RHRealityCheck.org's Blog

Sotomayor, Race and Gender: An Abortion Debate by Proxy

2009-06-12T14:41:31Z

Written by Pamela Merrit for RHRealityCheck.org - News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

When Supreme Court Justice David Souter announced that he intended to step down from the bench at the end of this year's Supreme Court term, there was a brief pause, a collective gathering in of air, followed by a frenzy of speculation that did not end until President Obama announced his selection of Judge Sonia Sotomayor as nominee. During the days of guesswork and anticipation that preceded Obama's nomination of Sotomayor, political odds-makers seemed to favor the selection of a woman, with most pundits leaning toward a woman of color, to replace Justice Souter. Everyone was on pins and needles, and who could blame us? During the 2008 elections, the that the next President would most likely have the opportunity to nominate more than one Supreme Court justice and shape the political climate of the court for decades to come was one of the key areas of concern.

Pro-choice groups hoped for a nominee with a judicial record supporting a woman's right to choose. Anti-choice groups busily combed through the records of likely nominees looking for ammunition to block a pro-choice nominee. And everyone seemed to agree that the big issue on the table during the nomination process was going to be abortion.

So, when President Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor many people were surprised to see the nominee's own race and gender, not her position on abortion, emerge as the key battleground issues.

I was not surprised, nor do I think the emergence of race and gender as issues during this pre-confirmation period means that abortion is off the table. To the contrary, abortion is one of the issues being debated by proxy. Charges that reverse racism and sexism might have an impact on Judge Sotomayor's decision making ability are really charges that she might decide cases concerning abortion rights, discrimination, and immigration rights differently than conservatives would like.

America did not miraculously become a post-racial society with the election of our first President of color and the storm over Judge Sotomayor's nomination is just one example of that. The issue at hand is not whether Sotomayor's claim that a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" translates into her being unable to rule without prejudice in favor of people of color. A review of Sotomayor's judicial record shows that she does not reflexively favor any group. In 96 race-related cases, she rejected discrimination claims by an approximate margin of 8 to 1.

The issue is also not whether Sotomayor's views on the role of gender in judicial matters--interpreted for the most part through that claim about what a "wise" Latina woman would do--will somehow translate into her ruling in favor of women and reproductive choice regardless of the merits of individual cases. As Jill Filipovic explores in her piece Fair and Balanced: Weighing Sotomayor's Opinions, "Sotomayor's only major abortion-related case was Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush - and her conclusion isn't going to warm the hearts of reproductive rights activists." The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy lost that case, which allowed the Global Gag Rule to remain in place until President Obama took office. Sotomayor has also ruled in favor of anti-abortion protestors in not one but two civil rights cases.

Jeremy Levitt, in a piece in the Orlando Sentinel (Sotomayor: Race-baiting and the unpatriotic right), asserts that Sotomayor has forwarded the basic premise that the gender, national origin and personal experiences impact a judge's decisions. Levitt, Associate Dean for International Programs and a distinguished professor of international law at Florida A&M University College of Law in Orlando, questions whether that assertion is really a "novel revelation" and he flat out rejects the idea that making that assertion is a public display of racism.

Despite Sotomayor's judicial record on race-related discrimination cases, she has been charged with the task of putting Republican Senators at ease and calming their fears that a wise Latina woman would rule with her heritage and gender in mind rather than the law. So even with pro-choice organizations seeking clarification and assurances from the White House that Sotomayor will uphold Roe and protect reproductive rights, Judge Sotomayor is being painted as a pro-choice liberal activist judge by conservative groups and bloggers.

That's because the overt questioning of Sotomayor's ability to judge fairly because she is a Latina has little to do with her judicial record. Conservative opponents of Judge Sotomayor's nomination fear that she will shift once appointed to the bench, much like they believe Justice Souter did, and they have latched on to her "wise Latina woman" statements as evidence that she is likely to shift toward the left. Another liberal justice on the Supreme Court would do more than maintain the status quo; it would make the next nomination a potential game changer and we should have no doubt that the game being played is over a woman's right to choose.

