Abortion Gang

 Happy holidays from all of us at the Abortion Gang. We’re taking a short blogging vacation and will be back in January with the same sassy and sharp reproductive justice commentary that you love. If you miss us too much, find us on twitter and facebook.

A few years back, the-best-person-and-football-player-on-the-planet, Tim Tebow, the savior from The University of Florida, Heisman Trophy winner, 2010 number 25 draft pick, and now savior quarterback for the Denver Broncos, made a commercial. That in and of itself isn’t that surprising, pro-athletes make commercials for all sorts of reasons. Except he wasn’t selling football gear, he was selling anti-choice propaganda. In his commercial (funded by Focus on the Family) he reminded everyone that his mother was a missionary whose life was threatened by her pregnancy – or more specifically, the pregnancy that would turn into the child who would become the man who would become Tim Tebow.

This line of reasoning is not a new one for anti-choice groups. The message is, “if you abort, just think, that could be the next President of the United States in there, the next scientist that cures cancer, or the next greatest football player alive!” In Tebow, the gifted athlete and vocal Christian, anti-choice groups found their perfect hero to prop up; if his mother had done what abortion groups say is acceptable – had an abortion to save her own life- Tebow would not be alive. Never mind the fact that Tebow’s mother made the decision despite the risk to her health for herself – something denied to women seeking or supporting abortion- it is clear to everyone (or should be , anyway) with a brain that 99.9% of the fetuses gestating right now are not , in fact, going to become gifted athletes like Tim Tebow.

Tying this together with Tebow’s recent great play: he’s been ballin’ out of his backside for weeks on end. Even I, the anti-Tebow, anti-Bronco fan, basketball-loving woman that I am, have been rooting for him. Yeah, he’s that damn good. But it always feels a bit, well, wrong. How can I support a guy that’s openly anti-choice? This is the same man that used the Super Bowl to a) build his reputation and brand as the saintliest saint of an athlete that ever lived, and b) raise money for an anti-choice organization that would deny the right to abortion to millions of women that need it. Yuck.

So here is my solution, and if you’re a sports fan that also thinks women should be able to do what they want, when they want, and how they want it with their uteri, you can join in this too. For every touchdown Tebow throws next week (when the Broncos play against another famous QB, Tom Brady) , donate $5 or $10 to your local pro-choice organization. If the Broncos make the playoffs (I haven’t checked if that’s even a possibility at this point), I plan to continue the pledge.

I figure this is indeed the best way to enjoy football, support Tim Tebow (more touchdowns, mannn!!!), and give , give, give to pro-choice organizations earning little to no glory, yet desperately in need of funds.

Every day politicians attack women’s right to choice somewhere around the world. The U.S. seems to be leading the charge with the GOP focusing on regulating women’s uteri rather than corporations. As activists we are fighting an uphill battle against politicians who are bound and determined to crush choice for all but the wealthiest women, the women who can afford to fly someplace to get an abortion. Abortion is becoming a 99% vs 1% issue where the 99% will soon not be able to afford a safe abortion. It is time for us to change tactics. Reacting and defending choice is not sufficient. We must be proactive. We have to stop reacting to new anti-choice laws and we must begin creating pro-choice laws.

A recent report on global gender equality by the World Economic Forum places Canada 18^th overall and the U.S. 17^th behind such countries as Burundi and the Philippines,

Even Iceland where the leader is a lesbian woman, women in general only attain 70% of the level of men. Worldwide women have closed less than 20% of the gender gap in politics. It is no wonder that anti-women laws are rampant: there are almost no women with a voice in politics!

What this means is that the politicians making the laws that affect women are most likely men. It is insufficient for women to constantly react to the laws of men. Activists can no longer just volunteer at clinics, speak out for abortion rights and be satisfied. More pro-choice women, and men, must become politicians; we have to be the ones making the laws. We must be lawyers and judges, interpreting the laws and striking down the unconstitutional ones. We must be involved in municipal/county politics, provincial/state politics, and federal politics.

Men have made the decision in Topeka, Kansas to stop prosecuting domestic violence, leaving women terrified as their abusive partners are released from jail because the city doesn’t want to spend the money to prosecute them. A male politician claims that a woman can’t be raped by her husband if she is wearing a “nightie.” In an article in Forbes online, a man suggested that women won’t become CEOs because women are more concerned about gossip and looking pretty. There is no shortage of women who hold these archaic beliefs, but I find mansplaining far more offensive. And the anti-women men are prevalent, powerful, and dangerous.

