion and compassion- that’s all I’ve discovered are really needed in this work. I get asked how I got involved, how did I ever decide this was something I wanted to do- this is my humble story of my pro-abortion rights journey.

I am an activist. I am a feminist. I’m an aunt, daughter, sister, friend and best friend. I’m a white, cis-gender, unmarried, childfree 40-year-old woman who lives with her dad in South Texas. I’m a liberal, progressive Democrat who voted for Obama, whos mother died in Sept 2002 and frequently wonders, how the hell did I end up HERE?

It didn’t start out that way. I graduated high school in 1989- “the good old days” by many of my generation. We assumed much about women, our rights, feminism and our place in all of it. I know I did. I was proudly pro-choice, I thought America was the best place to live and the place to be. I was part of what I’ve heard called the Third Wave, we came after Gloria, the Generation X of feminism. I grew up just outside of Oakland, in what’s known as the East Bay in Northern California. I also thought I knew all about feminism and lady business and that we had rights–that was that. I read The Handmaid’s Tale in 1988, given to me by my mother and saw it through the lens of a confident 17-year-old girl who never knew a time where birth control was illegal, abortion wasn’t available and we had even had a woman run as Vice President.

I recently reread the novel before giving it as a special gift to my 18-year-old niece. It terrified me, turned my blood cold and reminded me far too easily of the daily news. Bombings, transvaginal ultrasounds, personhood amendments and fights over my fundamental right for contraception are moments that give me pause in my fight. I didn’t want to fight–I wanted to keep thinking that Roe vs. Wade means abortion is legal. It is. TECHNICALLY. It took the assassination of a doctor who performed later abortions to make me get off the fence. Choose a side and be willing to be vocal about it. I didn’t know what an “abortion fund” was until then, I didn’t know that the Hyde Amendment was still being used. Stupak-Pitts was gearing up during the ACA fight. I had no idea about any of this until the very end of May in 2009. It took the horrible unnecessary murder of an amazing person to make me examine my inner being and decide what did I want to be known as when it comes down to it? Did I want to be thought of as someone who sits by while my rights to my bodily autonomy are chipped away? I wasn’t raised that way, so fight it was going to be.

I never thought I’d end up decided that for my 40th birthday in last November that I would end up fundraising for the Lilith Fund, a local abortion fund. I found them via Twitter thanks to Google. Technology has enabled me to be a part of my world like nothing else. It’s brought the most amazing, life-changing and wonderful human beings into my life. I raised $500 from total strangers! My need to do something, anything was about more than money. My awareness, my heart and my belief in the fundamental rights of bodily autonomy and choice exist now like never before. I made a choice! I’ve never looked back and I don’t ever regret a single minute of my “donate to my birthday” experience.

I started getting to know different feminists, abortion rights advocates and just amazing women. It was perfectly accidental and I like to view it as the way it should work out. I didn’t know women couldn’t pay for abortions and that meant that women were basically forced to have children they can’t afford. I didn’t know that while abortion might be legal, it’s rarely affordable, accessible or easy to obtain. That women don’t choose abortion as a lazy excuse, that they don’t use it as birth control, they don’t steal government money to pay for them–that none of those scenarios are true, but so what if they were? What if a woman does just want an abortion because she wants one because a pregnancy is inconvenient? I never really turned inside and realized it was ok for those to be their reasons. Their reasons were none of my business but it was part of my belief that it was worth fighting for them to have that choice. Maybe a choice I didn’t want to make for myself. I gained an education on Twitter that wouldn’t have been possible in the halls of higher learning.