Judge Sotomayor now faces opposition that appears to agree with her premise that gender, national origin and personal experiences impact a judge's decisions. Conservatives not only validate the premise of her statement through their insistence that judges be "strict constructionists" with clear ties to the Republican party, they also validate it through their over the top condemnation of Sotomayor's assertion that a wise Latina woman would make different decisions that a white man. Beneath the surface is their acceptance that Judge Sotomayor is right; that a woman of color, empowered through the richness of her heritage, would reach a different decision than a white man. They ought to know, since they bet on that logic proving true with both so-called "strict constructionist" conservative judges they welcomed onto the Supreme Court during the Bush Administration. During the pre-confirmation period for Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, pro-choice activists mounted opposition because we knew that one person's stare decisis is another person's debatable precedent. Now conservatives opposing Judge Sotomayor are demonstrating that they know that one person's "better conclusion" is another person's judicial nightmare.

Musgrave Drains Campaign Funds to Train Anti-Choice ActivistsThe national antiabortion group, Susan

2009-06-11T13:30:48Z

Written by Wendy Norris. RHRealityCheck.org - News, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

The national antiabortion group, Susan B. Anthony List, is the recipient of a cool 50 grand courtesy of defeated U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave's campaign fund. The Fort Morgan conservative, who now works for the List's Votes Have Consequences outreach effort, will fund the "Young Leaders" training program, an initiative of the group's separate tax-exempt charitable education foundation.

That organizational do-si-do may allow Musgrave to effectively skirt a federal campaign finance rule that prohibits candidates from donating unused war chests to their employers.

Musgrave said of the contribution that will drain her federal campaign fund:

As technology advances and sonograms continue to offer compelling visual evidence of the humanity of unborn children, we're finding that the younger generation is more pro-life. I'm confident the Susan B. Anthony List Education Fund will effectively marshal the energy and enthusiasm found among young pro-lifers to be a voice for women and the unborn for years to come.

One of those young women leaders could be Kristi Burton, the 21-year-old Peyton resident who was the figurehead behind Amendment 48, the so-called personhood law that attempted to confer constitutional rights on fertilized eggs. Musgrave endorsed the antiabortion and anti-contraception state ballot measure that went down in flames by a three-to-one margin. Burton has since moved on to national prominence with absolutist antiabortion groups the American Life League and American Right to Life.

The congresswoman's three month tenure with Votes Have Consequences following her own bruising electoral loss has also not gone unnoticed.

Musgrave's role is to raise funds to target members of Congress in the 2010 election cycle who support abortion rights. On a March 12 press call announcing the initiative, she vowed to use the same scorched-earth tactics employed against her that resulted in Betsy Markey's landslide 2008 victory.

Last month, a Musgrave called out members of Congress in a fiery fund raising letter to "publicly defend socialism, authoritarian gun-grabbing, gay marriage, infanticide and everything else they vote for in Washington ..."

Neither Votes Have Consequences or the Susan B. Anthony List will confirm whether Markey, who supports abortion rights, will be targeted by the group for defeat in 2010.

Rocks and Hard Places for Gay Christians this Christmas

2008-12-23T19:27:37Z

Originally appeared on RHRealityCheck.org - Information, commentary and community for reproductive health and rights.

I pray. Everyday. Sometimes several times. This week begins a twelve day feast of the birth of Christ in my faith tradition, and it happens amidst other celebrations of light in the darkness in every faith. It is a good time to remember that light starts within each of us and spreads as we respect it in ourselves and others, no matter how challenging that may be. Some might say that it is in dark moments of challenge that we are meant to discover the light.

I'm also gay, so this holiday season has been consumed with a roller coaster of emotion and rage at the selection of Pastor Rick Warren to lead a prayer at Barak Obama's inauguration, where the Rev. Dr. Joseph Lowery will also pray.

Until January 20th, I will be praying that those of us who disagree with the selection of Rick Warren will not compound the challenges we face on our journey toward equality by being disrespectful, booing during prayer, or otherwise thinking that this moment is anything but what Obama intended -- modeling civility from a position of strength and conviction in his own progressive ideas about sexual and reproductive health and rights. I will pray that we see through the darkness toward the light within each of us, the light that allows us to see more compassionately those we don't understand or definitely disagree with, yes, even those who would deny our very existence. In demanding equality we are claiming our right to journey through life on our own terms. To achieve equality we must not deny others in our effort to be recognized.

Obama is not moving toward Rick Warren and social conservatives as Congressional Democrats have attempted to do by hushing progressives clamoring for changes to many policies on sexual and reproductive health. Instead Obama demonstrates that progressive ideas on gay issues, sex ed, contraception and abortion are moral choices. He invites Warren to join him, even while disagreeing on gay rights and abortion, to find new common ground. When news of the Warren invitation first broke, I noted that the challenge was now Warren's to lead hard-right social conservatives past partisanship and bitter divide that has characterized gridlock in Washington for much of the past 30 years, to a new place of civility that Obama is attempting to create in our politics. It appears Warren is taking some initial steps in Obama's direction.

