Generation Roe

Arizona Politician Thinks He Knows What’s Best for D.C. Women

2012-01-25T15:08:00.001-08:00

Not content to just do the work for the state that actually elected him, Arizona Republican Trent Franks has decided to tackle the apparently pressing issue of late-term abortions in Washington, DC. Franks, with backing from the National Right to Life Committee, has introduced the ”District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” which would ban abortions after 20 weeks for District women. Similar bills are already in place in Nebraska, Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, and Oklahoma.

As Franks is the chairman of the House subcommittee that will be handling his legislation — and the bill is co-sponsored by Reps. Lamar Smith and Darrell Issa, who both hold powerful committee positions as well — it is all but certain the the bill will be on the fast track to a vote on the House floor.

Defending his decision to interfere in the personal decisions of women he doesn’t represent, Franks says that his bill “would address the pain and suffering of children who have done nothing wrong … [i]t will emphasize the humanity of the child and the inhumanity of what is being done to them.” This is in keeping with the anti-choice rationale for all of these bills, but it ignores some very basic facts about late-term procedures and fetal development.

The idea that a fetus feels pain before birth has been widely disproved, most notably in a 2010 study by Britain’s Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Those findings indicate that a fetus does not feel pain before 24 weeks, and that even after that marker, it is difficult to conclusively say that a fetal has developed enough to feel pain. In addition, the study found that the chemical environment in the uterus induces “a continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation.”

While there is a marked lack of reputable scientific evidence indicating that fetal pain exists, there is a wealth of information about why women choose late-term abortions. And contrary to what Franks claims about fetal pain and suffering, these procedures are most often performed because the fetus has abnormalities that are incompatible with life. Franks might like to imagine that women that seek late-term abortions just do so because they’re lazy or don’t care about the fetus, but the reality is that late-term abortions are far too expensive, and late-term providers are far too difficult to find, for women to ever make that decision cavalierly. This legislation will simply serve to punish women that have done nothing wrong, who wanted to make the right choice for themselves and their families – and, in the case of a severely compromised fetus, for their unborn child.

Washington, D.C. is a liberal city; as a six-year resident of the District, I have a hard time imagining that the City Council would ever even consider such a bill, much less vote it through. But since D.C. does not have voting rights, Congress is allowed to make laws for the District. As D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton observes, ”Representative Franks appears to have used his time at home figuring out new ways to undemocratically usurp the local authority of American citizens who did not elect him and who have no way to hold him accountable … We do not intend to succumb to the insatiable Republican obsession with interfering with the rights of women in our city.”

This new anti-choice trend of ignoring science and reality in order to curtail women’s rights is terrifying and dangerous. And the idea of a Congressman ignoring the issues of the constituents that elected him, and opting instead to attack women across the country with an unnecessary and grandstanding bill is infuriating. Put the two together, and it really seems that we have entered a strange new world of anti-choice dogma, where nothing matters at all except taking down reproductive rights by whatever means necessary.

March Online for Reproductive Rights!

2012-01-23T14:37:00.001-08:00

Join the online march for women’s rights! During “Trust Women Week,” January 20-27, a whole host of fantastic organizations, including Medical Students for Choice, Ms., the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, and the National Network of Abortion Funds have come together to support women’s lives and women’s rights. This online, mass mobilization is letting members of Congress, state governors, and selected state legislators know just how important reproductive rights are, and making sure that your voice will be heard. To learn more and add your message, click here!

The Santorum Double Standard

2012-01-22T10:46:00.000-08:00

With the way the Republican presidential campaign is going, it’s entirely possible that Rick Santorum will have dropped out of the race by the time this article runs. Yet before his third-place finish in the South Carolina primary, Santorum had been making a lot of news for his personal experience with terminating a pregnancy.

In 1996, the then-nineteen weeks pregnant Karen Santorum had undergone surgery to address a fetal kidney malfunction. Following the operation, she developed an infection, and the Santorums had to make the difficult choice of terminating the pregnancy, or risking Karen’s life. By all accounts they made the decision together, and Karen was given medication to induce labor.

Rick Santorum is stridently anti-choice. He has signed the Personhood Pledge; he opposes Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court decision that legalized birth control. Santorum considers late-term abortion procedures “medically unnecessary,” and opposes abortion in all circumstances, including rape; incest; if the fetus has no chance of surviving to full-term; and if a woman’s life is threatened by continuing the pregnancy.

Such unapologetic hypocrisy is breathtaking. Santorum would deny other women – and their husbands, and children – the same options that his own family benefited from, and apparently he sees nothing wrong with this extreme double standard. Anti-choicers are pretty good and twisting logic and facts to suit their needs, but the mental contortions needed to get from “terminating a pregnancy is always wrong” to “except when it’s my family” are truly dizzying.

There’s been some additional controversy around this story, among those that think the Santorums’ experience was a personal tragedy that should not be brought up in a political environment. Normally I’d agree, except that Rick Santorum has shown over and over that he has absolutely no problem deciding what choices other people should be allowed to make. If he’s going to hold such a harsh microscope up to the behaviors and actions of perfect strangers, it seems only fair to call attention to this particular bit of dangerous hypocrisy.

Texas Moves Closer to Another Restrictive Abortion Law

2012-01-12T12:45:00.000-08:00

Texas is poised to enforce a new mandatory ultrasound law. Earlier this week, an appeals court overturned a previous court decision that had blocked enforcement of the law, which will require women to have an ultrasound 24 hours before the abortion and requires doctors to display the sonogram, make the fetal heartbeat audible, and describe the fetal development to the woman. Although the woman may choose not to view the image or hear the heartbeat, she must listen to the development description. Women that claim they are victims of reported rape and incest, or can prove that the fetal has a fatal abnormality, would be exempt from the development requirement.

The Center for Reproductive Rights has challenged the constitutionality of the law on behalf of both women and doctors, although it is not yet clear if the Center will challenge the appeals court’s recent decision. The law itself will return to federal district court for further consideration, given that a larger case challenging the law is still pending and that there are additional aspects regarding constitutionality that have not yet been considered.

Texas already requires women to receive state-mandated counseling that discourages abortion, and then wait 24 hours before getting an abortion. So in that regards, adding another law that requires an additional trip to the clinic really won’t change anything – access to clinics, in this huge state where 92% of all counties lack a provider, is already pretty restricted. But the new law is also an insultingly obvious way for Texas to disregard women’s intelligence and autonomy. The majority of women that seek abortions are already mothers; they know what a fetus looks like and what an ultrasound is. And the overwhelming majority of clinics already perform ultrasounds before the procedure, to ensure that they have the most accurate information to make the abortion as safe as possible.

Far from being about women’s safety and consent, the law infantilizes women and the doctors that treat them. This is just one more example of state governments intruding into personal and private decisions under the guise of caring about women. For more information on how you can protest this law, please check out Trust Texas Women.

Dinner Conversation

2012-01-07T08:12:00.000-08:00

It had been a lovely wedding, and now the reception was packed. We sat down to dinner; at my table was my husband and three of our friends, along with three of the groom’s friends from grad school. Introductions were made and small talk ensued, and as our salad courses were cleared away one of the men I’d just met struck up a conversation about abortion with one of my friends.

My husband nudged me and one of my other friends grinned as I inclined myself towards the conversation, trying to discern the tone and content of the discussion – or was it debate? After a few minutes, the man noticed me listening and asked my opinion, and I offered it up, along with the caveat that I was writing a book about that very subject and had worked in the field for years.

He was less pro-choice than I was (admittedly, that’s not difficult), but not exactly anti-choice; rather, he seemed neutral and curious about the subject, though very opinionated about Tony Kaye’s documentary Lake of Fire. But it’s funny – I don’t remember a lot of specifics about our discussion. It’s as though a kind of mental tunnel vision took over, and I was so busy listening and responding that few other details even registered. It was kind of exhilarating, to be honest, being in a zone of such extreme focus and energy.

The word ‘abortion’ has been invested with so much power, loaded with associations and assumptions and politics. The number of people that still say ‘abortion’ in a hushed voice, the way that uttering the word can bring a conversation to a grinding halt, belies the fact that nearly one-third of all American women will have an abortion by age 45.

Perhaps that’s why this conversation sticks out when I think about my pro-choice war stories. This conversation, and the ones I’ve had with other strangers on planes and subway platforms or with my own mother-in-law at my kitchen table. Conversations that I never initiated but that naturally followed the question, “so, what do you do?” (or, in my mother-in-law’s case, “how’s work going?”).

The discussion at the reception wrapped up by the end of the main course. As the band began playing and guests got up to dance, the man and I thanked each other for an interesting conversation. As we shook hands, I could feel my husband relax next to me. And then we all stood up, and joined the rest of the party.

Update: NJ Nurses Can Refuse to Provide Abortion Care

2011-12-23T07:09:00.001-08:00

A New Jersey hospital has reached a deal with twelve nurses that claimed they were forced to help care for abortion patients. The University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey has agreed to allow the nurses to remain in their current positions and refuse to assist in any part of an abortion. The nurses must still assist a patient that is in a life-threatening situation if no other nurses are available to help - but only until someone else can be brought in to take over.

While both the hospital and the nurses say they are happy with the outcome, concerns still remain for what this settlement could mean for women that need abortion care. After all, these nurses have basically been given the okay to discriminate against patients based on their personal ideology. As Brigitte Amiri, an attorney with the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, pointed out to The Washington Post, "“No one should ever have to worry about facing discrimination when they check into the hospital."

The nurses' attorney claims that his clients will never compromise either their duty to patients or their professional oath. Which is an interesting statement to make, because it seems like they already have.

Pennsylvania Wants to Make Abortion Safer by ... Closing Safe Clinics?