We talk a lot about “poor” or “marginalized” women, economic justice, eradicating poverty and equality for all. I’m poor, I’m undereducated and I’m a Blue in a state so deeply Red, the mainstream media rarely covers our reproductive rights issues. We want to help women but I’ve noticed that sometimes the more educated, well-meaning women forget that we are already here, fighting. I don’t have any money, I don’t have a nicely framed piece of paper telling folks I’m smart but I do have a big fat mouth and I’m NEVER afraid to use it. That’s your power, ladies. That’s how we include everyone. I discovered it wasn’t just women, it was ALL people who need inclusivity. I learned a lot of new words, a lot of new definitions of gender, sexuality, race, ability. I never realized that poor women are forgotten until I realized I was poor and I feel forgotten by “the movement” all the time. I pretty much shoved open the door of activism by sheer force of will and personality. I wake up to a world where I make my voice matter because I want to matter. I think if more “educated” women remembered their best asset is friendship, we could all fight this fight together. I don’t need you to validate me when I want you to be my friend, my fellow suffragette and fighter for injustice! I don’t mind how old you are, where you live, what fancy degree you didn’t get or where you want to go to get there. Let’s remember that we are all in this together–there is nothing that can’t be accomplished when many voices rise up for hope and compassion. Don’t ever let your “lack” stifle the voice that you were given and can vote with- that’s how I did it!

Confessions of a Teenage Slut

6 Mar

A guest post from Tara.

I’ve always been a very sexual person. In high school, when all of my friends were worried about what people would think when they finally lost their virginities, I was bragging publicly about my latest conquest. My thought process was hey, if the guys can boast about the girls they have bedded, and they do, so can I. Thus began my love affair with making people feel uncomfortable with a female being so open with her sexuality.

Losing my virginity was average. I was 16 years old with my then boyfriend, it was quick and painful but I was proud. I was proud to cross over the threshold from girlhood to womanhood. I was proud to share this milestone with anyone (besides my parents) who would listen, and so was he. However, I quickly leaned that sex turns teenage girls in to sluts and teenage boys into men. I grappled with this idea for a few weeks. How can sex be a positive masculine activity while simultaneously silencing feminine voices? What was my place? How something be so dominant in our society but I, not my boyfriend, couldn’t even talk about it? I was perplexed to say the least.

I was supposed to be ashamed, I was suppose to keep quiet, I was suppose to keep my legs closed. Contrary to cultural criticism, I fell in love with the notion of being slut. I fell in love with the control I had over my sexuality and my sex life, the control over my body. When I broke up with the guy I lost my virginity to I began sleeping around, I was often the topic of conversation. When people would ask me how many people I’ve slept with to try to embarrass me, I’d just reply with more than zero, less that 100 (which is still my standard answer). My classmates tried to make my sexuality define who I was, I just chalked it up to cultural naïveté.

Today it bothers me that slut is a bad word not only because of the general negativity towards women, but because men are hardly ever labeled as sluts. Pleasure isn’t a man’s game nor is it a breeder’s game. The juxtaposition between the our sex obsessed society, the accessibility of pornography and all that is great with the world and the sexual repression of women is embarrassing to say the least. Women can be half naked on billboards to sell a car but a woman breastfeeding in an airport is repulsive? When I watch the news with my parents all too often I see commercials for Viagra so old men can keep having sex, but the moment I mention that birth control should be free I’m in the wrong? If I even mention that I’ve had to take emergency contraception because of a broken condom people automatically judge me but don’t even care about the man I was with.

Even in college people attempt vilify me as a slut, but honestly, what’s wrong with my actions? I’m safe, responsible, and I know what I’m doing. I should be the least of your worries. Stop waging a culture war against me.

Tara is a 20-year-old college student living in Westchester, NY. She’s majoring in calling out the flaws within society and changing the world.

Can We Choose to Move Forward on Reproductive Justice? — And How?

10 Feb

A guest post from Ayesha Chatterjee and Judy Norsigian. Cross-posted from On the Issues Magazine.

As current staff members at Our Bodies Ourselves (OBOS), an organization that has advanced the health and human rights of women and girls over four decades, and longtime reproductive justice activists, we continue to hope that safe and affordable abortion care will, someday, become a reality for everyone. With increasing attacks and restrictions on abortion access worldwide, we have our work cut out.

