Abortion Gang

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.

Last night while on my ride home from work, I turned on my phone and began to devour the #M312 hashtag.

If you haven’t been keeping up with Canadian politics (come on! Why not?), Motion 312 is a motion introduced by Conservative MP (Member of Parliament) Stephen Woodworth, calling for a Parliamentary Committee to examine whether the Criminal Code definition of “human being” should be expanded to include fetuses. I can’t even tell you with a straight face that Woodworth is pretending this isn’t about abortion. The motion was accepted for debate, and said debate happened yesterday, in the House of Commons.

When I was fifteen and far too naive to understand it, I read a book of Sartre’s that I found on my sister’s bookshelf. Several years later, in my third year of university, I took a 20th century existentialism course because I had a crush on the professor. I got very little from either of these experiences; but riding home on the streetcar yesterday I finally realized what the “nausea” was that Sartre was talking about. I felt a lurch in my stomach that was somehow both physical and existential; I turned off my phone and stared out the window. “Is this really real?” I asked myself. 

Is it really happening that today, twenty-four years after the abortion law was struck down in this country, four years after the man for whom that Supreme Court decision was named won an Order of Canada, our elected (ha!) representatives are standing up in the House of fucking Commons, for goodness sake, and having a serious debate about – let’s face it – abortion? Is this really happening? Outside Parliament yesterday, a crowd of women dressed in handmaid costumes from Margaret Atwood’s dystopian novel The Handmaid’s Tale stood and protested the gradual but inevitable regression of women’s rights in this country. “The Handmaid’s Tale is not an instruction manual,” they said.

Margaret Atwood must be shaking her head. Our mothers and grandmothers must be shaking their heads.

Anyway, the debate. Once I had sufficiently recovered from my existential malaise, I tuned back into the debate – livestream from the House of Commons, and in another tab, Twitter, and in a third, Kady O’Malley’s liveblog.

Woodworth opened with fifteen minutes of speechifying, during which time he managed to fire off an impressive array of anti-choice cliches, paying particular loving attention to the “slippery slope” argument. If we can abort fetuses, who’s next! he cries, forgetting that one of the original arguments he brought forward for amending the Criminal Code was that the definition of “human being” therein was based on 400-year-old science; surely if something was “next”, it would have it would have happened by now?

Woodworth proceeded to mangle and take out of context quotes from various sources, from Martin Luther King, Jr. to former Supreme Court Justice Bertha Wilson (who was a member of the court presiding over the R v. Morgentaler decision). The outrage from Twitter – and the exasperation from the New Democrat MPs in the House – was palpable, even from behind the tiny screen of my smartphone. Who is this jackass, and why is he allowed an audience for his nonsense?

Predictably, when the floor was opened for other MPs to speak their piece(s?), Woodworth was eviscerated. First up was NDP MP Francoise Boivin, who correctly characterized M312 as a “full frontal attack” on women’s rights. Liberal MP Hedy Fry called out Woodworth on his attempt to introduce “back door” legislation on fetal rights (as opposed to abortion rights) – a strategy that is not new to this government (remember Bill C-484?).

One by one our MPs lined up to cut Woodworth down, and to put a cherry on top, Conservative Whip Gordon O’Connor gave a strong and unwavering speech in support of a woman’s right to choose. Not even his own party could stand behind this gong show of a Motion – Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself will vote against it.

To be clear, nobody ever thought this would go anywhere, or that Woodworth would succeed in making any changes to the law, let alone changing the legal status of abortion. It is the fact that we are having this conversation that is such a slap in the face to Canadian women. It is terrifying that our rights are so fragile, we can “open the conversation” on a whim, even under a government whose leader promised he would not reopen the debate. Whoops, Harper, looks like that one got away from you!

The next debate on the motion will not happen before June, and most likely will actually occur in the fall. Don’t put away those handmaid costumes yet, ladies – you’re gonna need them, one way or the other.

For a full recap, watch the webcast on ParlVU (debate on Motion 312 started at 5pm), or read the Hansard, and for commentary check out the #M312 hashtagon Twitter.

Have you heard about the swingles? I didn’t until a week or two ago at a wonderful lecture at the 92nd Street Y called Running in Heels: Where are the Women Candidates for 2012–and how can we get more of them? Swingles are the single women voters who are poised to make or break this election season. We know that women more often stray from party lines than men. We know that women are more likely to vote for Democrats. Forget the swing states, bring on the swingles.