2011-12-14T14:01:00.000-08:00

Apparently Pennsylvania has decided to follow in Virginia's ill-advised footsteps, at least when it comes to regulating abortion clinics out of existence. The state House has approved a bill that would require clinics to adhere to new structural guidelines and staffing procedures that would likely be expensive and logistically difficult. If it is passed, the bill - which includes requirements like upgrading elevators and doubling the size of procedure rooms - could force "most, if not all" of the state's 20 freestanding clinics to either move or stop offering abortion services entirely.

The bill's supporters argue that this level of regulation is needed in the wake of allegations surrounding Kermit Gosnell, the Philadelphia-area doctor that was charged earlier this year in the death of seven infants and one woman. Republican Rep. Matt Baker, chairman of the House Health Committee, claims that the bill "is about patient safety and preventing future cases of murder and infanticide within abortion clinics." What Baker and his colleagues seem to miss is that different building codes would not have made a difference in the Gosnell case; larger exam rooms aren't exactly going to deter someone from practicing the kind of bad medicine that Gosnell is accused of.

Of course, had the Department of Health and Department of State actually enforced the already-existing laws regulating abortion clinics, the entire tragedy of Gosnell's clinic might never have happened. But since the lawmakers seem determined to only look ahead and not reflect on what state agencies could have or should have done, how about ensuring that women and and teenage girls have access to reliable and affordable methods of birth control? Or, I don't know, not trying to do away with insurance coverage for abortion care?

There is no question that the Gosnell case is horrifying. But this bill is targeting existing, reputable clinics that have an excellent safety record, even if their elevators aren't hospital-grade. Forcing these clinics out of business makes it that much more likely that women will turn to other, riskier sources to obtain abortion care. It is hard to see how Pennsylvania, much like Virginia before it, has anything close to women's best interests in mind.

Obama Administration Overrules FDA, Won’t Ease Restrictions on Plan B

2011-12-07T14:00:00.000-08:00

Earlier today, the Obama administration overruled a decision by the FDA to allow teenage girls to purchase Plan B without a prescription. Even though FDA Administrator Margaret Hamburg said in a statement that the pill could be used safely by girls and women, Kathleen Sebelius and the Health and Human Services Department apparently felt otherwise. According to Hamburg,

"[T]his morning I received a memorandum from the Secretary of Health and Human Services invoking her authority under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to execute its provisions and stating that she does not agree with the Agency's decision to allow the marketing of Plan B One-Step nonprescription for all females of child-bearing potential."

For her part, Secretary Sebelius states that, "The science has confirmed the drug to be safe and effective with appropriate use. However, the switch from prescription to over the counter for this product requires that we have enough evidence to show that those who use this medicine can understand the label and use the product appropriately. ... The label comprehension and actual use studies did not contain data for all ages for which this product would be available for use."

It's worth noting that several studies have shown that girls as young as 11 understand the label and instructions well enough to use the drug safely and effectively. Indeed, Plan B may even be safer than the aspirin and ibuprofen that are already easily accessible - while overdoses of these medications can cause kidney and liver problems and even death, it is virtually impossible to overdose on Plan B.

Plan B will still be available to women ages 17 and older without a prescription, and to younger women that have a prescription. But this decision will keep Plan B behind the pharmacy counter for all women, which can create significant barriers to those that need the pill. Many pharmacies are closed on evenings and weekends, even if the drugstores they operate in are still open; since Plan B is most effective if taken within 72 hours of having unprotected sex, such delays matter. Women have also reported encountering pharmacists that refused to sell them Plan B, because the medication violated their own personal beliefs.

The decision of Sebelius and HHS comes as a surprise, given how rarely the administration publicly overrules its own experts.

William Saletan, George Carlin, and the Decency of Chickens

2011-12-06T15:31:00.000-08:00

William Saletan recently took on the topic of fetal development and abortion over at Slate. In “Abortion Forever?” he argued that fetal development matters, particularly in the (very rare, he admits) cases of late-term abortion. The differences between an eight-week and a 28-week fetus matter, he says, because “the capacities that make a newborn more significant than a zygote—cognition, interaction, viability—don’t materialize overnight. They develop over many weeks. At some point, they make abortion too much like infanticide.”

Saletan continues this line of reasoning by pointing out that neural development continues for the first three years of life. He then asks, “[i]f a woman feels that eight, 18, or 28 weeks after birth isn’t too late for her, shouldn’t we trust her judgment?” Sounds like someone’s been reading Unwind!

It's disappointing to see a well-versed reporter like Saletan fall victim to the line-drawing fallacy, a slick version of arhetorical fallacy that's older than Aristotle. So let's cut to the chase: there is a logical place to draw the line, and it's called childbirth, the moment when a fetus becomes an independent entity instead of an inseparable part of its mother. This distinction is also found in a whole host of world religions; Judaism, for example, draws a clear line between a potential human and an actual human. Saletan can disagree with this, of course, but he can’t say it’s illegitimate. It is clearly legitimate, in a way that relying on clinical definitions of fetal development is not.

Fetuses command our collective attention because of what they have the potential to become, a human, and it's important that we in the pro-choice community respect that potential. But it's equally true that at any point up until “viability” – and beyond that fuzzy point if you don't have a billion-dollar NICU – the fetus is not capable of independent consciousness or action.

No one is denying that a fetus develops. But focusing on biological markers takes the choice away from the woman and places it solely in the hands of government and a field of science that is still developing itself. These markers may mean the world to a woman experiencing a wanted pregnancy, but the very point of abortion is that not all pregnancies are wanted or viable, and there are as many reasons for this as there are women that choose abortion. Apparently, though, these personal reasons and rights should not matter, not when there’s a defined point at which a fetus has viable lungs and a spinal cord.

Slate has a reputation for clever, counter-intuitive articles designed to grab your attention, but Saletan's argument is just a prolix version of that infamous bumper sticker: "Abortion stops a beating heart." But as the dean of the clever and the counter-intuitive, George Carlin, pointed out, so does eating chicken, and “chickens are decent people.”

Saletan closes by urging readers to decide not just for themselves “but for anybody” at what point abortion is too close to infanticide. We're all used to hearing that rhetoric, but it's worth remembering yet again just how radical it is. When abortion's not the topic, every nation on earth draws the line at childbirth, and always has. Since George Carlin again has put it better than I ever could, I'll let him have the last word:

“Well, if a fetus is a human being, how come the census doesn't count them? … If a fetus is a human being, how come people say 'we have two children and one on the way' instead of saying 'we have three children?' ... Even after the egg is fertilized, it's still six or seven days before it reaches the uterus and pregnancy begins, and not every egg makes it that far. Eighty percent of a woman's fertilized eggs are rinsed and flushed out of her body once a month during those delightful few days she has. They wind up on sanitary napkins, and yet they are fertilized eggs. So basically what these anti-abortion people are telling us is that any woman who's had more than more than one period is a serial killer! Consistency. Consistency.”

New Jersey Nurses Refuse to Treat Abortion Patients

2011-11-30T14:36:00.000-08:00

A recent lawsuit in New Jersey could greatly affect the way abortion services are performed in hospitals across the country. In late October, twelve nurses filed a suit claiming that the University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey violated state and federal law with their announcement that nurses would have to help abortion patients before and after the procedure. This announcement, which came in mid-September, reversed the institution’s previous policy that nurses could refuse to assist these patients based on their moral or religious objections.

New Jersey is far from the only state that allows medical employees to opt out of performing or assisting in abortion procedures. These so-called “conscience” protections were greatly strengthened towards the end of George W. Bush’s presidency; a regulation enacted shortly before he left office would have withheld federal funding from hospitals, clinics, and even state and local governments that did not allow health care employees to refuse to participate in any procedure violated their religious, moral, or personal beliefs. This regulation was widely interpreted as protecting employees that refused to provide birth control pills, perform in-vitro fertilization for single women or lesbians, and refuse to treat gay AIDS patients, among other services. Earlier this year, President Obama rescinded most of the regulation – leaving only the protection for nurses or doctors that do not want to perform abortions or sterilizations.

It’s important to note that the New Jersey nurses are not being asked to assist with actual abortion procedures. Rather, they would need to assist in pre- and post-op care. As it stands now, the nurses are refusing to care for such patients even in emergency situations.

Which raises a very relevant question: what about the patient’s protection? Does a woman deserve to be refused care from a trained medical professional, simply because that person disagrees with her personal choice? I’d hate to think that anyone needing medical care could be discriminated against simply because one of the very people that is entrusted with that care has decided to pass their own judgment about who deserves treatment.

Yet with their lawsuit, that is exactly what these nurses are doing. The case will be heard next Monday, December 5.

New Website and PSAs Focus on Birth Control

2011-11-13T14:58:00.000-08:00

Coming in first is usually a good thing – except when, well, it’s not. Case in point: the U.S. has the highest rate of teen pregnancy in the developed world. And older couples aren’t doing that much better: nearly half of all pregnancies in this country are unplanned.

The Ad Council and the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy are teaming up to do something about that. They recently launched a three-year multimedia campaign that address the importance of birth control through a series of humorous PSAs and Bedsider, a new website that’s chock full of information and advice about birth control options.

Although the site is aimed at women ages 18-29, there’s a lot on it that is relevant for both men and women of all ages. I particularly enjoyed the “Fact or Fiction” section, which answers such questions as can guys buy emergency contraception (short answer: yes, if they’re 17 or older); and “Real Stories,” where men and women share their experiences with the female condom, the patch, and the IUD, among other birth control methods.

Also cool? Bedsider’s handy-dandy reminder function. Users can set up reminders for appointments or birth control that works on a schedule (i.e. the ring, pill, shot, or patch). Just enter the relevant information and create an account, and you’ll get a reminder via text or email. Other resources include an exhaustive list of questions and answers; a health clinic locator; and a way to find your closest source for emergency contraception.