Here, in the U.S., the debate around abortion has become especially polarized. Right-wing and anti-choice groups bombard young people with messages that stereotype and stigmatize those seeking abortion services — both individuals and entire communities. Think: billboards have popped up around the country equating abortion to the genocide of African-American children, who are further described as an “endangered species.” These — and other — oversimplified messages mock a personal and often complex decision, not to mention the right to a constitutionally protected and medically safe procedure. They influence how people, especially young people, articulate and align themselves on abortion. They drive our activism — our tireless commitment to alliances across aisles and opinions, and to conversations that move beyond “pro-life” and “pro-choice” rhetoric to focus on the individual, her needs, rights and circumstances.

Engaging, mobilizing and building alliances on an issue like abortion can be an uphill climb. But as 2012 rolls in, we want to take a few minutes to remind you about why it is important and suggest a few ways you can go about this challenge.

Building Up Our Friends

Our allies are our greatest strength. We especially need to appeal to the hearts and minds of people “on the fence,” by connecting abortion rights to principles that they hold valuable — equality, privacy, dignity, security and more. We must show how these principles will be affected if we do not have the fundamental right to reproductive freedom. We believe that we can even engage anti-choice people in conversations about how restrictions on access to abortion affect women and girls — especially those who are uninsured, under-insured, socially or ethnically marginalized and isolated.

We need to take a few minutes to contact the judges in our communities and ask them to defend the rights of women and girls. Monica Roa, the lawyer who argued a case before Colombia’s Supreme Court that liberalized that nation’s restrictive abortion law in May 2006, identifies judges as a key audience: “Judicial bias is a major conflict throughout the world.” She proposes a highly effective “court targeting” approach that includes getting better acquainted with specific judges and their position on issues.

And we must not forget our friends, our existing allies — an activist neighbor, a local abortion fund or a provider — on the forefront of the abortion rights movement and under threat because of it. Supporting them is critical and we can do so in a number of ways. We can donate money to local abortion funds which provide financial and logistical assistance to women that need abortions, or simply volunteer our time to their activities — a list of abortion funds is online. We can also volunteer at clinics, in roles that range from administrative to serving as clinic escorts that guide staff, providers and clients in and out of clinics and shield them from harassment and pro-life demonstrators. If these options seem daunting, we can help tremendously by just talking — with family and friends at home, with our community via blogs and local newspapers, and with our political representatives on the phone.

Listening and Engaging Listeners

In our bid to build alliances across the table, those of us involved in the struggle to preserve abortion rights must develop new tools of moral suasion. How? For a start, we need to be good listeners, good storytellers and patient communicators, and to create safe spaces for respectful dialogue, either one-on-one or in groups.

Judy Norsigian:

I remember an eye-opening conversation many years ago with a priest – a family friend – who had regularly sermonized about the evils of abortion. He described how one year a woman came to him afterwards and described WHY she had had her own abortion and why what he had said in church was so wrong and hurtful to her and many other women. A thoughtful and compassionate person, he decided to cease such sermons, but his comment about this encounter was instructive: “Don’t get me wrong, I still think of abortion as killing life in some form…I have not changed my mind about that. But what I realize now is that an abortion can be the RIGHT and moral thing to do.”

In the years that followed, I found a number of people who resonated with this kind of thinking and who could find a way to support a woman’s right to choose, while, at the same time, holding on to the concept of abortion as an act that destroyed life in some form. They noted that society does, at times, sanction even the killing of human beings (during war, in self defense) and, thus, could envision abortion as a moral choice and one to be preserved for women needing to make that choice.

Ayesha Chatterjee:

Active in the grassroots abortion access movement in the Boston area, I am also expecting my first baby in the spring of 2012. While I see absolutely no dichotomy in my activist and parenting roles, I have been asked a few times whether becoming a mother has softened my position on abortion rights, made me more empathetic to pro-life reasoning. My response: Far from it! My decision to have children is situated within my unique context and personal needs and capacity. If anything, the hands-on experience with the ongoing physical, emotional and financial commitment needed to nurture another human being has only deepened my understanding of an incredibly complex and personal issue, as well as my appreciation of why some decide to terminate their pregnancy and others, despite the many and different challenges, carry theirs to term.