These are generational changes we are participating in and they are being led and defined by arguably the most progressive new administration in history. Obama recognizes that to get movement on the policies we must change, our democracy requires change as well -- this was the premise of his campaign -- and it is the surest path toward full equality strategically. Democracy is not designed to produce instant reward, does not offer immediate gratification, is not about wholesale change. It is messy, takes time and most importantly requires we understand that we must do the careful, respectful work of education to bring people who fear change along on our journey.

Anthony B. Pinn has a tremendous piece today about this at Religion Dispatches, in which he concludes:

It is unreasonable to think President-elect Obama can or should resolve the conflict over religiously informed opinions when this very task has befuddled religious leaders for centuries. Obama will do well if he can help us make the tension between religious worldviews creative and an arena for fruitful exchange. What we can hope for is management of and respect for our religious differences and an attempt to map out ways to harness the energy of our shared quest for life meaning, for a greater sense of who, what, when, and where we are. And, in this way we might tame the more harmful aspects of our religious and theological orientations. Will we achieve this taming of our more harmful theologically-fueled tendencies...not likely, but it's a task worth the effort regardless of the outcome.

Obama is making this effort, and the measure of his success isn't the contentment of any particular group; but the ability of each group to voice its discontent, its disagreement and push a national conversation forward. Yes, dislike his selection for the invocation, and voice this dislike; but recognize that Obama's call for common ground will mean not always getting what you want.

As a community gay people are tired of waiting, of not getting the equality, not that we want as Pinn writes, but that we deserve, as Americans, and most importantly as children of God (for believers).

Are we more tired than women? More tired the African Americans? More tired than the current wave of brown immigrants coming to this nation of immigrants? More tired than under-educated or economically disadvantaged whites? Are we more tired than the many religions that make up the most diverse and religious country on the planet who are continually disregarded when someone says "this is a Christian nation" and whose faiths will not be represented at the inauguration prayers?

Those who have held the moral authority, as gay people do now, have always been long-suffering, non-violent and respectful. The shoulders we stand on in this moment understood that when caught between rocks and hard places, it is the slow erosion of trickling water that softens the hard edges. They left the throwing of rocks, the verbal and literal stoning, the torrent of the fire hoses spraying water against flesh, the beating, bashing and lynching to those on the wrong side of history. The glacial pace of change is frustrating and every group excluded from the promise of equality in America sees that slow pace as our nation's tragic flaw. It is also what allows each of us to fall in love with America as each generation works to fulfill her promise in new ways and thus remain a light of freedom to many suffering around the world.

That we might be entering a time when it is possible for us all, as Americans, to solve intractable problems of government with less animosity is a sign of hope.

There are iconic moments in history that have defined every struggle for equality. But if we who disagree with Warren disrupt a prayer, and specifically a prayer at the inaugural of the first African-American President in American history, the iconic moment captured on that historic day will cede moral high ground and goodwill progressives now hold. The gay community continues to deal with its own racial struggles within our community and black gay men and women understand the challenges in ways many white gays do not. To act out during a prayer will not help our cause where we most need the help, on gay issues and HIV/AIDS, within black churches.

Students in Georgia listened to George Wallace standing in the doorway, faced threats and derision, but quietly worked for change and won their rights. They sat at lunch counters where they were not welcome, quietly and simply attempting to order food from people who denied their humanity. Their quiet courage and presence won their rights. People marched and sang wishing President Kennedy would do more, some demanding it, many vocally frustrated by the political reality of the times. Women marched for decades just to be able to vote and then to have bodily autonomy and still await equal pay. Poor people of all races have always struggled to be heard, respected, educated, and employed -- and during these tough economic times more iconic images of disparity between rich and poor are being etched in our minds.

Those historic and iconic images changed hearts and minds and led us to this historic election and inauguration. We who disagree with Warren can listen respectfully for 90 seconds without creating a negative iconic image of people disrupting prayer -- and we can continue to fight strategically for the rights that are ours by birth. We risk too much moral authority -- the same that Obama is using to reach out to Warren -- by giving in to rage and emotion and disrupting a solemn moment. We can create positive iconic images in keeping with the respectful and non-violent traditions of all civil rights movements by listening to those we disagree with, and standing firm for our lives and loves with every other long-suffering movement for equality, and in doing so, support Barack Obama in his efforts to bring real and lasting change to our democracy, leading toward the full equality we all seek.