Besides the wealth of information and the ads themselves, perhaps the most notable aspect of the campaign is its attitude. As Sarah Brown, CEO of the National Campaign, said in a press release, “Bedsider and the accompanying PSA campaign are trying to ‘rebrand’ contraception as a positive part of life that promotes self-determination, education and achievement ... [b]oth bring fun and a light touch to an area that is too often hush-hush, serious and boring.”

Mississippi “Personhood” Amendment Strongly Defeated

2011-11-09T05:53:00.000-08:00

Last night, voters in Mississippi rejected Initiative 26, or the “personhood” amendment. Although the proposal seemed to be enjoying widespread support in the state as recently as a week ago, poll results show that more than 55 percent of voters opposed the measure.

The idea of granting full rights at the moment of conception has been gaining strength in recent years. Colorado voters have rejected a similar proposal twice, and personhood supporters are working to introduce ballot initiatives and legislation in Montana, Ohio, Alabama, Michigan, Nevada, California, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Florida.

While both pro-choice groups and a number of media sites spoke out strongly against Initiative 26, outgoing Republican governor Haley Barbour may have played a significant, if inadvertent, role in defeating the measure. Although Barbour expressed support for 26, he also called it “ambiguous” and admitted that he had “some concerns about it.”

Medical groups in the state also raised concerns about the initiative, as did a number of religious groups. Even some mainstream anti-choice organizations spoke out against the proposal, considering it a distraction to their goal of overturning Roe.

No doubt both pro- and anti-choice groups will be examining the Mississippi vote, and the weeks leading up to it, to see what lessons they can learn for future battles. But the biggest lesson may have been summed up by Cristen Hemmins, one of the most visible opponents of the amendment. “Whether or not you believe life begins at conception, this amendment goes too far. … It is too ambiguous. It seems so obvious to me that it is far-reaching and it is going to be big government getting all up in my uterus.”

Guaranteeing Access, One Dollar at a time

2011-11-07T11:56:00.000-08:00

Written for Feminists for Choice, but applicable here too...

When Serena proposed the idea of focusing on gratitude this month by honoring pro-choice advocates, I immediately knew who I’d choose: the people that make sure that women who need abortions have the money to do so.

Working in either local funds or the funding arms of major organizations is not an easy job. The need is overwhelming, and there’s never enough money to go around. The hours can be long – in the case of a lot of local funds, the work is literally 24/7 – and the stories can rip your heart out.

But this is such essential work, particularly in our current economic climate. Helping a woman raise $200 or $100 or even $50 doesn’t just mean that she can get an abortion. It means that no matter her situation, she can access the same services as any other woman. It means, as a case manager for theD.C. Abortion Fund told me years ago, that a woman’s rights shouldn’t depend on her wallet.

It’s hard to remember this when the phone never stops ringing and demand far outstrips supply. It’s hard to remember this when on the other end of the line is an exasperated woman that you’ve never met who isn’t even mad at you, she’s just dealing with one obstacle after another and has hit her breaking point. It’s hard to remember this when you’re also working other jobs because this paycheck doesn’t stretch far enough, or because it doesn’t even provide a paycheck to stretch.

So thank you, for doing this incredibly difficult and incredibly essential work. Thank you for ensuring that Roe is more than just words for so many women. Thank you for inspiring me, and so many others. But most of all, thank you for saving lives.

For more information on local funds, please visit the National Network of Abortion Funds’ website at www.nnaf.org.

Occupy Wall Street and Feminism

2011-10-31T09:19:00.000-07:00

As the Occupy Wall Street movement continues to gain traction both in New York City and around the country, one question keeps popping up: is this a feminist movement? After all, in its energy, audacity, and sense of limitless possibility, OWS is reminiscent of the feminist movement some forty years ago.

On the Ms. Blog, Daphne Muller argues that OWS is indeed a feminist fight. “I realized that Occupy Wall Street is galvanizing because the ire is feminist, anti-colonialist, anti-racist and anti-patriarchal,” she writes, adding that Code Pink was very visible at the New York protest site that she visited. But while she praises the diversity on display at Liberty Plaza, Muller does acknowledge that men have dominated both intra-movement discussions and mainstream media representation.

In The Nation, Sarah Seltzer writes about female OWS protestors that have witnessed “offensive behavior” during the protests, but also makes the point that such behavior is the exception, not the rule. Indeed, there seems to be a sense that many of the participants are eager to create a social movement “done right,” as opposed to the male-dominated movements of the 1960s. “I was in SDS—we had all these ego-tripping superstars,” one female protestor recalls, going on to say that at OWS, “there’s really a big effort to avoid domination.”

Part of this may be due to the participation of working-class people, and people of color, from the beginning of the movement. But equal credit goes to OWS’s lack of a defined leader; rather, decisions are made by consensus, and there is a complex system at work to ensure that women and minority voices are given equal consideration. While the cynic in me wonders if this big-tent approach will suffer the same setbacks that the Democratic Party has encountered in recent years, this commitment to equality is impressive, and the fact that it has been largely successful is heartening.

Occupy Wall Street may have begun as a bank-focused protest, but during the past six weeks it has grown to encompass other progressive concerns, including employment, community, the environment, gender equality, and social justice – in short, many of the same issues that the feminist movement has focused on. And like the feminist movement, OWS is also addressing reproductive rights – although OWS is addressing this issue through economic concerns, rather than a focus on women themselves.

From subsidized family planning services, to women that choose abortion because they can’t afford a child, to what kind of contraception women can afford, economics affect family planning choices in multiple ways. Too often, they only serve to limit these choices, pushing the cost of more reliable methods of birth control above what many low-income women can afford; curtailing access to abortion clinics in rural communities; and forcing families to choose between having a child and having financial security. It’s an interconnected system, and this reality is too often overlooked not only by media coverage of reproductive rights issues but by many activists themselves.

So perhaps Occupy Wall Street is actually the perfect movement to grapple with this thorny aspect of reproductive rights – and, by extension, feminism – simply because that is not its primary concern. By not focusing squarely on abortion, or access, or even women’s health and rights, but choosing instead to cast a wider net on all sorts of social justice problems, OWS has proven successful at not only attracting a diverse audience but also creating a national dialogue around economic inequality. And in the end, this may do more for reproductive rights than ever expected.

Mississippi Politicians Seek to Amend Women's Rights

2011-10-26T12:59:00.000-07:00

Sometimes when I’m having a stressful day at work, I’ll spend five (or fifteen) minutes looking at pictures of adorable dogs on The Daily Puppy or Cute Overload. If I happen to be working at home on a particularly stressful day, I go one better and spend an inordinate amount of time staring at, playing with, and generally annoying my perpetually sleepy and rumpled Shih Tzu.

After reading about Mississippi’s proposed Amendment 26, which would define a fertilized egg as a legal person, I had to wonder if that state’s legislators were taking a similar routine a bit too far. After all, babies are cute, and staring at pictures of babies is a fun distraction from a crappy economy, so why not just talk about babies and hypothetical babies all the time instead of actually working to improve our country’s myriad problems, pretty much none of which have anything to do with private decisions about pregnancy?

My mother, who grew up in Alabama, used to say that Alabamans loved Mississippi because it was always doing worse than their state. Which is kind of harsh, but objectively speaking, Mississippi isn’t in great shape. In last year’s national educational rankings, Mississippi came in 46^th out of the fifty states and D.C., and it currently has the fifth-highest unemployment rate in the country.

I’m not pointing this out to pick on Mississippi – hey, I was born in Alabama and grew up in Michigan, so I know from states with bad job prospects and less-than-stellar school systems. But the fact that the state has so many actual problems makes it that much clearer that all this amendment and personhood nonsense is just that – a sideshow to distract from the real issues its citizens are facing.

Not that that’s stopping both of the state’s gubernatorial candidates from publicly supporting Amendment 26. The Republican candidate, Lt. Gov. Phil Bryant, is a co-chair of a pro-26 campaign; Johnny DuPree, the Democratic candidate, has tempered his support with an admission that if the amendment passes, it could have an effect on both contraception and medical care.

And that’s usually where these personhood pushes fall apart. For a lot of people, it’s one thing to oppose abortion, but it’s another thing altogether to prohibit doctors from terminating dangerous ectopic pregnancies, interfere with fertility treatments, and ban certain forms of contraception, such as the pill and the IUD. Such methods may prevent the egg from becoming fertilized or implanting in the uterus, and so could be considered abortifacients under legislation like 26.

Very little about the personhood movement makes sense from a scientific, legal, or rational point of view, but it might be the insistence on demonizing birth control that is the most befuddling. As Maureen wrote in a post on the personhood movement earlier this year, “[I]t goes against every grain of logic to be anti-contraception if you are anti-abortion. Preventing unwanted pregnancies should be the common ground between the two camps, not another battle ground. In what way does outlawing or reducing access to contraception reduce the number of abortions? Oh, right, it doesn’t.”

Interestingly, some mainstream anti-choice groups are just as opposed to Amendment 26 and its ilk as pro-choicers are. They consider it unconstitutional, and a distraction to their more pressing goal of overturning Roe v. Wade entirely. But while the personhood initiatives are very likely unconstitutional, I wouldn’t be so sure that such amendments would get in the way of outlawing abortion in this country. After all, does it really matter if abortion is a legal medical procedure, if your own state has decided that a fertilized egg has the same rights as a woman?

Whatever Happened to Rock for Choice?

2011-10-23T14:37:00.001-07:00

I recently caught Cameron Crowe’s documentary on Pearl Jam. It’s an excellent film, but one of the things that really jumped out at me was just how pro-choice the band was (and probably still is, but I’m just going by the archival footage here). Eddie Vedder playing “MTV Unplugged” with the word “pro-choice” inked down his arm in thick black letters? Pretty frickin’ awesome. Vedder wearing a Rock for Choice t-shirt in a promo picture for one of the band’s appearances on “Saturday Night Live”? Just as awesome – and hey, whatever happened to Rock for Choice?

