Abortion Gang

Abortion is controversial. There can be no denying it. Even here in Canada, which might seem like a bastion of rationality because of our lack of abortion law, things are not peachy for women seeking abortions. Along with the various legal restrictions (covered from time to time in this space), there exist many (if not all) of the same social stigmas and regional and economic barriers for women seeking abortion here as in the States.

There are two alarming American trends that have been picking up steam here in recent years: the video sting (a la Lila Rose, or James O’Keefe) and crisis pregnancy centres, those supposed havens for troubled pregnant folks, which more often than not provide false information about abortion and use scare tactics (sometimes toeing the line of legality) to discourage women from seeking one out. These are things that most people working in abortion provision are being prepped to deal with. Legal abortion is so fragile, even here in this supposed socialist paradise; you get used to being constantly on the defensive, even when you are doing nothing wrong.

I was a bit uneasy when I saw this piece about a CPC in Surrey, BC that was recently the target of the same kind of undercover video sting operation so frequently used against the pro-choice movement. A CTV reporter went into the Surrey Pregnancy Options Centre posing as a pregnant woman, with a hidden camera. She asked about abortion, and the volunteers at the CPC told her a bunch of ridiculous lies, exaggerated the risks, and refused to refer her to an abortion clinic. They even gave her an envelope of information that had “For a proud Mom-to-be” written on it.

To be honest, it’s not the worst I’ve heard. I worked at a clinic that had a CPC next door, and we heard stories from patients about their experiences there that would shock you. But the fact remains that while Surrey Pregnancy Options Centre is not the worst offender, they are blatantly lying to people and spreading misinformation about legal health care.

My question is, how good do we feel about being behind the camera? I met a woman at a NAF meeting who worked at one of the Planned Parenthood clinics that was targeted by the “racist donor” phone calls. They were fighting against backlash they simply could not afford. Speaking as someone who has now worked for a few organizations that struggle to keep unearned backlash and negative rumours out of the news, I can say that it’s not easy to continue doing good work when every move is scrutinized by the right wing and the media. Sustainability without putting staff and patients at direct physical risk is always a concern for abortion clinics; it gets worse when they are targeted by these undercover operations. If you want change, go through the courts or the government, is what we say to the James O’Keefes and the Lila Roses. If your cause is so valid and moral, why be so sneaky? Stay on the level, and meet us where we’re at.

…So is it ok that we are now turning around and using the same tactics they used on us? Is it ok for the pro-choice movement to start Lila Rose-ing all over the place? Why don’t the same arguments apply to us? Maybe because we are being stalled in legal channels; there have been small victories with regards to how CPCs can and cannot advertise their services, but for the most part there seem to be no repercussions for giving false medical information to anyone who walks through the door. There are a lot of factors at play when it comes to social justice and the complicated relationship we, as activists, have with the justice system. But maybe that doesn’t excuse being giant hypocrites.

From a strictly personal standpoint, I don’t think I can forgive James O’Keefe for his part in creating the media storm that brought down ACORN in the US, or Lila Rose for setting back worthwhile organizations trying to provide health care to low income folks. Because of that, I cannot condone the use of the same tactics within our movement. But I also can’t help feeling that I’m indulging in a false equivalency here. The CTV reporter only went in and recorded what happened. There was – as far as we know – no suggestive editing, and no particularly leading questions. Does that make it ok?

I honestly cannot answer that question.

Abortion has recently become a hot topic (again) in Canada. Currently, the anti-choice contingent, lead by CPC MP Stephen Woodworth, has been asking why Canada denies that a fetus is human. In fact, they are claiming that abortion has nothing to do with it, they really just want Canada (and pro-choicers I presume) to acknowledge that a fetus is human. Here’s the thing: no pro-choicer I know denies that a fetus is human; we deny that it is a person. And there is a distinct difference.

“Human” can refer to so many things other than a person. Our cells are human. We have human emotions that aren’t experienced, as far as the current evidence shows, by other animals to the same degree as us. We have human culture and technology. “Human” is such a broad term that to suggest that a fetus is not human is really quite ridiculous. That being said, not all fetuses are human, just the ones that share human DNA. But DNA does not a person make.

A person is completely different from a human and although a person is also human, “human” is not necessarily a person. To suggest that they are synonyms is to conflate their meanings. People share a number of characteristics, which while not all are present in each person, most people will indeed share most of the characteristics. People have emotions and thoughts, they experience sensation, often through their 5 senses but not always. People have the capacity to learn, to form opinions, to have likes and dislikes. Even small infants and children have many of these qualities in at least a rudimentary sense. People also have individual bodies that are self-sustaining. When they are not self-sustaining, we have medical intervention that can take over to some extent, but when ultimately our bodies lose too much of their ability to self-sustain, we die.