Eager to learn from a powerful and knowledgeable group of women, I listened intently to graceful and witty moderator Chelsea Clinton and the panelists, who captured a wide swath of society engaged in this issue from the captain of a rogue PR mission to a woman brought into the limelight from Rush Limbaugh’s latest idiocy. And learn from them I did.

Much of the unity among the panelists came from encouraging women to run for office as a public service, as serving others is generally very appealing to women. Though Sandra Fluke voiced the dangers of using this framework, it was generally accepted. And so I thought to myself is this why more women don’t run?

Only Sandra Fluke brought up structural barriers to women running for office to the table. A woman who wasn’t even supposed to sit on the panel originally, as two months ago we wouldn’t have known her by name. And so I thought, if the players aren’t addressing structural barriers, who is?

One fact from the Rutgers Report that folks across the panel kept coming back to was how women need to be encouraged to run for office repeatedly. Stephanie Schriock of Emily’s List followed this with a great anecdote of how she has mothers with young children who are contemplating running for office call Kristen Gillibrand or Debbie Wasserman Schultz to talk out the real life feasibility of governing and mothering. Now there’s a conversation I would like to a be a fly on the wall for. Maybe we need to take these conversations to a more public forum? If it can encourage one or two women to run, why couldn’t it encourage more?

But it was the declaration at the very end of the panel that really taught me something. The panelists agreed that it is the “peacemakers” who are to be celebrated. Those who compromise in politics are the ones that get things done. Now, I can understand the resident politician falling in line with this, but there was only one on the stage. Heads simply bobbled as “culture warriors” specifically working on issues like abortion were called out. This was brief at the very end, and the only time abortion was mentioned. It made my heart sink. One panelist went so far to say that women wanted to be “more than their ovaries.” Umm yes, we know! But they do have ovaries and should be able to do whatever they want with them, and actively need to defend that, thank you very much.

How can these prominent political players not see that compromise is important but not always the answer? Maybe they do but are afraid to talk about it? Is that why there are so few women in office? Maybe it’s that we’re not all compromisers. There are things one cannot compromise on, and those issues must be defended. How did we get stuck with Hyde again?

If you’re interested in Chelsea Clinton and Sandra Fluke girl crush material check out this great clip from the lecture as they discuss Rush Limbaugh as a common enemy. Want even more? You can watch the whole talk here.

I live in the great state of Texas, and it’s completely separate capitol, Austin.  As Kaitlyn highlighted last week, state wars on reproductive rights are raging. Texas, unfortunately, is far from a peace zone. A week ago, Texas’s political war against contraception and abortion access became violent. The firebombing of Texas Senator Wendy Davis’s office, an outspoken advocate for Planned Parenthood, evokes the unmistakable fear of targeted attacks on abortion providers. The firebombing should not to be taken lightly or taken out of context. Make no mistake, this is part of a large-scale “pro-life” tactic to scare supporters from providing and advocating for contraceptive and abortion care.

If you read the tweets from some of the most outspoken advocates in Texas, you could feel the impact the “pro-life” violence has—@meadowgirl on Tuesday: “@scATX i just can’t with all of this stuff. it SCARES me. like, can i be out as pro-choice and stuff & not end up DEAD or on FIRE?”  The pro-choice community is too familiar with the terror the prolife violence inflicts, we feel it all the time, and acutely when we remember the murders of Dr. Tiller, Dr. Gunn, Dr. Britton, Dr. Slepian, and all clinic staff who face daily harassment and intimidation from anti-abortion protesters.

The intention of anti-choice violence is to create a culture of fear and to pressure the pro-choice community into backing down. But in the face of mounting abortion restrictions, TRAP laws, and violence against supporters of reproductive health, we can not afford to lose any more ground. The firebomb attack on Senator Davis’s office comes after a persistent, long-standing war on reproductive rights in Texas, which, sadly, went largely unchallenged  in traditional media, social media, or grassroots resistance until recently. Over the past three weeks, pro-choice rallies, Planned Parenthood events, and media coverage of the Texas’ reproductive rights crisis have soared. And while the current grassroots reaction feels a little too new for comfort, we must take this momentum and run. The pro-choice, pro-uteri, pro-freedom movement in Texas is just starting, and it needs to get more connected, more organized and louder.