Activism is great, it is a grassroots fight for rights. It is relevant but it is insufficient. We must approach women’s rights from both directions: from the grassroots and from the glass ceiling. We must have a coordinated attack on anti-women lawmakers and politicians. I beg of you, please consider running for politics, of any level. Even one pro-woman voice among the anti-women contingent that speaks out will help. When the only voice people hear is anti-choice, anti-women, they start to believe that is the only voice. We must make the pro-women voices heard from positions of authority. First it will start as a whisper, but your pro-women voice will reach another person and inspire them to speak out for women. We must become more than a mere annoyance. We must begin reversing the anti-women laws until being pro-choice is the norm. It won’t be easy. Politics is draining and it is hard work, but unless we only want the richest 1% of women to have access to safe abortion, we must sacrifice our time. Being a politician can be a thankless job but if a pro-choice politician can help one more woman get a safe abortion it would be a worthwhile sacrifice.

In 2010, the midterm elections sent a deluge of freshman politicians deemed part of the “tea party,” who immediately targeted Planned Parenthood funding under the pretense that somehow the health care organization was the main contributing factor to the United States debt. Yes, the tax debate happened and more pretend-issues were hotly debated on cable news shows. But really, nothing has dominated the headlines more than those  that would restrict women’s right to have an abortion.  The main target of course the most visible health organization: Planned Parenthood.

I know many activists are frustrated with Planned Parenthood’s sometimes tone-deaf approach to reproductive concerns today. Some argue the organization has trouble adapting to contemporary activism. That Planned Parenthood has been slow to accept the new wave of young pro-choice activists that are likely to use contemporary avenues (like social media)  to stand firm against the anti-choice bills, laws and rhetoric sweeping the nation.  Others argue that  Planned Parenthood has too many awful bureaucratic problems making the organization  less able to quickly  refute false attacks and launch necessary counter-protests and truth-telling campaigns. Some activists feel Planned Parenthood has capitulated one too many times to the increasingly right wing Federal government’s demands.

With that in mind, consider this story in which Gloria Steinem’s recent speech in support of Planned Parenthood garnered a fiery response from anti-choice protestors and even some pro-choice supporters as well. With women in the audience over 80 years old stating they are counting on the new generation of women to keep the fight for women’s rights just as they did 50 years ago, is it conducive to the pro-choice cause as a whole to criticize Gloria Steinem for supporting Planned Parenthood? I think you know the answer.

And on the other hand, Seattle Weekly reports that Planned Parenthood Seattle spokeswoman, Kristen Glundberg-Prossor, wants a group of clinic defense protestors (that picket and protest in front of anti-choice protestors at clinics) to stop, because she says, it’s “confusing.” While Planned Parenthood certainly has a point in wanting the distraction of protestors to simmer down so patients feel safe entering and exiting the clinics, is asking pro-choice activists to stop protesting doing the overall cause any good? Again, I think you know the answer.

While I was in  high school, Planned Parenthood provided me with birth control, condoms, and sex information I would not have had  access to otherwise. I received services for free  and took just a short bus ride to the nearest clinic. That was almost 8 years ago, for many women today, the nearest reproductive health clinic and/or Planned Parenthood is hours away, the fees no longer affordable for people that earn little to no income.  When I suspected I was pregnant, Planned Parenthood administered my pregnancy test, confirmed my pregnancy, and offered me counseling  and brochures on every option (parenting, adoption, or abortion) available to me. The nurse gave me her card and said, “call me any time you need me.”  Afterward, she gave me a big hug.   In many places in this country,  in this political and social climate, how many women can tell that same story? Not as many as 8 years ago, that’s for certain.

A few months ago I was talking with my friend’s two little girls, 4 and 6. I’m not sure how we got to the topic but the youngest pipes up that she wants to be a princess when she grows up. So I asked her, what do princesses do? She didn’t have an answer for me. So I asked her, wouldn’t she rather have a job where she helps people, like a doctor, or be a lawyer like me. At that stage the eldest declares that she wants to help people.

I tell this story because it is an all too common one. Most little girls, at some point in their childhood, want to be a princess. Society has taught them that this is something they should strive for. Some women never grow out of it and declare they want to “feel like a princess” on their wedding day. My retort is that I want to be the damn Queen and run the show and not be a measly princess, but truly I wouldn’t want either. I admit it, I watched the Royal Wedding. Even still I don’t envy Kate’s position. Diana made being a princess into a legitimate gig in my opinion, but only because she refused to act like a “proper” princess.