This is the point at which the antis will point out conjoined twins; they enjoy conflating “fetus” with “conjoined twin.” The difference is that conjoined twins have at least some separation of their bodies. If they did not then they would be a parasitic fetus, or a fetus in fetu. Conjoined twins are two distinct individuals that share some organs. What is most important is that many conjoined twins are separated, or at least a separation is attempted. Unfortunately sometimes one, or both, die. There is (likely) no debate as to whether conjoined twins are individuals, but I don’t see huge protests and sums of money going into preventing their separation surgeries. I don’t see these parents harassed and tormented for the decision they are making, even when it is almost inevitable that one will die. To suggest that a fetus has more rights than a conjoined twin is to lose one’s grip with reality.

There is no equivalency to a fetus. A fetus is a fetus. It is not “like” anything else. To suggest otherwise is to conflate the meaning of both. Suggesting that pro-choicers deny that a fetus is human is disingenuous. I deny that a fetus is a person. I deny that it has a sufficient number of the characteristics that make a person a person to qualify it as such. Unfortunately, the antis in Canada are getting creative because they realize that abortion bans do not sit well with the majority of Canadians. Instead, they are attempting to frame the argument in ways that seem innocent and perhaps have even a “left wing flare,” but in fact are the complete opposite; they are backdoor attempts to start Canada down the slippery slope to abortion regulation. And I will not stand for it.

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.

Hi. I’m a writer here at AbortionGang. I’m also a Christian. Nice to meet you!

It seems that a lot of press around our recent #10forTebow campaign is suggesting that we hate God, or Christians, or Jesus, or faith. This is simply not true.

If you take a second look at Sophia’s original post, you’ll see she never says a single bad thing about Christianity. She may laugh at Tebow’s excessive focus on his faith, but that is entirely about Tebow’s actions, not the religion he follows.

Some people may believe that being antichoice and Christian go hand in hand- to attack one is to attack the other. This also is untrue. Taking a stand against being antichoice is not taking a stand against Christianity.

Christianity has been separated into many different organized religions, and some Christians choose to create their own faith, outside of organized religion. I am not here to say which group or type is a/the True Christian, but I do want to point out that this diversity means there is a diversity of beliefs among Christians related to abortion.

One of the first abortion funds ever established was created by ministers, who were counseling women with problem pregnancies, and seeing the horrible effects of back-alley abortions. These ministers worked together to direct women to medically-safe abortion locations, and eventually they raised the money to fund an abortion clinic in their area. In this way, Christians were some of the first supporters of abortion funding, and keeping women safe.

Christians today continue to support a woman’s right to choose. There are many Christian organizations and denominations that have spoken up for women and their families: Catholics for Choice, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, The United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, and more.

Christians have a long history of supporting choice, and we will continue to support choice in the future. Being prochoice does not mean one hates God, or is against faith. Donating to an abortion fund as part of the #10forTebow campaign is one more way that Christians can do good in their community and help their fellow human, as God has asked us to. This campaign is for everyone who disagrees with Tebow’s antichoice position, not just atheists or agnostics who disagree with him.

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 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. 

These are composites of clients and the names are pseudonyms.

Marina wants to keep this pregnancy but has an eight-month-old daughter at home and just started a new job. She tells me she’s certain she can’t be a good mom to her daughter, financially or emotionally, if she has another baby so soon. She cries during and after the procedure. She tells me that she knows she “has to do this” for her daughter, but it hurts a lot. She naps a little in the recovery room and I give her my phone number when she leaves.

Leslie, who is trying to escape an abusive partner, tells me that she fears that bringing this pregnancy to term would keep her forever tied to him. She has a warm smile and is very open with me as she describes the shelter where she is staying with her two young children and the restraining order she has against her husband. She flinches a few times during the procedure but is able to talk through it and is surprised when it’s done. She tells me it was much quicker and easier than she thought it would be. The social worker who did her counseling prior to the procedure gave her a lot of resources and I make sure she has a chance to speak to the social worker a second time before she leaves.

Deana emphatically refuses my proffered hand and snarls at the nurse. Later, in the recovery room, she apologizes, telling me, through tears, that these last few weeks have been really stressful. She loves the hot pack I’ve given her and we talk about how to make one at home by filling a large sock with rice, tying off the end, and sticking it in the microwave. She assures me that she is going to go home and sleep this afternoon and will make sure her partner pampers her.

Things in the abortion world in Canada are heating up. Progressives have re-engaged the public in Prince Edward Island, Canada’s tiny island province, with respect to the complete lack of abortion services on the Island. All women have to ship out for their abortion to either New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. The abortion is paid for if it is at a hospital, but not the travel costs. The current Liberal politicians (I use the word loosely…) have decided to chicken out keep the status quo rather than piss off the right-wing. I suspect we will hear from the new pro-choice group again soon.

Meanwhile in Ottawa, half a dozen (white, male) anti-choicers are screaming about Canada’s “400 year old law” (Newsflash: Canada is less than 200 years old!) and wanting to re-examine the discussion about the “rights for the unborn,” all the while expertly avoiding using the dreaded A-word. Canada’s current Prime Minister has promised not to re-open the abortion debate but everybody on the Left know he has something up his sleeve. Harper controls the Conservative caucus like Kim Jong-Il controlled North Korea. That is to say: nothing happens without his approval. The fact that half a dozen MPs have issued press releases over the past few months, decrying the state of “human rights” in Canada (ironic coming from the Government that happily handed over Afghan detainees knowing they would be tortured) because a fetus doesn’t become a baby until it is born and the umbilical cord is cut, means he is aware and tacitly approving. All these men are back-benchers, meaning they are not within his cabinet. As a result, I foresee Harper claiming his has no control over these men, which is utter bullshit.