The promise of nature in winter is that light will return even in the face of the darkest day. It is the same promise that every faith tells different stories to teach at this time of year. In many ways, it is the genius and promise of America -- that in the face of darkness we can choose either to add to it, or instead find light within and with quiet strength and grace shine our light in a way that others will see and greet, and be thankful for giving us the opportunity to learn again that there is light within each of us. That we can choose differently. That in choosing to act from strength and light, we create the change we seek.

Catholic Church Again Refuses to Support Contemporary Families

2008-12-16T16:57:15Z

Written by Jon O'Brien for RHRealityCheck.org - Information, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

On Friday, December 12, the Vatican released a document on bioethics, Dignitas Personae (Dignity of the Person), which showed how the Catholic hierarchy is once again on the wrong side of science and the needs of contemporary society. While there was little new in the statement, the document reconfirmed the Vatican's condemnation of artificial reproductive technologies and also said human cloning, designer babies and embryonic stem-cell research are all immoral. It remains difficult to reconcile the Vatican's self-avowed prolife approach with the rejection of in-vitro fertilization and embryo freezing, not to mention the condemnation of the potential of stem-cell research. As our scientists use ground-breaking technology to find treatments to diseases that have endured for centuries, they need our support, not the condemnation put forth by the Vatican.

We know that Catholics are as likely to suffer from fertility problems as is the rest of the population and they should have the support of their hierarchy as they pursue parenthood. Catholics also understand the potential of embryonic stem-cell research, and support it in large numbers. A poll we carried out during the summer found that almost seven in ten Catholics in the US favor stem-cell research with early human embryos (69 percent). A similar number support decoupling science from religion, rejecting the Catholic hierarchy's attempts to influence scientific endeavor. An even larger proportion (73 percent) say they believe Catholic politicians are under no religious obligation to vote on issues the way the bishops recommend. This may be an issue during the coming administration if Congress is asked to vote on whether to extend federal funding for such vital research.

It is true that the Catholic hierarchy has had a long and public battle with science and scientists over the centuries. What's perhaps less well known is the fact that despite these battles, various elements of the Catholic church have a long and well respected reputation for supporting scientific endeavor. Church teachings not only allow but encourage adherents to the Catholic faith to support and promote scientific discovery. We need that aspect of the church to step forward now, and show the world that Catholicism and scientific progress can work in harmony to help develop the cures we need to deal with disease and infertility.

A famous Catholic scientist, John Rock, had some sage words for the Catholic bishops. Rock, who was the co-inventor of the contraceptive pill, received a letter from an angry conservative. "You should be afraid to meet your Maker," she wrote soon after the pill was approved. "My dear madam," Rock replied, "in my faith, we are taught that the Lord is with us always. When my time comes, there will be no need for introductions." Rock was also a pioneer in in-vitro fertilization and the freezing of sperm cells, and was the first to extract an intact fertilized egg. Here clearly was a man who did much to promote life and the dignity of the individual. Now that is something that all good Catholics can support.

Unhealthy Coverage: How the Media Loses Its Way on Health Care

2008-12-15T16:16:38Z

Written by Sarah Seltzer for RHRealityCheck.org - Information, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

"Blaming the media" is a catch-phrase that is used in almost cliché-level proportions. But when it comes to health care, a new study indicates it may be appropriate to fault media coverage for a lack of public knowledge about health care policy--and by extension the false perception of reproductive rights as ideological "hot rods" rather than women's health concerns.

A recently-released Pew Research study conducted with the Kaiser Family Foundation monitored health coverage from January 2007 to June 2008 to determine which subjects got the most coverage, and in which media. The study was designed to be particularly broad-ranging--rather than, for instance, analyzing how TV news covers breast cancer, the study looked at how television, radio, print, online outlets and other forms of media covered everything heath-related, from specific diseases to health policy and more.

What were the results? According to the report, "News about health occupies a relatively small amount of American news coverage across all platforms: 3.6% of news during 2007 and the first half of 2008." In a list of most frequently covered topics, health came in eighth--far above religion, education and celebrities, but below the economy, crime, foreign affairs and politics.