When we are at a loss for words, drawing on other eloquent voices in the reproductive justice movement can help get the discussion started.

For starters, here are a couple such individuals:

Dr. Garson Romalis, a Canadian abortion doctor, whose speech on January 25, 2008 at the University of Toronto Law School Symposium is well worth reading. Dr. Romalis had been physically attacked — shot and stabbed, on two different occasions six years apart — and remained deeply committed to providing abortion services throughout his long career. At the close of his speech, he wanted to describe “one last story that I think epitomizes the satisfaction I get from my privileged work.” He continued, “Some years ago I spoke to a class of University of British Columbia medical students. As I left the classroom, a student followed me out. She said: ‘Dr. Romalis, you won’t remember me, but you did an abortion on me in 1992. I am a second year medical student now, and if it weren’t for you I wouldn’t be here now.’”

Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, offers many compelling insights in, for example, Missed Opportunities in McCorvey v. Hill: The Limits of Pro-Choice Lawyering, in the New York University Review of Law & Social Change in 2011, or Long Term Policies, Long Term Gains in Conscience in Winter 2006-2007. In the latter, Paltrow writes: “those who defend the right to choose abortion often frame their defense in terms of protecting Roe v.Wade and access to abortion services. But far more than Roe and abortion is at stake. The health, dignity and human rights of all pregnant women are threatened by anti-abortion and fetal rights laws. Such laws create the basis not only for outlawing abortion but also for forcing women to have unnecessary Caesarean sections, for banning vaginal births after Caesarean sections and for treating pregnant women with drug, alcohol and other health problems as child abusers before they have even given birth.”

It also helps to be prepared for contentious conversations with compelling arguments and facts.

Anti-abortion advocates often use dangerous and misleading approaches to restrict access to abortion and birth control, and having a counter argument ready goes a long way. This misinformation runs the gamut — from claiming that the emergency contraception or morning-after pill (Plan B) is the same as the “abortion pill” to asserting that feticide laws, now existing in about 38 states and on the federal level, protect pregnant women, when in reality they are frequently used against pregnant women, especially those who may have used drugs during a pregnancy. So, staying abreast of facts to counter their fiction is critical and there are innumerable on-line and off-line resources. Here are two: The Guttmacher Institute and Ipas.

Converting Our Energy

When we gain ground by changing hearts, minds or policies, we have to ensure it translates into action — securing real and affordable access to birth control and abortion for women and girls.

While we have a long way to go before reproductive justice is a reality for everyone, the looming possibility of an anti-choice administration (and all that this would entail) has serious implications for women and girls in the U.S. and, through policies that restrict the use of U.S. development aid overseas, women and girls around the world. Your voice is important.

Our goals are substantial and clear. We need to become involved — to educate one another and ourselves on the nuances of abortion rights and access; defend the fast dwindling numbers of abortion clinics and abortion providers nationwide; express our outrage when they are attacked and vilified; demand greater and equal access to all reproductive health services including affordable and safe birth control and abortion care; counter misleading and dishonest anti-abortion propaganda and hold the people behind these tactics accountable for their actions.

Doing this effectively will require creativity, tenacity and abiding respect of all women’s realities and circumstances. We’re up for the challenge — are you?

NARAL: Stop Talking to the Press about Engaging Youth

7 Feb

Guest post by Abortion on Demand.