I don’t ever remember discussing abortion with my parents, but I always remember growing up truly believing that I could be anything that I wanted to be. Heck, I still believe that. It is because I grew up knowing I was equal and knowing the only thing stopping me from getting what I wanted was me, I respect a woman’s right to choose. Children need to be taught to be anti-choice but they can be pro-choice naturally if we just empower them. As adults, we need to challenge princess culture. Clearly not aggressively with children, but by doing what I did. Asking little girls what a princess does, and offer a suggestion for a job that empowers them. Little girls want to be empowered but we as a society must help them when they are little.

Let’s go slay the princesses, ladies.

We all know about DOMA, the Defensive of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996 to ultimately define marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. We know that DOMA has placed numerous restrictions on the rights of same-sex couples to have their relationships and marriages legally recognized by the federal government, but are we aware of how DOMA affects the sex education taught in schools and, in turn, the reproductive justice movement?

What kind of sex education did you receive in school? Was it abstinence-only-until-marriage, abstinence-only-until-you-are-ready, or was it comprehensive sex education? If you were like the majority of American teenagers, you most likely received abstinence-only sex education. I was fortunate enough to attend a public high school which provided a mixture of both abstinence-only sex education and comprehensive sex education: I learned about condoms (their success and rare failures), positive sexuality, birth control, and the risks associated with unprotected sex. However, one thing was missing: information on same-sex relationships and sex. Now, I know this may seem a privileged thing to be asking for as someone who received some comprehensive sex education, but ALL students must have access to information that pertains to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

So, how does DOMA affect the sex education taught in schools? Well for starters, sex education in most schools is taught in the context of heterosexual relationships because marriage is defined by the federal government as between one man and one woman. What are LGBTQI students to think when their schools are defining sex and ignoring the ways queer students can protect themselves during same-sex intercourse?  There is seemingly little room within abstinence-only education programs for LGBTQI people because of the  flawed, heteronormative belief that two women or two men cannot possibly engage in sex. Likewise, students in some sex education programs may be shamed or marginalized if their family does not fit the type of family that is being taught by their programs or if their sexuality is not represented when discussing safe sex and positive sexuality. Thus, schools NEED comprehensive sex education programs. Not only to educate students about making healthy decisions regarding sex whenever they are ready, but to provide a safe and inclusive environment for students of various sexual orientations and gender identities. The effects of a repeal of DOMA could be far-reaching and could make it easier for LGBTQI people to learn about safe sex, healthy relationships, and more.

What was your sex ed experience like? Did your school include LGBTQI issues in sex education?

Yesterday, the Supreme Court came down with a 5-4 decision in Wal-Mart v. Betty Dukes, perhaps unsurprisingly in favor of Wal-Mart.  Betty Dukes and 1.5 million other women who have worked at Wal-Mart since 1998 brought a class action lawsuit against the corporation based on the grounds that they were being discriminated against based on their gender.  In their view, women at Wal-Mart were less likely to be promoted and were paid less than men for the same positions.

Now, equal pay for equal work is not new news.  Today, women in the U.S. make 77 cents for the dollar a man makes.  Last year, the Paycheck Fairness Act failed in the Senate by the two votes needed to withstand a filibuster.  This battle is clearly on going on many fronts, but as Wal-Mart is the nation’s largest employer, it plays a particularly pivotal role.  What I found most distressing is that the Court essentially gave Wal-Mart a waiver because they had a formal policy on the books against gender discrimination.  Essentially, if the policy is there, the corporation cannot be held accountable for what middle management in far away places is doing, even if it is reoccurring pattern.

Now, I’m not a lawyer but as someone who worked on a Supreme Court case with the primary duty of bringing diet coke to my boss who delivered an oral argument, I can tell you this looks like a loophole in the making.  It really reminds me of the idea of “too big to fail.”  It’s as if it’s “too big to control.”

Strangely enough, the decision has almost nothing to do with discrimination.  The case became a vehicle for deciphering the details of class action law, and how to classify these 1.5 million women.  The classification made was apparently incorrect in the eyes of the Court. Even the almighty Ginsburg concedes this.