These results, while are hardly thrilling, don't seem abysmal at first. Health gets more coverage than celebrities, after all, which seems like a victory in our current climate. But compounding the small amount of attention devoted to health, the breakdown within existing health coverage shows a tendency to focus on controversial or sensational aspects of health issues, leaving vital policy information behind. One need only to think about the extreme health stories on the nightly news (Are your pills contaminated? Are your children at risk from a rare strain of X?) to understand the crux of the problem. Why focus on the actual public ramifications of various diseases and policies when Jenny McCarthy and Amanda Peet are going at it over autism -- or we can lure people in front of the TV by frightening them?

This is a situation only too familiar to reproductive health advocates, who often see the public health crises caused by lack of reproductive health care submerged beneath the kind of pitched battles or titillating stories the media loves.

Within the small percentage of health news, outlets focused 41.7% on specific diseases, the kind of coverage which spikes somewhat when a celebrity like Elizabeth Edwards, Tony Snow, or Tim Russert has cancer or a heart attack. Public health issues made up 30.9% of coverage, including stories like the tuberculosis-infected man-on-plane scandal, and reports on gossipy health problems like binge drinking.

Coming in third, actual health policy made up only 24.7% of general "health" coverage--and this includes the political battles during the primaries and the SCHIP vote. Considering that the American health care system is essentially broken, this is a dismal indicator: as the report notes, that means that health policy news made up less than 1% of media coverage during the time period. This is not to say that other aspects of health care coverage are unimportant (certainly, diseases and public health issues are probably not covered deeply enough), but instead to point out that sensational and celebrity-oriented slants to health stories often obscure the practical health issues that affect media consumers' lives.

An example of this is the fact that HIV/AIDS stories made up only 2.2% of stories related to health, even though misinformation about the (still very much present) disease persists, and dissemination of accurate information is crucial to preventing its transmission.

Newsflash: RH Issues Are Health Issues

The lack of coverage when it comes to HIV/AIDS is emblematic of a general failure when it comes to the portrayal of sexual health and reproductive rights in the news media.

In our scandal and controversy-oriented news culture, reproductive health issues are treated as controversial flashpoints or political footballs rather than genuine public and personal health crises. Many media personalities and reporters caught on to fact that there is a connection between ideology and health during John McCain's infamous placing of "air quotes" around the word "women's health" during a debate--but there has been little follow up on that connection.

One example of the way the discussion is turned away from health and towards "morality" is the firestorm over the HHS regulations that would allow providers to "opt out" of medical procedures they find objectionable.

In focusing on the consciences and internal struggles of health care providers, rather than the difficulty women have accessing proper care, the media does more damage than it possibly can be aware of.

Last month in Slate, Melinda Hennenberger offered an egregious example of this: she spun a piece about the Freedom of Choice Act, legislation that would expand women's access to reproductive care and abortion, into an assault on the moral consciences of Catholics. Presto -- a bill meant to protect women's health becomes an ideological war on the Catholic church. A juicier story, but a misleading one.

RH Reality Check refuted Hennenberger's factual speculation and even her colleague Dahlia Lithwick reminded readers that women's health hangs in the balance--and often gets lost in the shuffle--when this question is debated.

An example of how to address reproductive health issues in a non-sensational, health-based manner is Rachel Maddow's recent interview with Melissa Harris Lacewell, which was also discussed on this site. The most remarkable thing about the interview was that rather than being framed as a left-right battle royal, the priority of women's health needs was acknowledged by both interviewer and interviewee, and was the jumping off point for their discussion rather than the conclusion. They still managed to talk for a long time, and it was even interesting!

There is a market for sensible, factual health coverage--because it affects people's lives. It's a wonder that so many arbiters of what's "news" have yet to discover that. Framing reproductive health issues from a public health perspective, and boosting coverage of health care policy, are absolutely crucial to changing the frame on reproductive rights back to what it's really about: women's access to the care they need.

South Dakota Healthy Families' Winning Message

2008-12-10T16:21:55Z

This fall, amid furor over the election of Barack Obama to the presidency and Democrats' widened majority in Congress, three states quietly defeated anti-choice ballot measures, California, Colorado, and South Dakota.

Of these, perhaps South Dakota is the most perplexing. South Dakota is a state with a small population and very few cities. Although the state hasn't been polled on abortion except for how they might vote on the 2004 and 2008 abortion ban measures, even pro-choice advocates in the state readily admit that the majority of the state would self-identify as pro-life. John McCain and Sarah Palin easily won the state this fall, and an abortion ban with no exceptions passed with vast majority in both houses of the state legislature and was signed into law by Gov. Mike Rounds more than two years ago. To the surprise of the pro-choice movement, the state overturned the ban in a November 2006 referendum by a wide margin. Exit polls suggested that many voters were uncomfortable with the lack of exceptions for a woman's health and life written into the ban. A poll by the Argus Leader, South Dakota's largest newspaper, run shortly after the 2006 abortion ban defeat, showed that a vast majority -- by a 28-point margin -- would support a ban with exceptions.