Is there an advocacy organization more ham-handed about talking about young supporters than NARAL Pro-Choice America? I opened the Washington Post Outlook section on Sunday and found yet another bunch of completely stupid quotes coming from both NARAL’s President Nancy Keenan and Communications Director Ted Miller. To wit:

  • “These are people that we haven’t quite crossed their radar screen,” NARAL President Nancy Keenan explained in a recent interview. “They share our values, they’re pro-choice, but the question is: How do we talk to them?”
  • For many women who have grown up in an era of legal abortion, that mentality has persisted. NARAL’s Keenan often refers to the graying heads of the major women’s groups as the “menopausal militia.”
  • NARAL has begun dividing its e-mail list between its younger and older supporters, testing different messages on about 10 percent of its subscribers. The group saw response rates double when younger people received a message from a NARAL staff member their own age, rather than one from the group’s president.
  • “Much of our list consists of people who are baby boomers,” says NARAL communication director Ted Miller. “With Millennials, we’re trying to be more strategic and communicate in a different way.”

Dear Keenan and Miller, guess what great communications strategy is for either selling widgets or organizing people: NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR TARGETS IN THE THIRD PERSON. Also maybe not talking about HOW you are going to SELL TO THEM. Cause everyone loves to know how they are marketed to, like they are a piece of meat.

You want to talk amongst organizations about successful campaigns that seemed to resonate amongst college-age kids? Great. Do it privately. You gain NO BENEFIT TALKING TO A WASHINGTON POST REPORTER ABOUT THIS.

And please stop, stop, STOP publicly talking about the “intensity gap.” (That 2010 study you commissioned should have NEVER been a document you shared with the press).

The “intensity gap” absolutely exists amongst non-activists. Let’s get something straight, voter does not equal activist. Voter just means you go out and vote. Activist means you do something (anything) other than voting on Election Day. But what you’re voting on Election Day is often determined by what activists were doing leading up to Election Day.

Of course there are lots of under 30 activists in the pro-choice movement. Some of them write for this blog even. But here’s my message to NARAL. Shut up about the intensity gap. First of all you don’t know about the “intensity diminishment” as all those young supporters you see bused to Washington, DC by their parents on Roe Day grow up. Guess what? A lot of them will end up drifting away from their church and their anti-choice positions. Not all of them, of course, but usually what you feel at 12 you don’t feel quite as intently about in your 20s or 30s or I would still get up early on Saturday mornings to watch the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

(And here’s the chance to quote my favorite FUCKING STUPID QUOTE NANCY KEENAN EVER SAID TO REPORTER SARAH KLIFF.)

“I just thought, my gosh, they are so young,” Keenan recalled. “There are so many of them, and they are so young.” March for Life estimates it drew 400,000 activists to the Capitol this year. An anti-Stupak rally two months earlier had about 1,300 attendees.

You want to garner more teenagers and 20-somethings Keenan, then why not just do it and stop telling the press HOW you’re going to do it. Stop talking about the fact you don’t have as many “youth supporters” as you’d like (all it’s going to do is piss off everyone who is a young supporter of Choice).

Maybe another piece of advice is Keenan (and Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards who’s a tad better at talking about what they do) need to just stop spilling their guts to reporter Sarah Kliff. Not because Kliff is misquoting them. Because the first rule of communications strategy is that if you don’t have a good message when talking to the press THEN DON’T DO IT.

Roe at 39: Why care about choice?

22 Jan

A guest post by Gwen Emmons.

One of the most common questions reproductive justice activists get is why we focus on choice in a time where so many other pressing issues – jobs, poverty, healthcare reform – have yet to be solved.

My answer is simple: they’re all connected. And on the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I think it’s more crucial than ever to reflect on how reproductive autonomy fits in to the bigger question of realizing the American dream.

The ability to determine the timing and spacing of one’s pregnancies (or whether to be pregnant at all) contributes to your ability to enjoy economic security. Unplanned pregnancies can, unfortunately, be costly (particularly if you are un- or under-insured) and can impact your ability to work in some cases. Having the ability to control your reproduction is crucial to controlling your economic destiny.

Access to safe abortion care, contraception, Plan B, medically accurate sex ed, and affordable gynecological screenings and childcare services are at the base of the pyramid that makes up that American dream. Lose Roe – or any of these other pieces – and we risk toppling that pyramid. Unfortunately, for too many women and men, that’s already happening. And it’s shameful.