Organized by the band L7 and music journalist Sue Cummings, the first Rock for Choice concert featured Nirvana, Hole, L7, and other bands that supported the pro-choice movement. During the ten-year period between 1991 and 2001, dozens of Rock for Choice shows around the country raised awareness about reproductive rights issues, including abortion access and violence against abortion providers, and other political issues like voter registration. The concerts also helped fund the work of the Feminist Majority Foundation, specifically the organization’s Campaign to Save Roe.

I haven’t been able to find any concrete reason why the Rock for Choice concerts ended after ten years, though I can offer up a few guesses. The changing music business is the first one that come to mind, followed by the generally dismal response to any music initiatives that revolve around women (for further proof, look at the tepid reaction to last year’s Lilith Fair relaunch). But it’s also possible that the urgency surrounding the concert’s genesis had subsided. By 2001, we had moved from a pro-choice president to an anti-choice one, and history has shown that it’s during administrations that are in favor of abortion rights that the violent antis make their voices (and worse) heard. It was almost ten years since the Summer of Mercy, three years since the Birmingham clinic bombing, and the Supreme Court had yet to hand down its anti-choice ruling in Carhart v. Gonzales. In short, while the country wasn’t exactly shiny and happy when it came to abortion rights, there was a sense that the worst was behind us.

A decade later, violence is still mercifully rare (except, of course, when it isn’t), but the right to choose is being merrily crapped on at all levels of government. This year in particular is a strong contender for the title of “Worst Twelve Months for Abortion Rights” in a long time, as was evidenced by last week’s obscene Let Women Die act. Given these constant and very real threats to abortion rights, it would be phenomenal to have some high-profile organizing around these issues, particularly in the form of events that are, quite frankly, fun to attend.

I know precious little about organizing rock concerts, but I’m fairly sure that such endeavors take time and money and connections. So it might be naïve to lament the dearth of any concerted effort to resurrect Rock for Choice, but damn, I wish some great, passionate musicians and bands would step into the void. There are tons of powerful songs out there that address abortion and women’s rights – surely there are just as many musicians that feel strongly about the right to choose. So please, raise your voices. We’ll be listening.

Update: Victory at the FBI!

2011-10-20T06:37:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week, an FBI subcommittee met to discuss expanding the current definition of rape used in the agency's Uniform Crime Report. That definition, which has been in use since 1929, classifies rape solely as “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." A number of organizations, including the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) and the Women's Law Project, have long been lobbying for a new, expanded definition; and yesterday, the FBI agreed with them.

The Uniform Crime Report Subcommittee of the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services voted unanimously to change its definition. The proposed change would define rape as "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” A final recommendation will be presented in December, after which it will go to FBI director Robert Mueller for final approval.

This week's vote is a huge victory for all victims of rape crimes. As Eleanor Smeal, President of the FMF, said, “This will ensure the crime of rape is measured in a way that it includes all rape, and it essentially becomes a crime to which more resources are allocated. It’s intolerable the amount of violence against women, and we feel this will have a significant impact.”

If you'd like to add your voice to the hundreds of thousands that are asking the FBI, Mueller, and attorney general Eric Holder to count the experiences of all rape survivors, check out the Rape is Rape petition.

The House of Representatives Doesn't Like Pregnant Women

2011-10-18T16:23:00.000-07:00

Pop quiz: what’s worse for a pregnant woman than finding out that the pregnancy is threatening her life? Dying anyway because her hospital won’t perform a medically necessary abortion.

Last week, 236 Republican and 15 Democratic members of the House of Representatives voted to make such a horrible situation a reality. The so-called “Protect Life Act” would allow any hospital or healthcare provider that receives government funds to refuse to provide abortion care, regardless of the circumstances. In addition, the act would ban federal funds from going to any healthcare plans that cover abortion services and make it very difficult to prevent funds from going to health organizations that do not support abortion – so hospitals could legally refuse to perform abortions that would save women’s lives.

In addition to giving a big old middle finger to women, the appropriately-yet-depressingly-nicknamed “Let Women Die” bill would override specific laws established to protect pregnant women. TheEmergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which was passed in 1986, states that hospitals must stabilize a pregnant woman that is experiencing an emergency condition or life-threatening pregnancy is guaranteed treatment, including abortion, from either the hospital that admitted her or, if that hospital objects, from another facility.

On his website, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Joe Pitts, writes that “Taking someone’s life because we don’t regard their life as valuable takes the dignity away from our own lives as well.” Yet apparently it’s only fetuses and not women whose lives are valuable and deserving of respect and dignity.

As vile as Pitts may be, it’s equally grotesque that so many members of Congress, regardless of political party, agree with him. How did we get to this place in our society, that the health and life of a pregnant woman is worth so little? No, this isn’t a rhetorical question. When EMTALA was debated and passed in 1985 and 1986, it garnered widespread bipartisan support, and Ronald Reagan signed into law as part of an uncontroversial omnibus budget. For all the advances that women's equality has made in the last 25 years, in the halls of Congress, it seems that women lose their equality as soon as a sperm or two enter the picture. How long will our politicians be bowing down at the Altar of the Fetus? And how soon can we go back to the future and return to good old 1985? Because much as I’d like to have a child one of these days, I’m really not comfortable with the idea that if anything went wrong, I could pay with my life.

While it would be nice to think that cooler heads will prevail in the Senate, as they often do, President Obama has already said that he will veto bill. So at least this attack on women will die the sweet, merciful death it so richly deserves.

Why a New Definition of Rape is Important

2011-10-17T11:13:00.001-07:00

Since 1929, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report, which records all of the crimes reported to local law enforcement officials every year, has defined rape as “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” In 2010, the UCR reported that there were 84,767 sexual assaults in the United States. But the real number is likely to be higher, and not just because a shocking number of sexual assaults are never reported at all – but because the current definition of rape excludes a large number of sexual assaults that don’t fit within the narrow boundaries of those eleven words.

There are numerous sexual assault cases that involve oral or anal penetration; that involve the use of objects; and that involve assault against men, to name just a few of the categories of sexual assault that the current definition does not take into account. The use of the word “forcibly” can also be interpreted as to only include assaults where it is clear that the victim resisted in some manner, and therefore could exclude attacks on victims that were under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or those that are physically or mentally handicapped.

Tomorrow the FBI will consider whether to update this dangerously restrictive definition. For more information, please check out this petition at Change.org.

Is 2011 the Year of the (Television) Woman?

2011-10-12T10:46:00.000-07:00

For almost as long as television has been a part of our lives, the predominant voices in mainstream TV shows have belonged to men – they were the creators, writers, producers, and directors behind the shows watched by millions of people. There have been exceptions to this male-dominated reality – “I Love Lucy” and soap operas come to mind – but entertainment is still enough of a man’s world that much has been made of this season’s crop of women-driven shows.

Leading the pack in terms of sheer amount of marketing were the sitcoms “Whitney “ and “New Girl,” closely followed by “Charlie’s Angels,” “Pan Am,” and the short-lived “Playboy Club.” But while these shows, along with “2 Broke Girls” center around the lives of women, their messages about feminism are wildly diverse.

“Whitney” and “New Girl” are the weakest of the bunch, and not just in terms of entertainment value. Both female leads – the titular Whitney, and Jess, the ‘new girl’ – focus their energy less on their own lives and more on how the men in those lives view them. In Whitney’s case, her live-in boyfriend is the recipient of her frantic, abrasively cutesy energy; for the aggressively quirky Jess, it’s both the boyfriend she recently dumped and the three men she now lives with.

These sitcoms have been promoted as part of a new breed of television, in no small part because both shows were created by women. But with their reliance on sloppy gender stereotypes and worn-out clichés about sex and dating, the only revolutionary part of “Whitney” and “New Girl” are how well they’d fit on any TV schedule of the past thirty years. That said, it’s hard to get too worked up about either show being an affront to feminism; they’re too boring and soft to be truly memorable.

The same could be said for “Charlie’s Angels,” a slick update of the 1970s drama. While the action revolves around elaborate crimes and the women that solve them, the three leads are ciphers, attractive women whose clothing choices stand in for personality. The original show was groundbreaking in its depiction of strong women working in a traditionally male field, but the reboot is too generic to say anything new about women’s roles in either detective work or society in general.

“2 Broke Girls” and “Pan Am” come the closest in making positive feminist statements. The latter is a drama set in 1963, and revolves around the lives of four Pan Am stewardesses. These women are well aware that they’re living in a world where appearance counts and men run the show, but they are also unapologetic in making a place for themselves in this world however they can. “Pan Am” allows viewers to rejoice at what has changed – flight attendants are no longer forced to quit their jobs when they marry, for example – but also subtly points out that a lot has stayed the same over the past four decades, too.

The sitcom “2 Broke Girls,” which focuses on two waitresses with dreams of opening a cupcake shop, depicts women as just as confused, funny, and sex-obsessed as their male counterparts have been portrayed for decades. In this show, the main characters are actual people, not creatures rendered inscrutable simply because they possess vaginas. When it comes to popular culture, this may be the most revolutionary message of all.

When Wombs Speak Louder Than Words

2011-10-06T04:20:00.001-07:00

Next week, anti-choice activists bring the latest assault on reproductive rights to Washington, D.C. On October 13, the "Voices from the Womb" tour will set up shop at the Capitol Visitor's Center, offering both the public and members of Congress the chance to stop by and watch ultrasounds being performed on women in their first, second, or third trimester of pregnancy. The purpose of this The purpose of this fetal theater is allegedly to show the truth about abortion. What is that truth, you ask? Oh, just that an ultrasound image is so powerful, it erases all doubt that life begins at conception, establishes the personhood and humanity of a fetus, thereby giving the fetus protection under the 14^th Amendment, and calls the very legality of Roe v. Wade into question.