So the pro-life movement in South Dakota gave it another shot. They put an abortion ban with vague exceptions on the ballot this fall and looked forward to seeing it sail to victory. Less than a month before the election, a poll showed voters split evenly on the measure, 44-44 percent, and 12 percent were still undecided. On Election Day, the measure was defeated by 10 points, 54 to 44 percent. So how does a state, in which most voters would probably still identify as pro-life, manage to defeat abortion bans twice?

This was a question recently explored in an article by Denise Ross in The New Republic. Ross concludes that "revisiting the debate over four years and consumed by it throughout 2006, [the state's electorate] has just gotten so educated on the issue that they are now uncomfortable with black-and-white formulations that bans contain." Indeed, the region's Planned Parenthood and the pro-choice coalition South Dakota Healthy Families used language and messaging very different from national pro-choice groups.

Sarah Stoesz, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, South Dakota, and North Dakota, credits the win to a well-run campaign with broad grassroots support. But it wasn't a strategy run only by outside consultants, with slick advertisements and catch phrases like "My Body, My Choice" or "Keep Your Rosaries Off My Ovaries." In fact, the word "choice" was abandoned by the coalition fighting the abortion ban in South Dakota altogether. Instead, the coalition took a pro-family approach, using the word "baby" where mainstream pro-choice groups would have used the word "fetus." One Healthy Families ad featured a woman named Tiffany Campbell, who appeared with her husband and son. In the television ad, Campbell explained that during her pregnancy they discovered twin-to-twin syndrome, a condition in which one fetus would need to be terminated for the other to survive. Campbell phrased it this way, "I would have buried two babies." Much of the language in the ads talked about families making decisions without government interference.

"We were completely ready to and did redraft all of the usual rhetoric that is used by people on our side," Stoesz said. She noted a lot of feminists on the national level were upset at a pro-choice campaign that would abandon rhetoric built on for decades, but Stoesz isn't sorry she abandoned the rhetoric. "As the head of Planned Parenthood [in the region] I'm responsible for keeping the sole abortion clinic in South Dakota open and I'm responsible for making sure there is a strong base of support for women's reproductive health in South Dakota," she said. "South Dakota isn't Manhattan. It isn't San Francisco. It isn't even Chicago and it's not even Minneapolis. It's so different. The culture is so different."

The coalition looked to open up a discussion and stay away from polarizing debates. They wanted to humanize abortion in a way that had rarely been seen in a campaign. Stoesz talked about how during the campaign in 2006, many national feminist groups criticized their messaging for saying that the ban went "too far" because it did not contain exceptions, implying that a ban with exceptions would be acceptable. "That made people very uncomfortable. But we had to start there," Stoesz said. Instead of casting actors in their ads, they used real South Dakota women who were willing to share their stories. "This had started in 2006 spontaneously on its own," Stoesz said. "People began telling their stories about abortion to one another in South Dakota in a way that doesn't happen in any other place in the country. I'm just not aware of any other community, certainly not state, that has engaged in a lengthy and meaningful discussion about abortion. But that [has] happened in South Dakota now for over two years."

The campaign tapped local women like Campbell to appear in their ads and tried to get those that might otherwise identify as pro-life to talk with women in their communities about abortion. Stoesz found that people who were morally opposed to abortion found that "women and families who choose to have abortions are not that different from themselves."

Stoesz thinks this is a sign that the pro-choice movement needs to put aside some of the choice-based language it has been using for years. "This proves conclusively that it's time to give up the old rhetoric and use language that is empathic and that people relate to," she said. "People don't like to be bullied. There's a large portion of people who are morally uncomfortable with abortion but don't want to ban it."

Nathan Peterson, director of the South Dakota Healthy Families campaign since 2006 and lifelong South Dakota resident, noted that South Dakota, like many other conservative states with large rural areas, might not fall neatly along party lines.

"There are certainly large numbers of Democrats in South Dakota that voted in favor of the abortion ban and, in a similar fashion, large numbers of Republicans that voted against it. It's not necessarily tied to a political party in South Dakota," Peterson said. Volunteers who canvassed in the state didn't simply find that people were pro- or anti-choice. "When we were training our volunteers and when we were training our staff we knew that we could knock on five different doors and find five different points of view on this issue. It wasn't going to serve us well to take one particular stance on abortion and try to convince those five people that they should think the exact same way," he said.