What Ginsburg highlights though is the lack of mention of discrimination in the majority opinion, the failure of the Court to give so much as a sentence of “credence” to this original issue.  Instead the court goes into the minutiae of Rule 23(b)(3).  This I leave to the lawyers to contend with.

The one legal issue from the decision that I do want to address is commonality.  Commonality is defined as, “the existence of a class of persons who have suffered the same injury.”  There are legal semantics here, which to be clear I am not examining, but the idea of women as a whole being defined by this conception of suffering common injury is extremely compelling.

As someone who thinks a lot about the meaning of gender, and if it even truly exists, it is often difficult to put a finger on what makes a woman a woman.  And this conception of shared injury may very well be it.  If gender is a social construction, it is what society makes of a woman that makes her one.  So in essence the discrimination one faces based on her presentation as a woman, makes her a woman. Not to say that discrimination itself is essential to womanhood.  I have high hopes for society changing and defining women through virtues and equality.  When this will happen I can’t be sure, but even on a day like today I believe it.  If only because the woman who started the ACLU women’s rights project is sitting on that bench telling Scalia what’s up.

Dr. Kevorkian died today. Everyone knows him as “Dr. Death,” thanks to a Time Magazine cover branding him as such. Dr. Jack Kevorkian is the guy who helped people kill themselves.

Dr. Kevorkian was an advocate for assisted-suicide. It is believed that he assisted in over 130 suicides during the 1990’s. In 1999, he was accused of second-degree murder and sentenced to 10-25 years in prison for assisting in the suicide of Thomas Youk, a Lou Gehrig ’s disease sufferer. He served 8 of those years, and was released in 2007 on the condition that he never assist in another suicide.

Love him or hate him, he brought a lot of attention to the “right to death” campaign. He viewed death as a release, an easing of tension and pain. He required that his patients be terminally ill and that they express written consent for their wishes. He video-taped interviews with patients and their families and he demanded a one-month waiting period for patients to think about their decision. Currently, the only states in the nation to allow for assisted-suicide are Oregon, Washington and Montana.

To me, the right to death is inalienable. But, in America, death is feared and hated. There is “no honor” in suicide, even if it ends suffering, even if it prevents suffering. It is still death, and who are we to control such a weighty thing (I ask ironically)?

This brings me to the case of a poor woman with three children who induced a miscarriage, and is now facing prosecution for the “crime” that she committed. Jennie McCormack believed that she was 14 weeks pregnant. Ms. McCormack could not afford an abortion, so she asked her sister to purchase medication that would end her pregnancy. She induced a miscarriage (I refuse to use the sensationalized term “self-abortion”) and kept the body of the fetus in a box on her porch.

The connection between abortion and assisted-suicide may not be obvious, but to me, these causes are much the same.  Both involve the uncomfortable subject of death, either one’s own or of the fetus. Both causes are reviled by the religious-right.  Both causes involve a universal right: the right to control your own body.

The other theme of this post is desperation. People who are not desperate for abortions don’t self-induce. People who are not desperate for the release of death do not seek out a doctor to kill them. But many more stories like Ms. McCormack’s will crop up as abortion rights are restricted further and further, and suicides have not stopped despite the illegality of medical assistance.

What’s the deal, America? Is death that terrifying? Shouldn’t the goal be to reduce suffering and end pain instead of prolonging it or advancing suffering? Why are we “allowed” to control life, both naturally and artificially (i.e. – respirators, dialysis, etc.), but we are not allowed the dignity of control over death?  To me, compassion dictates that assisted-suicide access should be legal, easily available, affordable, clean and safe. Abortion should be nothing less. 

A guest post by Sarah Erdreich and Rachel Joy Larris.

Several weeks ago, two of the major organizations devoted to protecting women’s reproductive rights, NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood, along with a host of other civil rights organizations, brought thousands of people to Capitol Hill to lobby Senators and Congressmen on reproductive rights. (There was also a rally, featuring speeches from senators Chuck Schumer and Barbara Boxer, and celebrities like Ed Harris and Amy Madigan.)

NARAL’s supporters were given a packet of information on HR. 3 and the bill to defund Planned Parenthood. However, they were not directed to lobby Republicans, or given information about where to find Republican lawmakers; instead, supporters—many of whom came from across the country—were told if they wanted to talk to Republican lawmakers that was up to them, but NARAL wasn’t going to send them into the “lion’s den.”