This isn't exactly a new strategy, but it's still worth taking a closer look at. In a nutshell, the 14th Amendment was established after the Civil War to give ex-slaves full rights; it establishes the citizenship of any person born or naturalized in the U.S., guarantees that U.S. citizens have procedural and substantive due process, and grants citizens equal protection of the laws. Arguably the most single important part of the Constitution, this amendment has been essential for safe-guarding individual rights.

If fetuses are established as people from the moment of conception, the anti-choice argument goes, then they are granted the same rights and protections as any other citizen, and the validity of Roe would be called into question. Of course, this push to grant fetuses equal personhood ignores the multitude of difficult legal and ethical issues that would also arise - in particular, in regards to stem cell research, in-vitro fertilization, and contraceptive use. While it's no great surprise that such issues don't seem to trouble anti-choicers, these considerations are just some of the reasons that stunts like Voices from the Womb should concern anyone that values their right to make their own decisions about birth control, to say nothing of their reproductive freedom.

While equating the value of an ultrasound with full rights under the law may be a bridge too far even for the current Supreme Court justices, this kind of grandiosity is par for the course for the anti-choice side, which places the importance of the fetus above the importance of all else – up to and especially women. Nowhere in Voices from the Womb’s propaganda is there any mention of the women that are carrying these fetuses; they are merely vessels, in the most literal sense.

These anti-choicers, like the ones behind Ohio’s scarily restrictive fetal heartbeat bill, are attempting to manipulate emotions and ignore the basic fact that every woman has a right to decide when and if to have a child. These ultrasound images just show something that virtually anyone with a basic grasp of biology knows: that a human fetus resembles a human. To accord these fetuses “voices” and propose that their rights outweigh those of actual, existing women is insulting and ignorant.

While I'm not familiar with any formal response from the mainstream abortion rights groups, that doesn't mean that this issue isn't deserving of our attention - and our voices. Next Thursday's event is just the first of a planned multi-year tour that will bring Voices from the Womb to schools, churches, parks, and other locations around the country (including next year's Democratic National Convention) in the interests of manipulating emotions and trampling women's rights. Contact your senators and representatives and let them know that you don't support this threat to choice.

After 39 Years, Maude Gets Some Company

2011-09-28T08:59:00.000-07:00

Last week, a milestone of sorts was reached for network television shows. For the first time in almost four decades, a primary character not only chose to have an abortion, but actually went through with the procedure.

Grey’s Anatomy has addressed a number of emotional and intense topics in its previous seven seasons, and as befits a medical soap opera, the situations and results have sometimes felt more far-fetched and nonsensical than organic and realistic. Yet the plotline involving whether surgeon Cristina Yang would continue a pregnancy that her husband very much wanted, or have the abortion that she desired played out in an even-handed manner that neither demonized Cristina for not wanting to be a mother or made light of her husband’s yearning to be a father.

TV shows have danced around the abortion issue plenty, of course. After all, what better way to inject some drama into a show than an unexpected pregnancy? It’s not unheard of for secondary characters to have abortions, as the late, great Friday Night Lights showed with its wonderful teen abortion storyline last year. Nor is it taboo for characters to have had abortions in “the past” – i.e., before the show takes place – as Sex and the City and Grey’s itself have demonstrated. In addition, main characters on cable shows like Rescue Me and Degrassi: The Next Generation have also had abortions.

So why is it such a big deal that Maude Findlay and her 1972 abortion now have some mainstream, prime-time company? After all, millions of women have abortions every year – not that you’d know it from the lack of vocal and visible support that abortion rights receive in this country.

It’s not as though one episode of one television show will reverse this problem, but when the media consistently portrays abortion as the choice that dare not speak its name, the validity and acceptability of this choice is diminished and relegated to the realm of “the other,” the option so foreign that it might as well not exist in TV-land. “It’s interesting because it’s true,” Shonda Rimes, the creator of Grey’s (and a board member of Planned Parenthood, Los Angeles), said recently about the rarity of a main character having an abortion. “I feel like it doesn’t happen often and they don’t talk about it and it feels ridiculous to me because it is a legal choice in our country.”

Update: Maryland Clinic Landlord’s Successful Anti-Anti Campaign

2011-09-25T11:46:00.001-07:00

The other week, I wrote about Todd Stave, the landlord of Germantown Reproductive Services in Maryland. Todd and his family had been the target of anti-choice protestors, who were incensed that Dr. LeRoy Carhart had been performing abortions at the clinic since late last year.

I’m happy to report that the campaign against the anti-choicers that were harassing the Stave family at home, through email, and at school has been a great success! Thousands of people from all over the world joined the campaign to politely yet firmly respond to the protestors; 80% of those contacted don’t want anything more to do with this kind of protest, and Todd’s name, address, and phone number have been removed from anti-choice websites.

To learn more about the campaign and Voice of Choice, an organization that has been established to counter anti-choice harassment, check out Todd’s recent interview on Rachel Maddow’s show.

Focusing on Common Ground?

2011-09-19T11:52:00.001-07:00

Focus on the Family isn’t exactly what you’d call a pro-choice-friendly organization. But recently the conservative, evangelical group announced that it would like to open up conversations with abortion rights organizations, in the interest of establishing a dialogue around abortion.

In particular, Focus’s president Jim Daly raised this question on his radio show in February: “How do we sit down with people who may disagree with us, so that we can eliminate 10,000, 20,000, 300,000 of the 1.2 million babies lost every year?” While this may sound like a plea to do away with abortion entirely, Gary Schneeberger, Focus’s vice president for communications, says that the organization“would be open to dialogue on the subject of birth control.”

My initial reaction upon hearing this news is to roll my eyes and move on. After all, this is a group doesn’t think that abortion should be legal in the first place, so finding common ground might be a bit of a challenge. Not to mention that the organization is coming from a religious-centered view that isn’t always the most tolerant or understanding.

Though to be fair, my perspective may be a bit skewed because of the barrage of anti-choice messages that flooded my (rarely used, back-up email) inbox last week. I took part in Todd Stave’s campaignagainst the anti-choicers that were harassing him and his family, and a number of the people I contacted decided to respond. Most of the messages didn’t bother me, as they were clearly form responses that drew heavily from the writings of a religion that I don’t believe in. But there were a few, particularly ones that compared abortion to the Holocaust, that were particularly odious and ignorant.

That said, there’s a world of difference between an in-person discussion and an email exchange. I’ve had terrific face-to-face conversations with antis, as have a lot of other activists. And establishing an open dialogue can be an effective way not just to share ideas but also to learn more about just why people are against abortion. After all, it’s hard to change people’s minds if you don’t know the reasons that they feel that way in the first place.

Although in the case of Focus on the Family, it’s a bit unclear how much success the group will have with their outreach. According to the Colorado Public News, not one of the ten pro-choice or religious groups that the paper contacted had been approached by Focus since Daly first made his offer to talk. Focus on the Family’s response came via email from a spokesperson, who wrote that “…this is a delicate situation and one we want to protect with the highest level of confidence and respect.”

So, sincere attempt at finding a common ground or simply an off-the-cuff remark? Stay tuned …

Virginia Approves Restrictive Clinic Regulations

2011-09-15T13:07:00.000-07:00

Well, this is just crappy: today the Virginia Board of Health voted 12-1 to uphold new restrictions on the the state's abortion clinics. The decision followed a standing-room-only meeting to hear comments on the regulations, which will place hospital-level operating and building requirements on all 21 abortion clinics in the state.

Proponents of the regulations claim that they will make abortions safer for women, although the procedure is extremely safe already. Approximately 26,000 abortions are performed in Virginia hospitals and clinics every year; between 1999 and 2009, one woman died as a result of complications. Compare that to the eleven women that died in 2009 alone as a result of pregnancy and childbirth complications. Not to mention that clinics in Virginia only perform first-trimester abortions, which are widely regarded as the safest kind of abortion to perform.

I don't know, I'm not really seeing how mandating covered entryways and high ceilings will ensure that an already-safe procedure will become even safer. But if these regulations are so necessary, then why aren't other stand-alone clinics that provide invasive surgical services, like eye surgery or plastic surgery, being held to the same standards?

Interestingly enough, a majority of Virginians are in favor of abortion: 50 percent feel that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 41 percent do not. Support for the new regulations, however, appears to depend to a certain extent on how the regulations themselves are explained. The same poll that found the 50-41 split also showed that the majority of respondents supported the restrictions; a separate survey found that a majority actually opposed them.

While the reasons for these discrepancies could constitute a post of their own, the short answer seems to be that how the question is asked, and what additional information is provided, matters a great deal. Which makes me wonder, what kind of pro-choice messaging would be most useful in a situation like this? I live just on the other side of the Potomac from Virginia, but hadn't heard too much about any outreach or media campaigns, though NARAL Virginia's website has information on the regulations front and center, and several clinics offer information on their sites as well.

The question of how to get the pro-choice viewpoint across to the general public has a seemingly endless number of answers. Some people are in favor of trying to find common ground with anti-choicers; some prefer direct confrontation. There are those that think the most powerful message revolves around personal autonomy, those that think it's women's health, and others that emphasize contraception access and education. This diversity of approaches and viewpoints seems only fitting given the complexity and emotion of the issue, and the staggering range of tactics that anti-choicers employ.

Somehow I have the feeling that, with three months left in the Year of Anti-Choice Laws and the 2012 elections, there will be plenty of opportunities for pro-choice messaging of all kinds.

Maryland Clinic Landlord Under Attack

2011-09-13T07:05:00.001-07:00

It was no real surprise that anti-choicers protested Germantown Reproductive Services late last year. After all, Dr. LeRoy Carhart had just begun seeing patients at the Maryland clinic, and the provider has long drawn the ire of antis.