Of course, it helped the campaign that the legislation was badly written and raised a lot of questions about exactly how much access the government would get to medical records. Peterson found that it was especially helpful to focus on these concrete consequences of the legislation. "The 2008 law in particular, we talked about how section 18 of [the proposed abortion ban] would have forced doctors to turn over their patients' complete medical records to the state department of health," Peterson said. "It would essentially give the government access to our personal medical information. We were able to make much more progress in convincing people that, whatever personal opinion on abortion might be, trying to pass this kind of legislation would have disastrous consequences." Eventually, by raising the question of state interference and by offering stories of real women who talked about their decisions, the campaign seemed to prove to voters that no "health exception" would be sufficient to protect women's health.

The campaign found support in surprising areas of the state. "Many would consider the Western portion of South Dakota more conservative. In the Western half of the state Republicans enjoy a larger registration advantage, for example," Peterson explained. "[But] We had much more support in the Western part of the state than in the Eastern part of the state and I think that's because some of that libertarian mindset. Whatever an individual's personal opinion may be [on abortion] it starts a very bad precedent to start letting government dictate what medical decisions people can and can't make."

For now, Healthy Families has committed to staying organized in the state since supporters of the abortion ban have made statements that they might try again. The Vote Yes For Life website says, "We shall rise and fight again." But people in South Dakota, now after more than four years of intense discussion and debate over abortion seem tired of it. "Everyone in the state now wants to work toward reducing unintended pregnancies and improving education," Peterson said. "They would rather reduce incidences of unintended pregnancy than rehash the same divisive debate."

Abortion will remain legal in South Dakota. Stoesz and the Healthy Families coalition were successful in defeating a ban that positioned itself as a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade. Perhaps now, instead of rerunning the same old abortion debate, the debate about comprehensive sex education and increased family planning can begin.

Join Kay Steiger, author of this article, and others on RH Reality Check, for a live discussion on the future of reproductive health and rights. Join us and ask your questions!

The Trench Warfare of the HHS Rules

2008-12-09T15:46:20Z

Written by Amanda Marcotte for RHRealityCheck.org - Information, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

Few reproductive rights stories caught the public's imagination in 2008 like the conflict over the Bush administration's attempt to rewrite HHS regulations to expand the powers of anyone working in the health industry to interfere with a woman seeking reproductive health care by claiming religious disagreement. By niftily claiming that health care workers can "believe" that hormonal birth control is abortion---which has the same scientific basis as believing unicorns are real---a wide range of health care workers can interfere with a woman's access to birth control, as well as abortion. The proposed rule change caught the public's imagination in part because of the petty, vindictive nature of it. Here is the Bush administration, openly encouraging health care workers to sit in judgment of female patients on a case-by-case basis and, should some women not suit their tastes, interfere with their health care on an individual level that would surely come across as nasty and vindictive in person. As, I would argue, it's meant to do.

This rule change is nothing short of overriding the wishes and expectations of the larger population to cater to a fanatical religious right. The rule change not only reflects the values of the religious right, but also their tactics. Unable to enact large-scale bans of contraception and abortion, anti-choicers have declared a form of trench warfare against the women of America for possession of the uteruses of America. In real trench warfare, you "win" a "battle" by gaining a few feet of territory. In the trench warfare of reproductive rights, anti-choicers consider a few women inconvenienced, humiliated, or even forced to become pregnant or give birth against their will a victory worth savoring.

But for most Americans, government regulation of health care is about, well, regulation. We want regulations to standardize health care so that we'll get the same quality of service every time we go to the doctor or pharmacy. "Regulations" that turn health care into a lottery --- will I get good service this time, or an anti-choice vigilante interfering with me? --- doesn't even make sense to most citizens.

Despite the opposition to the rule change and the fact that it's almost surely going to be reversed after a pro-choice President and pro-choice Congress are sworn in, the Bush administration seems perversely determined to push this through, giving themselves an extra 30 days to sneak the new rules under the door (The rule is in the final stages of review). It forces one to wonder what they hope to accomplish by pulling this stunt.