The flip side of this is that instead of fixing things like poverty, the economy, or our healthcare system, legislators in Pennsylvania and across the country have focused their efforts on chipping away at choice. Spoiler alert: restricting access to Plan B doesn’t create jobs. Draconian restrictions on abortion services won’t fix our economy.

So as we celebrate 39 years of access to safe, legal abortion, let’s reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that reproductive rights – and the American dream – remain attainable to everyone.

Dana Milbank of Washington Post Thinks Pro-Choicers Need to Chill Out

18 Jan

A guest post from Abigail Collazo. Cross-posted from Fem2pt0

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post thinks the debate surrounding abortion, or what he refers to as “Roe Week,” is absurd.

In his latest column, Milbank criticizes abortion provider Merle Hoffman for raising a ‘false alarm’ about the threat to reproductive rights in this country.  He then goes on the cite the numerous marches and events that will take place on both sides of the debate over the next week as the country celebrates – or laments – the landmark Roe v. Wade decision that made abortion legal in this country.

All of this attention troubles Dana Milbank.  He writes, “if these groups cared as much about the issue as they claim, and didn’t have such strong financial incentives to avoid consensus and compromise, they’d cancel the carnivals and get to work on the one thing everybody agrees would be worthwhile — reducing unwanted pregnancies.”

He chastises the choice movement by telling us that “not every compromise means a slippery slope to the back alley.”  He tells us to stop with the “sky is falling” argument and to acknowledge that the majority of Americans have legitimate concerns.

As you can imagine, I’ve never had a man tell me – a feminist – to “simmer down” and “be reasonable” before.  Maybe Dana Milbank doesn’t think the sky is falling, or that reproductive rights are being steadily rolled back in this country, simply because he’s so busy critiquing the “theater” surrounding the debate that he hasn’t bothered to really take a look at what’s at stake.

Milbank is on the right track with his admonishment of the Conservative side to pay more attention to family planning if they really want to reduce abortions.  But if he thinks that’s what we should all be focused on, and it’s the pro-lifers who aren’t willing to compromise on that, then what on earth is he admonishing the pro-choicers for?  Oh yes, for crying wolf and not being reasonable.  I’d like to take this opportunity to remind Mr. Milbank that “being reasonable” is what got us the Hyde Amendment.  Milbank wants us to find common ground with the pro-life movement and work on that.  Except as I’ve written about in the past, there is no common ground with the pro-life movement.  They aren’t anti-abortion; they’re anti-women.

The unprecedented efforts we’ve seen in 2011 to repeal a woman’s right to choose how to live her life and how to exercise agency over her own body goes far beyond just Roe v. Wade.  And yet, Milbank seems to just want us to focus on getting along and finding middle ground in reducing unwanted pregnancies and – always – to learn to play a little nicer.

The sky isn’t falling? The Guttmacher Institute has a solid (yet depressing) overview of 2011 already, so let’s just do a quick review, shall we?

- In all 50 states combined, more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related bills, amendments, and pieces of legislation were introduced.  Of these, 135 were enacted in 36 states, and 68% of these new provisions—92 in 24 states—-restrict access to abortion services.

- North Dakota was added to the list of 36 other states that require abstinence-only education.

- Montana, Texas, and New Hampshire all drastically reduced funding to family planning services out of proportion to cuts to other health care services.

- Kansas, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Utah adopted provisions prohibiting all insurance policies in the state from covering abortion except in the most extreme cases (life endangerment).

- Five states adopted provisions mandating that a woman obtain an ultrasound prior to having an abortion.

- Now that Texas and North Carolina have been added to the list, we’re looking at 26 states that mandate that a woman seeking an abortion must wait a certain period of time between getting counseling and having her procedure done.  Even stricter regulations were proposed in South Dakota (don’t even get me started on the host of other choice-related problems in South Dakota -only click through this link if you really want to feel sick.).