We are just now, in 2012, seeing a grassroots response to the multiple violations on reproductive rights in Texas, which went full throttle in mid-2011. The grassroots response here has taken the form of Seeing Red rallies, which are well attended and inspiring, but feel uncomfortably new. I believe that in order to evoke change, we must stand up for change, as strong collectives of individuals; I see that collective in Texas building, but it’s still loose and weak. I am not implying that the lack of activism or rallies in any way caused the violent attack on a pro-choice community member; the attacks are never our fault. I also understand that pro-choice Texans are at a serious disadvantage with the ignorance and misogyny of our leaders, the lack of traditional media coverage of our state, and the general political climate here. But I am certain that Texas and Texans can do great things, and if a cohesive, connected army were ready to go before the forced ultrasound legislation bill left the capitol, I am certain we could have accomplished more.

It’s never too late to take hold of a conversation you want to influence. So, if you’re in Texas, or any state battling for reproductive freedom with a need for a cohesive movement, I ask that everyone make an effort to connect with each other, and work together to change the terms and outcomes of activism. We need to build state-centric networks that will be prepared instead of reactive; we need to build a listservs of likeminded individuals that are willing to work a bit to get adequate attention on the issues in our states; we need to expand from our reliance on Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and others to lead events and connect with individuals. We need to know each other by name at rallies, and know who are our allies and resources are within our State’s community. This is just the beginning of a long battle, and if we are not prepared as a connected, unified front, we will lose.

After the 2 hours of debate, the House of Commons will vote on whether to send it to a committee made up of 12 MPs. No, ‘MP’ is not short for ‘Medical Professional.’ This committee will be made up of 12 politicians, most likely the majority of them will be men, unlikely to contain many, if any doctors (there are 2 female doctor MPs that I am aware of), and the majority of them will be from the Conservative Party. They will debate amongst themselves when the law should give humanity to a fetus, and strip a woman of hers. Canadians, please write your MP a letter telling them that you oppose this Motion and that they should too! ARCC has provided a sample letter. ARCC has also prepared great counter-arguments to the motion.

When I lived and worked in DC, federal legislation was everything. All the big gains and losses for the progressive movement were being made at the federal level. Federal legislation – probably thanks in large part to Aaron Sorkin – is sexy. Federal legislation draws attention and big headlines. And over the past decade, while progressives have been winning some battles in DC, the groundwork for the reproductive rights armegeddon of the last few years was being laid at the state level by the anti-choice movement. It has been backed by re-districting pushes that may give more seats at the state level to conservatives, and new voter ID measures that will most certainly make it harder for young people, poor people, and people of color to vote. Frankly, it’s been brilliantly conceived and executed, in the same way that Pearl Harbor was brilliantly conceived and executed.

What this means is that reproductive rights activists, those with female reproductive organs, and anyone who ever wants to be able to access birth control for themselves or their partner need to get organized at the state level. Pay attention to the way yourstate representatives vote. Call their offices. Feel free to stop by, if you have a way to get to your state capitol. Write letters. Prepare to get out the vote in November. Find out if legislators who voted in favor of anti-choice bills in your state have any challengers. If they don’t, run against them.

Seriously, do it. You think you can’t do their job? Have you seen John Boehner?

Here’s a quick run-down of some of the Current “State” of Affairs:

Kansas: Kansas has gotten itself into a bit of a bind. The state has been passing wild anti-choice laws left and right for two years, and was one of the pioneering forces in TRAP laws, Targeted Regulations against Abortion Providers. TRAP laws, which are nit-picky laws that do such helpful things as dictate what temperature a clinic waiting room needs to be at all times, almost closed down every provider in the state overnight. Now the House has approved a budget amendment that would, among other things, prohibit state employees from providing abortion care. Since medical students at the University of Kansas are considered state employees, they would not be able to study abortion as part of their training. However, the medical board has warned the school that it must offer the training as part obstetrics and gynecology to remain accredited in those fields. Students can opt out for religious reasons, and the abortions are not performed at the school. So… good luck with all that, Kansas.

Virginia: Now that Virginia has passed a mandatory ultrasound law, Democrats in the state legislature are just wondering who is going to pay for it.

Idaho: Idaho would really like to join Virginia, and several other states, in requiring that women seeking abortions be forced to undergo an unnecessary ultrasound because the state says so. Soon they, too, can wonder who is going to pay for all of these bright ideas!

Tennessee: I try to maintain a sense of humor about the “state” of things, when I can; it keeps the drinking to a minimum. But there is nothing funny about the law being proposed in Tennessee right now. Nothing. The law would require the state to put detailed information about every abortion performed in the state online. The name of the doctor who performed the abortion, and where they performed it, as well as detailed information about the patient, certainly detailed enough that it might make identifying the patient possible in rural Tennessee. This is incitement. This is absolutely an invitation for an angry and abusive spouse to figure out that a woman had an abortion and hurt or kill her or the doctor. I am absolutely not exaggerating. I would be shocked if that were never the outcome of this bill, if it passes. To understand why that might be, reference my post on domestic violence and abortion and pregnancy here.