But now the protestors have shifted their focus away from Dr. Carhart and onto Todd Stave, the clinic’s landlord, and his family. Antis are standing outside his child’s middle school with graphic signs; they are publicizing his picture, home address, and phone number; and they are deluging his family with phone calls at home.

Anti-choice groups, including Defend Life and the Maryland Coalition for Life, are urging their supporters to contact Todd; unsurprisingly, their websites use incredibly inflammatory language, warning that Maryland could become the late-term child killing capital of the world. So far, though, the antis that are calling have avoided similar rhetoric.

“I wish that everybody that contacts me was this nice,” Todd told me. “They’re very polite, calm, very sweet on the phone.” So he would like to respond in kind, without aggression or threat - but with an overwhelming amount of calls and emails. Todd is putting a campaign together that would, in his words, “call and email each of these ‘concerned citizens’ back. It would be 100 times as thoughtful if each of the people who called or emailed me got 100 calls or emails” that thanked them for their opinions and prayers and informed them that the anti-choice messages contained incorrect information.

Anti-choice protestors have used tactics like harassment and invasion of privacy for years, and they need to know that what they are doing is unacceptable. Not to mention protesting at a middle school, though harassing children in the name of “saving” fetuses might qualify as the definition of irony. Unintended English lesson aside, these people are going after a man is well within his rights to be the landlord of this safe, respected, and established clinic.

If you would like to help Todd Stave and his family, please contact enddlterrorism@gmail.com for more information. Todd doesn’t need anything more than an email address, and he’ll keep all information that he receives confidential.

Virginia Abortion Clinics Face New Hurdles

2011-09-05T12:57:00.001-07:00

The Washington Post published a great op-ed over the Labor Day weekend in support of Virginia abortion clinics. Why is this noteworthy? Well, anti-choice politicians in the state have decided that it’s of the utmost importance to hold abortion clinics to expensive and unnecessary standards that have nothing to do with patient safety and everything to do with putting clinics out of business.

Before we take a closer look at some of these proposed regulations, consider that the clinics that would be affected only perform first-trimester abortions. These are widely considered to be the safest kind of abortions; in general, first-trimester procedures are done in five to fifteen minutes and require a local anesthesia, as opposed to the more intense twilight or general forms.

Yet for some reason, Virginia politicians have decided that a woman isn’t really safe going for a first-trimester abortion unless her clinic has ceilings that are at least seven feet, ten inches high. Or unless the building has a covered entranceway. Because really, that’s what’s important when it comes to abortion care: ensuring that clinics adhere to the same building requirements that new construction projects must meet.

Apparently, these concerns are so pressing that the Virginia legislature is pulling out all the stops to address them as soon as possible. These kinds of regulatory changes generally take as long as two years to go into effect, but the General Assembly voted earlier this year to ensure that the rules will be written no more than 280 days after the bill is signed into law.

It’s no secret that abortion clinics aren’t exactly flush with cash, and it’s also no secret that building renovations are pretty expensive. According to abortion-rights advocates, if these regulations are signed into law (Governor Bob McDonnell supports the measure), as many as 17 of the state’s 21 clinics could have to close their doors.

Abortion clinics should be held to standards that ensure the safety and well-being of their patients. Every health center, whether a hospital, community clinic, or outpatient surgery center, should have to operate under standards that put the patient first. But if it is so imperative that abortion clinics update their facilities to meet new construction standards, or implement new measures for handling patient records, then why not mandate that every health clinic meet these requirements? Why just single out abortion clinics, if what is really at stake is patient safety?

Or, as the Post so aptly put it:

Regulatory shenanigans and legal sleight of hand should not be used to undermine Virginia women’s constitutionally protected rights by shuttering facilities that have been safely providing such services for decades.

Abortion in Advertising

2011-08-30T16:44:00.000-07:00

I read a ridiculously high number of fashion magazines for someone that doesn’t wear makeup and considers a new pair of Levi’s a major splurge. But what caught my eye while flipping through the latest batch of glossies was the advertisement for Kenneth Cole that appears to the right of this post.

Ads seeking to make a social or political statement are nothing new. In the 1980s and 1990s, the clothing company Benetton used striking and often controversial images in its advertisements. From the famous image of AIDS activist David Kirby on his deathbed surrounded by family; to a picture of a white child, hair in blond ringlets, grinning next to a black child, hair in devil’s horns; to an array of multi-colored condoms, Benetton made a point of tackling the hot-button social issues of those decades.

Though Kenneth Cole’s new abortion-themed ad is part of the company’s recently launched “Where Do You Stand” campaign, which also addresses gun control, gay marriage, and war, this isn’t the first time that the fashion company has combined advertising with social awareness. A handbag ad from 1997 includes the words “It is a woman’s right to choose. After all, she’s the one carrying it”; other ads from that decade focused on AIDS, homelessness and, perhaps most amusingly, Dan Quayle.

Like the Benetton ads, those earlier Kenneth Cole campaigns met with their fair share of controversy. The Where Do You Stand campaign has also drawn criticism, with detractors charging that combining social commentary with fashion trivializes the issues that Cole is highlighting.

While I can understand that viewpoint, I have to respectfully disagree. Those Benetton ads that I mentioned above were ones that I saw almost twenty years ago, yet they remain fresh in my mind today. I wasn’t even that familiar with Benetton’s clothes, but I was intrigued that there were full-page ads in Rolling Stone and other mainstream magazines that showed such stark, beautiful, and daring images. As Spike Lee wrote in a 1992 essay about Benetton, “If it’s provocative enough, it might make people sit down and discuss it, talk about the message.” Those ads certainly made me think about the issues they illustrated, and I was far from the only one affected. Likewise, the “abortion” page of Where Do You Stand’s website is full of diverse opinions about abortion and a woman’s right to choose.

Then again, I’m of the opinion that any chance to bring abortion into everyday conversation is a good one – even if the conversation revolves around figuring out why an ad for shoes is talking about abortion. We live in a society that shies away from talking about abortion in movies and on television; we have prominent politicians that are eager to strip funding from Planned Parenthood. If Kenneth Cole can help normalize discussions about abortion rights and their precarious place in our society, then I’m all for it.

The CPC in A2

2011-08-23T07:44:00.000-07:00

I grew up, and went to college, in the very liberal town of Ann Arbor, Michigan. I've made all the same jokes about how preciously progressive the city can be, how darn proud of itself it is sometimes, but I also feel fortunate to have lived so long in such a laid-back town. Which is why it was a shock when, on a trip home to see my parents last week, I stumbled upon a crisis pregnancy center.

The CPC was right downtown, barely two blocks away from the center of campus. The signboard propped on the sidewalk outside the coffee ship was purple and white, and in graceful script it advertised free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds in the store below the cafe. "I will bet you money that's a crisis pregnancy clinic," I told my mom as I committed the website to memory. And sure enough, when I looked it up later, my suspicion was confirmed.

"I thought it was just a clinic!" one of my friends who lives in town told me when I mentioned the CPC. Her words were almost a perfect echo of my parents', who had noticed the cheerful sign before but just assumed that its mission was to help women - not, as the CPC's website claimed, to discuss the symptoms of so-called "post abortion syndrome" and spread other anti-choice propaganda.

When I worked in direct service, women would occasionally tell me stories of visiting CPCs. They were drawn in by the promise of free pregnancy testing and ultrasounds, by the words "choice" and "options." These women thought that they were going somewhere that would help them, but instead they experienced harassment, lies, and judgment. One young woman had her confidentiality violated when the CPC told her partner's mother and said she was considering having an abortion. The woman had left the CPC in tears, frightened and confused. She still wanted an abortion, but was now too scared to even think of going to another clinic.

And that's what really bothers me about CPCs - well, along with the fact that they often receive state funding. And are often run by people who lack medical training yet are doling out medical advice and reading ultrasounds. But it's the fact that they apparently have so little faith in women's ability to make up their own minds that they resort to such underhanded tactics. I know that if a woman really wants an abortion, visiting a CPC won't change her mind. But women already have to bypass so many hurdles to obtain a legal medical service - and here is one more, masquerading as an unbiased and respectful source of information.

I don't know how long the CPC in Ann Arbor will stick around. After all, even this liberal bubble has protestors outside the Planned Parenthood on Saturday morning. But winter comes fast to the Midwest, so at least that sign will have to go inside before too much longer.

Logical Family

2011-08-14T14:10:00.000-07:00

I have never been accused of being overly sentimental. Or even often appropriately sentimental, come to think of it. I don't cry at emotional movies or books or even the sappy commercials on TV that are fine-tuned to go straight for the heartstrings. And at the wedding my husband and I, and a bunch of our friends, attended last weekend, I was the only person out of our friends not to get at least a little choked up when the (gorgeous and very happy looking!) bride came down the aisle.

Cross-country flights and endless trips on overheated buses are good for very few things, as I've learned during these last few weeks of travel, but they did give me ample time to think (and inhale downloaded episodes of "Downton Abbey.") Last week's red-eye was right after this wedding, after saying good-bye to some very good friends that I see much to rarely. These are friends I've known for years, who make up the bulk of my fondest memories of living to New York after I finished grad school. I moved to the city knowing about four people, but within a week one of those friends brought me into his circle of friends. There were dramas and disagreements and inter-circle frustrations and hook-ups and break-ups, and a camaraderie and affection you're lucky to have among friends once in your life. I've been blessed to find it three times, and each time I know just how fortunate I've been.

In his book "Michael Tolliver Lives," Armistead Maupin explores the idea of a "logical family" - the one that, unlike a biological family, you get to choose. One of the things I love best about all three logical families is that in many ways they've all been so very illogical, full of people I've met through the most random of circumstances and on the surface have so very little in common with. Yet we've recognized something in each other, something too intangible to name but strong enough to sustain friendships for years despite distance and different lifestyles.