I understand that Dana Milbank doesn’t appreciate seeing “gruesome photos of fetuses” or images of bloodied hangers, but there’s a reason everyone’s coming out in full force.  WE’RE NOT GETTING THROUGH.

I’m outraged that “legal” in this country doesn’t mean available, accessible, or affordable.  I’m outraged that in addition to literally trying to close abortion clinics, pro-lifers are trying to enact legislation that would make fetuses into persons (Ohio is the latest, for those who haven’t been keeping track).  I’m outraged that we’re still teaching kids in public schools that women having sex is a bad and dangerous thing – hell I’m outraged that abstinence-only education still even exists.  This debate isn’t just about abortion.  It’s about women’s health, women’s rights, and women’s choices.

Milbank uses as the “hook” in this piece a report commissioned by abortion-rights activist Merle Hoffman to examine the effect of economic need on abortion coverage.  Except one has to wonder if he even bothered to read the report.  The conclusions in the report were not based exclusively on “journalistic” reports, but also on newer research from credible institutions like Gallup and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and from peer-reviewed research that explored the increase in numbers of women choosing abortion for economic reasons. These are more than “journalistic” sources. Furthermore, all the data supported the trend presented, and none contradicted it.  The idea isn’t to wait three years for a full and comprehensive, state by state analysis to realize that there’s something going on.

But my bigger concern is that Dana Milbank thinks the pro-choice movement needs to acknowledge “legitimate concerns” and stop crying wolf.  This is because when it comes to reproductive choice and abortion rights, he doesn’t think the sky is falling.

But I suppose that’s easy to say when the sky isn’t falling on him.

For those who are interested in telling Dana Milbank (@Milbank) why abortion rights really are at risk in this country, you can email him at milbankd@washpost.com or post a comment to his piece.

Are White Girls Listening to "Shit White Girls Say… To Black Girls"?

5 Jan

A guest post by Lauren Herold.

White girls are getting a lot of attention lately.  From @whitegrlproblem to BetchesLoveThis.com to the video Sh*t Girls Say, blogs, tumblrs, YouTube videos, and twitter handles love satirizing privileged white women and the things they talk about.

Franchesca Ramsey, in her video “Shit White Girls Say…To Black Girls,” takes the satire one step further: she uses the internet meme to recognize racial microaggressions that women of color face on a daily basis.  In a blonde wig, she parodies the White Female Friend who starts sentences with the phrase, “Not to sound racist, but…” and asks inappropriate questions like, “Can I touch your hair?” It’s funny because it’s too real: most privileged white people feel uncomfortable talking about race, especially to people of color, and end up making awkward comments that tokenize and exoticize their black friends. While these comments are not purposefully offensive, they are problematic because they contribute to the receiver’s experience of social marginalization and often deny the significance of historical and institutional racism.

Ramsey’s video went viral yesterday.  This morning, I noticed that every progressive person on my Twitter and Facebook had posted about it.  In scrolling through my news feeds, I noticed a lot of these people were white.  Which, theoretically, is great. As more anti-racist media is available via online activists, one hopes that white people will read, watch, and think critically about this media. But do they actually recognize that they are the ones who need to be internalizing these messages?

Because it’s far too easy, in this current meme-of-the-moment culture, to watch a viral video and then forget about it a few hours later.  And it’s far too easy to get your liberal cred by re-posting the latest progressive video on your social media site of choice.  I worry that white people will get a quick, condescending laugh at the stupidity of the “white girl” without processing the video’s messages.

I worry because, as a privileged white girl myself, I can theoretically ignore or laugh off these messages. If I don’t want to think about interpersonal and structural racism, I don’t have to, because I don’t face these issues every day.  And it’s true: a lot of white people don’t educate themselves about institutional racism, as evidenced by the pervasive comments Ramsey parodies. In the third chapter of his book Racism Without Racists, Eduardo Bonilla-Silva discusses the awkward semantic moves that white people often make to evade talking about race. These moves include finding excuses for racism (“some of my best friends are black”), denying the existence of racism (“this is about class, not race”), and even being unable to express oneself coherently in discussion (“um, you know, I think black people, um, well, I don’t know, but…”). Bonilla-Silva says these semantic strategies are the result of “talking about race in a world that insists race does not matter.”  Indeed, media personalities and newspaper articles insist we are “post-race.” So why would we need to acknowledge the experiences of our friends of color or the way we contribute to their marginalization?