Mississippi: Heartbeat Bill (Heartbeat Bills would ban an abortion after the fetus develops a heartbeat, which is not a sign of health, and can occur as early as 18 days into the pregnancy).

Wisconsin: Wisconsin just passed an under-the-wire, last-minute assault on reproductive rights to go before embattled Gov. Scott Walker, who is sure to sign. The wide-ranging bill requires a 24 hr waiting period. Before the 24 hr waiting period, a physician must “determine” if a woman is being coerced into having the abortion – by interrogating her privately (seriously, you can read the bill here). The bill threatens any doctor who doesn’t properly invade their patient’s privacy with a heavy fine. If abortion is drug-induced, the woman must return for a follow-up visit, which will require more time off from work and more childcare for any children she already has, in a state where services are difficult to get to to begin with. If doctors are too busy to offer the follow-up, women may have to have unnecessary surgical procedures. The far-reaching implications of this bill really suck. Remember when I said Gov. Walker was “embattled”? I mean he’s fighting a recall. Go get him recalled. Get out the vote. If you live in Wisconsin or have a couch to crash on there, make getting this jackass recalled and a pro-reproductive rights candidate to replace him your mission.

Oh, yeah – and run for office.

New Hampshire: Live Free or Die now meaning “live the way we tell you to,” NH has proposed some new restrictions on abortion and rolled back some old access to birth control. The latest law would require that a woman seeking an abortion hear a “detailed” description of the fetal development, and then undergo one of those popular 24 hr waiting periods (Are we noticing some themes here? There’s a reason for that.) Non-compliance would be a felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison.

All told, Guttmacher just declared that more than half of women live in states that are “hostile” to reproductive rights. Do you? Do you know someone who does? The answer to at least one of those questions is yes. GET ORGANIZED. Organizing at the state level has an impact. It is sexy and very bad-ass, and it terrifies state legislators who want to hold on to their jobs but are accustomed to an extremely compliant, lazy voter base that isn’t informed about state politics. Get informed. Make a sign. Put some glitter on it!

Oh yeah, and run for office.

Earlier this week, after the devastating Iowa primary, Michelle Bachmann finally called it quits. I have many qualms about Bachmann: she’s unsupportive of LGBTQ teens in her hometown and blatantly disregards for women’s rights, for starters. Despite Bachmann’s wackiness, I can’t help but have the same feelings towards her that I held for Sarah Palin.

The two both do not align with me ideologically, but the feminist in me wonders: is it better that two wacky women are running for office? Would it be far worse if there were no women running at all? It seems that a lot of a time, feminists and women’s rights-oriented people (myself included) forget that even women who are not ideologically aligned with our politics need someone to represent them. I don’t agree with the politics of Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin, but I appreciate that they ran for office and held governmental positions. Why? Even if they do not represent my politics, they’re still women who are running and are still blazing a trail—as faint as I may perceive that trail to be now.

What do y’all think?

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.

A recent poll revealed that the majority of Americans (78% to be exact) believe that abortion should be legal. Before you get all giddy, like I did when I first heard about the poll results, that 78% statistic needs to be broken down based upon when Americans believe abortion should be legal. According to the CNN poll:

25% – abortion should be legal under any circumstances
12% – abortion should be legal in most circumstances
41% – abortion should be legal in a few circumstances
21% – abortion should be illegal in all circumstances

Even when you look at the numbers broken out like this, it’s reassuring to see that only 21% of Americans believe that abortion should be completely illegal. True, I wish that there were more of us in the “legal under any circumstance” camp – but we need to take a deep breath and try to remember that the antis do not have us outnumbered.

Part of the challenge for the pro-choice community is that many pro-choice people don’t speak up about their beliefs. And who can blame them? It’s difficult to voice your opinion when people on the anti-choice side of the debate yell, hold up grizzly posters, and spew utter nonsense. It isn’t a conversation that’s even worth engaging, because at the end of the day, no one is going to change their opinion about anything.

I’m not that surprised about the 78% statistic, though. When I was a clinic escort, I frequently had women swear to me that they were “pro-life” as they entered the clinic – but they just couldn’t continue their pregnancy. I always assured them that it didn’t matter what they believed, they were welcome at the clinic. If you take time to unravel the 78% statistic, I would be willing to bet that many of the people who spoke the CNN pollsters were some of these same women – they’re part of that 41% group who believes that abortion should be legal when it comes to their own uterus.