I could go on but, well, that would mean devolving into sentiment, and that's not going to happen. Let it suffice to say that while I don't get choked up at weddings and haven't cried over a book since I read "Flowers in the Attic" in 1991, hanging out with my logical family was awesome enough to make even the crazy-long flights and past week of travel-related exhaustion and illness, so incredibly worth it.

A Few Words for Borders

2011-07-26T08:43:00.000-07:00

I grew up in Ann Arbor, which is most commonly known as the home of the University of Michigan. But it's also the home of Borders, which closed last week.

I have fond memories of going to the original bookstore every weekend with my family, and leaving with at least one book, which I'd start reading on the car ride home. The store was long and tall, and the kids section was on the second floor, looking out over the rest of the store.

After college I worked at the store for a few months. The actual space was newer and much larger, and I quickly discovered that I much preferred being a Borders customer to an employee. I didn't like the policy that forbid employees from reading behind the desk, even if there was nothing else to do, and overall the environment was more corporate than I had expected. But still, I spent every workday surrounded by books, and as a recent grad who had no idea what to do with her life, I welcomed all of the ready distractions.

Any sort of distractions would come in handy right now, as the news is full of horrible stories of the Norway shooting, and Amy Winehouse's death, and an endlessly squabbling government. It all makes me want to curl up with a good book or trashy magazine and read away the hours, not aware of anything beyond the page.

The Gray Area

2011-07-19T09:18:00.000-07:00

Earlier this week, Salon ran a letter in their advice column, from a self-described pro-choice woman who regretted having an abortion. It’s a moving and honest letter, and it got me thinking about whether there is space in the pro-choice movement for stories that occupy a gray area: women who appreciate the right to choose, but without hesitation admit that their choice was not the right one.

Anti-choice websites are full of lurid tales of women who regret their abortions. They all follow a narrative of despair and weakness, culminating in the woman declaring her remorse and sending a message that any woman who has an abortion will find herself in the same hopeless situation, so it’s better to not have the abortion in the first place. In recent years pro-choicers have responded with websites and organizations that value all the disparate emotions that can result from a termination, and make it their mission to help women explore those emotions in a safe and non-judgmental manner.

This is a good step, and a needed one. The pro-choice movement can not expect to survive if it does not allow every kind of story to be told, even the ones that cause others to examine their own values and biases. Part of my training when I was in direct service was discussing the assumptions and stereotypes people hold about who gets an abortion. How do we feel when a woman regrets her abortion? Do we think that her story is important and valuable because it speaks to the very necessity of personal choice, or is it dangerous because it could give weight to the anti-choice belief that abortion is a regrettable decision?

But these stories need to be shared just as frequently as any other abortion story, because a huge part of making abortion more acceptable to society at large is having the freedom to talk about this gray area. The anti-choice side would like to pretend that every woman that has an abortion is a victim, and that therefore no one should be allowed to make that choice. But you can be grateful to have the right to choose an abortion and hope that you don’t have to make that choice, or regret that you did. By embracing the full range of emotions and experiences around this essential choice, we can help break down the stigma and shame that so many people associate with abortion, and make sure that every woman’s voice is heard.

Doin' the Defunding Dance

2011-07-13T13:00:00.000-07:00

Another week, another state pulling the plug on Planned Parenthood. Yesterday the New Hampshire Executive Council, composed entirely of Republicans, voted 3-2 to cancel the state's contract with the besieged healthcare provider. In addition to losing $1.8 million in state money, Planned Parenthood has lost its ability to provide contraceptives and antibiotics to women that don't have health insurance. According to TPM, women had been able to fill prescriptions at PP for an average of $5. This decision is expected to affect approximately 120 women each day.

So what's the rationale that politicians in the "Live Free or Die" state have used for curtailing women's healthcare choices? In the words of council member Raymond Wieczorek, "I am opposed to abortion. I am opposed to providing condoms to someone. If you want to have a party, have a party but don’t ask me to pay for it."

This statement is so breathtakingly stupid and dismissive, I don't even know where to begin. For one thing, Wieczorek is overlooking the very simple fact that government money can not pay for abortions. A spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of New England has said that the organization is subject to audits to ensure that only private money is used for abortions.

For another, it's fine to be personally opposed to abortions. It's fine to be personally opposed to condoms. But to push those personal opinions on other people - to restrict the ability of people to make the best, most responsible decisions for themselves - is disgusting. If Wieczorek really wanted to ensure that the people of his state made decisions that they could afford, he would support any and all efforts to provide low-cost, safe contraceptive services. By taking away a choice used by hundreds of women a week, the state that is commonly associated with personal freedom and independence, has dealt a severe blow to individual choice.

It's a Pregnancy, Not a Political Prop

2011-07-03T11:42:00.000-07:00

One woman became unexpectedly pregnant for a third time. Another woman very briefly considered having an abortion after learning that she was pregnant with a special-needs child.

Both women decided to continue with their pregnancies. Not every woman would have made the same choice, but these women were able to make the decision that was best for them and their families. The first woman had a miscarriage; the second woman had a child with Downs’s Syndrome.

Unexceptional, common stories, right? Except that the first woman is GOP presidential candidate Michelle Bachmann, and the second woman is perennial maybe-candidate Sarah Palin. Both women have spoken publicly about how their very personal pregnancy decisions have underscored their commitment to anti-choice policies and beliefs.

Well, that’s their prerogative. After all, people have all sorts of reasons for their various belief systems, and personal experience can definitely shape what someone feels and believes. But Palin and Bachmann don’t seem to be the kind of people that can think well, this was my experience, and someone else might have chosen differently, and that’s okay. They both seem to believe that their way is the only way.

I find Bachmann’s intolerance particularly scary, both because she seems the more viable candidate (as of now) and because she’s gone on the record as supporting some pretty whacked-out positions. For example, Bachmann signed the “Life at Conception Act,” which declared that the Constitutionally-guaranteed right to life kicks in at the moment of fertilization (or cloning), and gives fetuses equal protection under the 14^th Amendment. Bachmann also supports prohibiting federal funding to Planned Parenthood; reporting on Medicaid payments to abortion providers; and restricting stem cell research.

For her part, Palin has adopted an “If I can do it, everyone can!” attitude towards pregnancy and parenthood. She has accused pro-choice feminists of telling young women that they can’t handle motherhood and also pursue a career or an education, and avows that “[I]t's about compassion and letting these scared young women know that there will be some help there for them to raise their children in those less-than-ideal circumstances. … I believe this so strongly because I've been there. I never planned on being the mother of a son with special needs. I thought, ‘God will never give me something I can't handle.’”

What Palin doesn’t seem to realize, or care about, is that not everyone is like her. Not every woman facing an unplanned pregnancy, or learning that her child will have special needs, is well-off, married, or secure in her career. The myopia displayed by Palin and Bachmann would be laughable were it not so dangerous – but in truth, this myopia is dangerous only because so many people in this country seem to be affected by the same condition. There is such a lack of basic compassion and empathy around the issue of pregnancy and abortion; and such a rush to judgment, and a rush to exclaim that because something worked for one person, it will work for everyone. Watching these politicians in action is to be reminded just how easy it is to oversimplify and marginalize other people’s choices and decisions, and just how strongly such smugness and self-righteousness seems to resonate with their supporters.

Would I have made the same decision as either Michelle Bachmann or Sarah Palin? I don’t know. Does it matter? Not a damn bit. I respect that they have the right to make a private decision. I just with that they would respect mine.

Head, Meet Desk

2011-06-24T12:26:00.000-07:00

I caught the season finale of "16 & Pregnant" earlier this week, and while MTV may not have aped the usual season-finale-playbook -- no cliffhangers, no shocking revelations -- they did manage to end on a more-terrifying-than-usual note. So, um, way to go?

The teenage couple - she's 16, he's 15 - were no more or less clueless than the usual subjects of this show. Also per usual there was a lone voice of reason (in this case, baby daddy's grandmother) and a chorus of supportive yet grammatically challenged friends. At least the "like" count was relatively low; if you were playing the "drink every time someone says 'like'", you'd only get slightly drunk. Small favors, I suppose, though shitfaced may have been the best way to watch this trainwreck.

Baby daddy's mom was a confessed opiate addict, who had been using on and off for over ten years. Baby daddy's dad appeared to live with the family, as did at least one young sibling, but really, who could focus when addict mom was on screen, screaming and overreacting and in general looking like she was about a second away from punching her son's pregnant girlfriend. Who was living with this family, because her mom lived out of state and her father kicked her out when she told him she was pregnant. Both of her parents had pushed either adoption or abortion, yet for whatever reason she and her boyfriend decided that they were fully capable of raising a child.

Excuse me while I hit my head on the desk out of frustration. There, that's better.

There's no doubt that this couple had dealt with challenging and complicated situations that adults twice their age probably couldn't handle. They get a ton of credit for that, and for trying as best as they could to not repeat their parents' mistakes. That said, I couldn't help wondering if baby daddy's face was frozen in the smirk position, and if either of these kids had considered that maybe the best way not to repeat their parents' mistakes was to get a good education and get the hell away from their families.

But the image that really stands out in my mind was when the pregnant girl mentioned to the Friend Chorus that her parents had wanted her to consider adoption or abortion. At the word "abortion," one of the friends gave this impressively wide-eyed reaction shot, shaking her head and smirking slightly herself. All that was a thought bubble reading, "Oh no they didn't!"

Because bringing a child into the world when you have no money, no supportive family, no high school diploma, and a partner that can't even legally drive is always the best choice. Uh-huh.