If you are in the riding of one of these anti MPs, please send them a letter letting them know that women’s human rights are not up for discussion!

In other news, the Student Union at the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton has denied club status to a ‘pro-life’ group (Warning: Links to anti-abortion LifeSite) on the basis that,

…it would be a “single issue” club with “political will or intention,” that it would be “contentious” and “inviting debate,” and that it would be a source of “misinformation” regarding “post-abortion counselling.”

So long as the Student Union applies this criteria across the board and is not simply finding a reason to deny this group, I am okay with the decision. But if they are simply fishing for reasons to deny them status, I think I have an issue with it. While they are not technically government, I do not believe that driving this group underground will be of any benefit. I would rather this group be out in the open where their stance can be openly criticized. If they are in fact engaging in misleading women though Crisis Pregnancy Centres or showing up at the Morgentaler Clinic in downtown to harass women, then good, deny them funding. But if they simply want to have members, meet and enjoy the benefits for being a club, then I disagree with the Student Union. Disagreeing with their ideas is not sufficient grounds for denying them status; they must behave in a manner that violates some universal code of conduct for clubs.

I am a big believer in free speech. While every right has its limits, denying club status to a group just because you disagree is not appropriate; free and open discussion is important. It will be interesting to see how this progresses.

I’ve had a lot of new year’s resolutions. I’ve had some successes: I still take a dance break every week and write letters by hand and many more failures: I still over-caffeinate, overspend, oversnack, and answer many questions with questions (not answers).  After a lot of thinking and reflecting and writing, I’ve realized what I really want to say I’ve done a little better when 2013 rolls around.   In 2012, I resolve to complain less, envision more.

See, I’m good at complaining.  As a social worker, I advocate professionally.  Part of being an educator on sexual violence is talking about injustice and what needs to change.  I agitate for pay, and I like to think for a good cause.  I call “bullshit” on the regular.  I look at my accomplishments as an activist and justify my outlook, even as this behavior breeds negativity and enervates me.  I can see a change made in the life of one of my clients and can go home to come back again tomorrow and kvetch some more.  I can practice self-care and think I’m doing what I need to do to sustain myself, at least in the short-run.  I channel my perfectionism and my outrage and my ire into trying to make the world a little less fucked up, one person or group of people at a time.

A lot of what we do as activists though is respond to attacks, and it can be engaging but also exhausting. I rally against much more than I rally for. I fight back much more than I fight for.  I am often reactive, rarely proactive.  I feel like I did as an awkward middle-schooler playing dodgeball.  I’m balled up in the corner, ball in hand, fending off an onslaught. I’m dodging, not throwing.  My glasses knocked on the ground, my vision obfuscated, focused on doing what we need to do to survive, feeling too overwhelmed to remember that we deserve to thrive.  And because this seemingly endless barrage mirrors the greater injustice those I serve (and let’s be real, I personally) have experienced, I often feel I only have enough energy to mount an admirable defense.  And that’s ridiculous and unsustainable.

I am not in middle school, and I do have some amount of power and control over at least a small piece of the world.  I can lob my own ball. Better yet, I can change the rules.  I can pick my own team. I can look around and see that I’m on a really fierce team already and use that to my advantage.  I know that I can’t play this game this way forever.  Burnout is real, and I don’t want to quit.

I let myself off the hook because I sometimes see my current paradigm as the only one that will ever exist.  I get self righteous.  Forces seemingly beyond my control (bigotry, violence, oppression) seem way too gargantuan when I have fires to fight right in front of my face.  I am deciding, despite my good intentions, to at least partially believe that change is impossible on a grander scale and that all we can do is keep helping individual people not have to face these injustices alone.  I can justify this as better than ignoring the problem, but I know I need a reframe.  Despite my privileges, I choose to push back rather than push forward.  I dwell in bullshit rather than in possibility.

So, for 2012, I resolve to create, to brainstorm, to envision, to bring together, to build, to facilitate conversation, to ask what if.  I resolve to not only deflect dodgeballs but to figure out how to inch toward a world where the rules are different.  I resolve to take time every day to imagine the world I want to live in five, ten, twenty years from now, the world I want for my children, the world I want for my grandchildren (should my children choose to have children). I resolve to start there and work backwards to today and to do the creative rather than defensive work I need to do to help us get there.  I resolve to, as my mentor has always said to me, use my powers for good.  I will use my power, regardless of how limited in scope, to move beyond fighting back.

We deserve sustainable movements. We deserve to be able to come together, empowered to articulate our own futures.  If we don’t come together to create our future, who will?  Even though there are days I still feel like it, I am not in middle school. And I am not last-picked in dodgeball. We are in this together, and we have the skills.  What do you want to see, and how can we work together to get there?

 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.