There’s bound to be some mathematical mumbo jumbo that I’m missing – it’s been a few years since I took a stats class. But even with a margin of error, or whatever you call it, there’s something very straightforward about the numbers – the people who shout the loudest are not the ones who are on the right side of public opinion.

With the 2012 elections fast approaching (less than 430 days until we cast our ballots) the perspective presidential field is becoming clearer.  With potential nominees like Donald Trump, Tim Pawlenty, and Mike Huckabee having already decided against running, the nomination is wide open.  Currently there are 4 or so people who seem to be the “front runners” in the race, and their views on reproductive rights are nothing short of alarming.

Ron Paul

Before entering politics in the 1970’s, Paul worked as an OB/GYN.  During his time in the medical field, he delivered more than 4,000 babies.  He says that this experience has led him to his view that life starts at conception.  Paul says that he is “an unshakable foe of abortion” and claims that he has never dealt with a pregnant woman who medically needed an abortion.  He was the prime sponsor of HR300, a bill that would overturn Roe v. Wade and put the power to regulate the legality of abortion in the state’s hands.  While Paul’s 2012 campaign has received more support than his 2008 campaign, it still seems unlikely that he will be able to secure the nomination.

Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann is the only woman being considered for the nomination, yet is one of the most anti-choice.  During her congressional campaigns she was endorsed by the Susan B. Anthony List, an organization that promotes women in politics who oppose the right to choose.  She also signed the “2012 Pro-life Presidential Leadership Pledge” which states that if elected president she will only nominate “pro-life” appointees to the Supreme Court and certain Cabinet and Executive Branch positions.  By signing the pledge she also promises to defund Planned Parenthood and advance anti-abortion legislation, if elected president.  At a recent debate she was asked if abortion should be allowed in cases of rape or incest, and in response she told the crowd that she was 100% pro-life.

Before getting involved in national politics, Bachmann and her husband volunteered as “sidewalk counselor” and frequently prayed outside abortion clinics.  She has spoken in support of other sidewalk counselors and worked to stop tax dollars going to hospitals that perform abortions.  Like Paul, Bachmann’s chances of getting the nomination are unlikely.

Mitt Romney

After an unsuccessful 2008 run, Mitt Romney is back to try for 2012 and seems to be the most likely nominee.  Romney has the experience, political support, and money to orchestrate a successful run– he is also the most moderate, but tends to flip-flop on important issues.

Until 2005 he identified as pro-choice and even made donations with his wife to Planned Parenthood.  While Romney stated that he personally opposed abortion, he strongly supported the right to access abortion services.  In 2005 though he did a complete flip-flop and vetoed a bill that would expand access to emergency contraception.  While not directly affecting abortion access, this signaled a change in his position on the matter.  It is still unclear what his specific views on abortion are.  He opted not to sign the Pro-Life Leadership Pledge that Michele Bachmann and other candidates signed, so this could be signaling another change in Romney’s personal views.  Even so, it seems unlikely that he would be able to gain the support he needs from the Conservative Republican leadership if he came out as pro-choice.  

Rick Perry

Aside from Romney, Rick Perry is probably the most likely candidate.  He has the power and connection to do it, and being Governor of Texas (as George W. Bush was before he was elected) doesn’t hurt either.  Perry also happens to be the most outwardly anti-choice of any of the candidates.  He too signed the Pro-Life Leadership Pledge, but that was almost unnecessary given the laws he’s been putting in place in Texas.  Earlier this year Perry labeled a new abortion regulation law as an “emergency”, pushing it into debate ahead of truly pressing issues like Texas’s unemployment and healthcare problems.  Recently key portions of that same law— which would have forced women wanting to have an abortion to see the fetus on a sonogram, listen to a heartbeat, hear a scripted anti-abortion speech read by their doctor, and wait another 24 hours before being allowed to have the procedure done— were struck down by a judge.  Perry has also worked to nearly eliminate all family planning funds and keep Texas schools teaching abstinence only education (even though it doesn’t work).

What about President Obama?

While we may not always be happy with how President Obama is representing the pro-choice movement, I think we can all agree that he is better than any of these people.  He may not always listen to our ideas, or react the way we would like him to, but there’s no way that any possible Republican nominee would be better.  It is important that we not blindly follow him, but it is also important that we look at the competition and realize how much worse it could be; and that is why I will be voting for Barak Obama in the 2012 elections.