As for the Democratic representatives, even the offices of ardent pro-choice supporters like Ohio’s Betty Sutton and Virginia’s Jim Moran had no idea it was a pro-choice lobby day. Other offices were aware of this, and had appointments with constituents who traveled from far away. But supporters were not directed to Harry Reid’s office, and were not told to specifically mention the issue of Medicaid coverage of abortions in the District of Columbia. This was an issue that DC’s Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton knew might become a bargaining chip in the federal budget standoff, even if Harry Reid said he was standing firm for Planned Parenthood’s funding.

How much the actual lobby day and rally influenced the eventual outcome is unclear, though it was obvious that the supporters brought a great deal of energy and passion to the day. But as we reflect on our own experiences of the lobbying and the rally, it’s hard not to feel a bit disillusioned, both with the Democratic Party and the current strategies used by the major national pro-choice organizations. Too often, Democratic politicians sacrifice their pro-choice constituents’ interests—but this outcome is made possible because the current strategy of growing pro-choice political power isn’t working. While the majority of the country does not want abortion to become illegal, anti-choice politicians feel more allegiance to their constituency than pro-choice politicians. This is not simply a fault of individual politicians. It is an artifact of how the pro-choice political community does its organizing work: from the top down.

(more…)

The slew of famous people that have come out with statements about American sexuality of late, has been annoying, to say the least. The slew of men that have recently come out with statements about women’s sexuality has been infuriating. But that’s not really anything new, is it?

Will.I.Am- producer, actor, singer, songwriter, Black Eyed Peas member, among other things- sat down with Andrew Goldman of Elle magazine and spoke about several random topics, thrown together by Goldman to create the portrait of a complex, philosophical, highly intriguing man that seems to be at the forefront of pop culture (He’s not really any of those things, but that’s the crux of Goldman’s article).

Naturally, because Will.I.Am is a rock star and rock stars are pegged as sexy sex-machines, the topic of sex does arise during the interview, and boy oh boy (should I say, “girl oh girl?”) does Will.I.Am really tell us women how it is.

“If she had condoms in her house, that would just fuckin’ throw me off. That’s just tacky.”

Okay, Will.I.Am, thanks for letting us know. But before we get into what this type of comment even means, let’s go back to the beginning of the piece, shall we. Create some context, as it were.

Prior to that little gem, Will.I.Am spoke about waiting until 19 to masturbate and insinuated that he didn’t lose his virginity until some time after that point. When asked why that was, Will.I.Am’s response was to place his mother on a pedestal and solemnly intone that, “we never talked about [sex] growing up.”

And then he takes it one step further, making a comment, which I think really encapsulates and in part, explains, the conservative piety that comes through in the condom remark:

“To me, sex isn’t like an extracurricular activity that you do because you’re [feeling amorous]. Because I was raised around girls, I think I’ve adopted that perspective on sex. When you’re with somebody and you love them, then you’re going to do it and you’re going to do it a lot. On tour, the band started calling me G. S., for the Good Samaritan.”

In this one comment, Will.I.Am makes two really stereotypical assumptions about what he thinks is “normal” female sexual behavior. One: since he’s been raised around girls, he insinuates that he has a “female” perspective on sex, meaning he has sex with only women that he loves, because, you know, women just sleep with a person they are in love with. Two: he says that he is considered a Good Samaritan because he’s presumably not promiscuous when on tour, meaning of course, that morality and sexuality are inextricably linked; a suggestion I am not going to try to defend or explain and neither should he–it’s above our pay grade.

So, back to the remark about the condoms. With the above context, sure, someone that considers them self to be so “morally good,” is going to consider the responsible act of a woman keeping condoms to use during sexual encounters “tacky.” Because, to mister G.S., such a display of wanton disregard for feminine sexual ideals and American puritanical society’s disinclination toward acceptance of female sexual responsibility, is tacky. I mean really! She’s sexual active, and keeping condoms to prevent pregnancy and STI’s! What is this madness?

Okay, enough with the snark. Will.I.Am’s comment is not only dripping with pious condescension, it’s also very dangerous. As I remarked above, Will.I.Am has been at the forefront of mainstream pop culture for upwards of 5 years, he’s campaigned with President Obama, performed at the super bowl, and remarked on many political topics throughout the past decade. Suffice it to say, people pay attention to this silly man, and what is more, they listen to what he says.

Remarking about condoms in a way other than, “wear a condom to protect yourself and your partner” is just plain irresponsible.