That study that came out recently, that watching "16 & Pregnant" and "Teen Mom" makes people more likely to support abortion? Not a surprise. At all. I'd be willing to bet that watching these shows also drives up support for comprehensive sex education and affordable contraception, because apparently a lot of teens don't get that you actually have to use pills and condoms for them to work. As opposed to what I'm guessing is their preferred method: "cross your fingers and hope really, really hard he's shooting blanks."

By the end of the episode, the boyfriend's mom had gone to rehab, the teen parents broke up, and baby mama plus son were couch-surfing with friends until the end of the school year. So, one good outcome; one totally predictable outcome; and one outcome that's incredibly depressing. Which, come to think of it, is actually a pretty good ratio for this show. Happy hiatus!

Sex Ed

2011-06-14T13:36:00.000-07:00

The other week I found myself in a contraception conversation with two recent college grads. I don't remember how we got on the topic, but I do remember being shocked at how much they didn't know about birth control.

I don't know if this lack of knowledge came from a lack of interest or a lack of education, or having equally misinformed friends, or some combination of all of the above. But they did go to high school when abstinence-only education was all the federally-funded rage, and anecdotally speaking, this kind of education does tend to, shall we say, lead to less-than-comprehensive knowledge.

I missed out on the storied high school sex ed class. I got the age-appropriate education in elementary and junior high school (I have fond memories of the filmstrip "Captain Condom"), but I went had a late birthday. This meant that I took private driver's ed classes so I could get my license on time, and therefore missed the more traditional health class; and because my high school was small and alternative, we didn't have another teacher to teach straight-out sex ed. So my classmates and I educated each other under the guidance of a sub, and amazingly enough, that wasn't a complete disaster. Among other gems I learned that semester was to never get a tattoo in Israel - advice that has actually served me well in life.

Perhaps due to a fondness for subjects that made my parents squirm, I had already picked up a decent amount of sex ed on my own, thanks to a school library that carried Cosmo and a deep interest in the AIDS epidemic. As I got older I also discovered a taste for conversations that made potential sex partners squirm, and dove into the "so what would you do if I got knocked up?" conversations with bizarre relish.

I just finished reading this week's installment of New York magazine's Sex Diary, which was entertaining in its usual "is this for real?" manner. I used to edit for a porn website; hell, I used to live with a bunch of guys. We decorated our living room with a picture of the female anatomy and held a viewing party for "Deep Throat" and hid the porn magazines when anyone's parents visited. So yeah, I'm pretty pro-sex.

But I'm also a fan of full disclosure. If you have questions about your birth control, ask your doctor or nurse. If you have no clue what your partner would do in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, ask. Our society spends so much time talking, reading, legislating about sex. The least we can do is make sure that when it comes to the actual act, we know just what it is we're doing.

Re-entry

2011-06-07T05:41:00.000-07:00

There's no shortage of pro-choice news floating around this week, much of it of the nature that makes me want to bang my head against a wall. Intrusive state governments, restrictive new laws, and a would-be doctor killer, oh my!

As juicy as all of this is for any writer, I can't quite get too invested in any of it right now. I've spent the past few days in a major pain fog, and though I'm about 90% recovered, I still feel like I'm playing catch-up with my life. And catch-up with my brain, too -- the amount of typos I've made (and, fortunately, caught) in these few sentences is truly humbling.

It's really hard to describe intense pain accurately. Every time my doctors or physical therapists or interested bystanders ask what it feels like, I fumble and stammer and stretch my relatively large vocabulary to the breaking point to come up with something more insightful than "fucking awful." It's like being wrapped in cotton and seeing the world through a hazy cloud; like having blood and muscle replaced by concrete and lead. Like being Charlie as his intelligence recedes and he knows something is slipping away but can't quite remember what it is. When I'm in the depths of intense pain, intellectually I know that it will pass. But for those hours or days, I can't conceive of a pain-free life.

Sounds melodramatic? Of course it does. Which is why I always fumble for words, because as hard as that is to type, it's even more awkward to verbalize to the bored-looking doctor or confused med student. Especially because nine times out of ten, what we're talking about is already in the past, and when I'm feeling reasonably healthy, it's just as hard to believe that I'll ever be in so much pain again. This is self-preservation, I guess; this is how we compensate.

So for now I'll skate on the surface of my life, afraid that this fragile health is just that, and the slightest wrong turn will pull me right back under again.

Remembering Dr. Tiller

2011-05-31T06:51:00.000-07:00

Today marks two years since Dr. George Tiller was killed in Wichita, Kansas. One of the few physicians in the United States that would publicly identify as a late-term abortion provider, Dr. Tiller had survived an earlier assassination attempt and countless incidents of harassment before Scott Roeder entered Dr. Tiller’s church and shot him.

The past two years have brought a contentious health-care battle, a sustained threat to defund Planned Parenthood, and an avalanche of legislative measures aimed at restricting abortion access all over the country. Nebraska and Indiana have banned abortions after the 20th week of pregnancy; Minnesota is working on a similar measure. Texas recently passed a bill requiring that women see a sonogram 24 hours before being allowed to have an abortion. South Dakota’s House of Representatives has approved a bill that requires women to visit a crisis pregnancy center before they can obtain abortion care.

This relentless onslaught of anti-choice legislation has been the subject of much attention because of what it says about individual politicians and state governments, not to mention the federal budget. But as the anniversary of Dr. Tiller’s death approaches, now is also the time to consider the effect of such strident and relentless legislation on the next generation of abortion providers.

Abortion is one of the most common medical procedures in the United States; approximately one-third of American women will have had an abortion by the age of 45. Yet according to the Guttmacher Institute, 87 percent of counties in this country do not have an abortion provider. The non-profit organization Medical Students for Choice reports that 97 percent of family planning residents and 36 percent of OB/GYN residents have not received training in first-trimester abortion procedures.

Even with the appropriate training, this work can be incredibly isolating. Not only are these physicians often the sole abortion provider in their communities, but they can also be ostracized and ignored by their colleagues in other fields. Relatively few providers operate within a mainstream practice group or hospital—while private OB/GYNs may perform abortions for established patients, they are generally the exception rather than the rule—and providers working at independent clinics don’t always have the chance to explore other medical interests outside of abortion care.

Yet even with these very real concerns, medical students and providers have instinctively grasped something that has eluded a large number of politicians: abortion is about so much more than ending a pregnancy. Sometimes it’s about keeping a college scholarship. Sometimes it’s about saying goodbye to a very wanted child that has been diagnosed with very severe fetal anomalies. Sometimes it’s about making the best decision for the children that a mother already has. And sometimes it’s about saving a woman’s life, even as providers are putting their own lives at risk.

“Do I think about safety? Of course,” a California physician and pro-choice activist told me shortly after Dr. Tiller’s death. “I think of my wife, and I think of my future. But I also think of my future patients. I am an abortion provider. And I will continue to provide full reproductive healthcare to every one of my patients.”

His resolve is shared by providers, residents, and medical students across the country. This resolve is all the more impressive considering that abortion providers are the only physicians in this country who routinely need to hire bodyguards, worry about their children’s schools being picketed, and wear bulletproof vests to work. As one Southern clinic owner summed it up, “It’s a shame to have to provide medical care in a war zone.”

The newest generation of providers is going into this war zone with their eyes wide open. They came of age in the 1990s, a decade in which seven people were murdered because they worked in the pro-choice field, and numerous clinics were vandalized, picketed, and even bombed. And the lesson they have drawn from all this—even Dr. Tiller’s murder—is one of courage, not fear.

“I think it would insult the memory of George Tiller for me to quit doing this because he got shot,” a New England OB/GYN told me in the summer of 2009. “I’m going to keep doing what I want to do. I’m going to do more.”

This post originally appeared on Feminists for Choice.

A Matter of Weeks

2011-05-25T08:42:00.000-07:00

An anti recently asked me, how late into a pregnancy should a woman be able to have an abortion? Because she asked me this in the comment section of Feminists for Choice, I kept my answer short and sweet, and simply said that that was something for a woman and her doctor to decide. I don’t think she really liked my response.

I’ve thought about this question a lot, and discussed it a lot over the years with friends and colleagues. And the answer I keep coming back to is exactly what I told that commenter: that it’s between a woman and her doctor.

Late-term abortions are almost overwhelmingly done because of health reasons. Either the fetus has been diagnosed with abnormalities that are incompatible with life, or the woman’s health is in such grave danger that continuing the pregnancy could be fatal (“health” can include not just a woman’s physical condition, but her mental and emotional state as well).

I’ve often said that no woman chooses to have an abortion on a whim, and this is doubly true for a late-term termination. The procedure generally takes several days, costs thousands of dollars, and more often then not requires women to travel significant distances to one of the few providers in the country that will perform abortions after 24 weeks.

Over the past year or so, the anti-choice movement has put forth the idea of fetal pain. Frankly, I think that this is bullshit. There is no science proving that such a thing exists; in fact, most experts are doubtful that an in-utero fetus is developed enough to recognize pain. Besides that, if a fetus actually can feel pain before it is born, wouldn’t the birth process just be agonizingly painful?

That’s just speculation, of course—much as the entire issue of fetal pain appears to be. What is not speculation are the actual, very real and very serious, circumstances that cause a woman to choose late-term abortion. Every case is different, but what connects them all is that this is an exceedingly personal and painful choice. So who am I to say when a woman can no longer be allowed to choose? I’m not a doctor, nor a pregnant woman. All I know is that if I were pregnant and found that either my health was at risk or my fetus would not survive childbirth, I would want every choice available, up to and including the right to an abortion.

The politicians behind Nebraska and Indiana’s 20-week limit are using their own paternalistic agenda to curtail the rights of women and families, and that is repugnant. How is it their right to tell someone what to do with their own health, with their own body? How does the decision of a woman they will never meet, whose name they will never know, affect their own well-being?

No matter the number of weeks, it is a personal decision. End of discussion.