Hey, I’ve been there too. I’ll admit it, I’ve asked black female friends about their hair, I’ve compared oppressions, I’ve become hopelessly awkward and incoherent while talking about race. I’m still developing an anti-racist language and consciousness. Thanks to people like Ramsey, I’m just realizing how many mistakes I’ve made.  But if we, white liberal people, really want to become allies in anti-racist causes, we need to take anti-racist media seriously as the educational tool that it is. We need to apply its message to our thoughts, our actions, and our relationships. Sure, let’s re-post and spread the message, but let’s take the time to work on recognizing and challenging the racism we’ve internalized as well. That’s the first step to becoming supportive, productive allies.

Lauren Herold is an anti sexual violence activist and a senior majoring in Women and Gender Studies and Anthropology at Columbia University in New York, NY. She tweets from @takebacknightcu

Surprise! Accessing EC is not easy

22 Dec

A guest post by Gwen Emmons.

Turns out, some pharmacists don’t need an HHS decision to block young women’s access to Plan B.  A new study suggests that in some pharmacies, misinformation around emergency contraception (EC) accessibility abounds – particularly in lower-income communities.

Researchers called pharmacies in five major cities to inquire about the availability of Plan B (a helpful flowchart of their script is here).  The good news?  80% of them said it was available, up from previous studies (that 20% of pharmacies surveyed said they didn’t carry it – or claimed they didn’t – is still baffling).

The bad news?  When the caller claimed to be 17, 19% of pharmacists claimed she couldn’t receive emergency contraception (even with a prescription) – which is false.

But what’s most troubling is that this misinformation was more frequently given by pharmacists in low-income neighborhoods.  23.7% of pharmacies in poorer communities gave the caller the wrong information, compared to 14.6% of pharmacies in higher income communities.  Plus, in almost all the calls to these pharmacies, the minimum age for over-the-counter access (17) was incorrectly stated.

Misinformation like this threatens to unnecessarily imperil young women seeking the medical care they deserve.   When it comes to EC, the clock is ticking.  If a young woman isn’t entirely dissuaded from her interaction with an ill-informed pharmacist, by the time she does receive the correct information, it could be too late for her to take EC.

Couple this with a laundry list of barriers to accessing reproductive health care in poorer communities, and we’ve got a big problem on our hands.  We already know that there are gaping disparities in health care access for young women in poor communities – disparities that only widen when it comes to things like receiving accurate and comprehensive sex ed, obtaining contraception, and getting annual exams.  Being denied Plan B serves to further marginalize this group of young women.  It’s little wonder we’ve seen the rate of unplanned pregnancies among low-income women skyrocket – the very limited window of options available to them is becoming narrower each day.

Contrary to what researchers conclude, their findings aren’t just proof that pharmacists need to be better educated on the rules and restrictions around Plan B.  While the restrictions around EC have changed in recent years, it’s a pharmacist’s job – and responsibility – to follow these changes and adjust their practice accordingly. Indeed, many, many pharmacists do just that – but clearly, not enough are.

What it does suggest is that even with looser restrictions on who can access Plan B, barriers still exist, whether they’re due to a lack of awareness or a willful desire to restrict access.  Providing Plan B over the counter would eliminate the (potentially unreliable) middleperson, ensuring a product that is safe and sometimes necessary is available to anyone, regardless of her situation, and regardless of what someone thinks they need.  While this just adds to the litany of reasons why the Obama Administration’s decision to keep Plan B off the list of medications already available OTC is misguided, I doubt it will do much to reverse their decision.  Let’s hope I’m wrong.