I theorize that it's an attempt to galvanize the religious right after a set of demoralizing losses in 2008. Nothing gets the right worked up like convincing themselves that they are an oppressed minority because they're not permitted to push their religious beliefs on others using government power. We all know the litany of battlegrounds: creationism in the science classroom, "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, teacher-led prayer in school, mandatory "Merry Christmas" instead of the more inclusive "Happy Holidays". And some of these battles are losing their power to motivate the religious right. They need something new and fresh so they can continue to distract the nation from important issues like the economy, and so they can become an obstacle between the new administration and genuine progress.

These rules are tailor-made to create such an uproar. Given a new right to hijack health care in order to harass women, the right will feel the pinch when it's taken away, even if they only have this right for a few days. Email lists and fliers claiming that the Obama administration has written "new" rules oppressing fundamentalist Christians will proliferate.

Marilyn Keefe, the Director of Reproductive Health Programs at the National Partnership for Women and Families, explained two ways that the new HHS rules could be returned to their prior state if the Bush administration does pass them. Obama could suspend the rule when he enters office, and, after a period of public notice and comment, rescind the rule completely. Alternatively, Congress could repeal the rule by either introducing a bill to do it, or putting the repeal in another bill.

Both strategies have drawbacks. The congressional strategy requires building a coalition on what will be reported as an abortion bill, which is usually a bad bet. But if the right is gearing up to play the "poor oppressed fundamentalists" card, then there's a specific danger in Obama's administration repealing the rule, which will encourage the religious right, already rife with conspiracy theories about Obama being everything from a secret Muslim to the Anti-Christ, to focus their attention 100% on crippling the Obama presidency. At least with the congressional pathway, the responsibility and therefore the right wing attention is diffused.

That said, using this as a new strategy to work people into a frenzy over the poor, oppressed Christians could very likely backfire. Successful campaigns are those that court the sympathies of Christian-identified Americans who may not be devout or fundamentalist. You need issues that nod to a general Christian dominance without having any consequences that will disturb the everyday life of more moderate Christians. Prayer in schools and "Merry Christmas" includes them. Many fail to empathize with those who are hurt by a ban on same-sex marriage. But if you interfere with their ability to access contraception, they will resist you. Without these moderates on hand, the religious right will find their ability to generate outrage to be sorely limited.

Join Marilyn Keefe, mentioned in the article, and others on RH Reality Check, for a live discussion on the future of reproductive health and rights. Join us and ask your questions!

Re-enslaving African American Women

2008-12-08T16:33:06Z

Written by Loretta Ross. Appears on RHRealityCheck.org - Information, commentary and community for reproductive health.

I have spoken on many campuses in the wake of the "Genocide Awareness Project," which displays posters at colleges to create controversy among young people about Black abortion. Students are understandably confused when presented with seemingly fact-based information that claims that Black women are the scourge of the African American community. I provide accurate historical and contemporary information about Black women's views on abortion.

African American women who care about reproductive justice know that the limited membership in the Black anti-abortion movement doesn't represent our views and we are not fooled into thinking that they care about gender justice for women. In fact, if they had their way, we would be re-enslaved once again, based on our fertility.

But the Black anti-abortion movement needs to be taken seriously. The people involved in it carefully exploit religious values to make inroads into our communities. They poison the soil in which we must toil.

Carefully orchestrated campaigns by Black surrogates for the religious and political right not only oppose abortion, but they also organize on behalf of many other right wing causes, such as opposing stem cell research, supporting charter schools and opposing affirmative action.

Through clever positioning and photo-ops by the right wing, the Black anti-abortion movement appears stronger and more numerous than it actually is. Generously funded by a predominantly white anti-abortion movement desperate for Black representatives, the Black anti-abortion movement seeks to drive a wedge into the African American community.

They tell African American women that we are now responsible for the genocide of our own people. Talk about a "blame the victim" strategy! We are now accused of "lynching" our children in our wombs and practicing white supremacy on ourselves. Black women are again blamed for the social conditions in our communities and demonized by those who claim they only want to save our souls (and the souls of our unborn children). This is what lies on steroids look like.

Opposition Research Needed

Who are these people in the Black anti-abortion movement? This movement needs to be carefully studied through opposition research. Information on them, their connections to white anti-abortion groups and their sources of funding is scant.

Of course, the most famous of the Black anti-abortionists is Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. She is a Pastoral Associate, a member of the avid anti-abortion group Priests for Life, and Director of African American Outreach for the Gospel of Life Ministries. Because her father was Dr. King's brother, Alveda is the leading voice for linking the anti-abortionists to the Civil Rights movement. This is despite the fact that both Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King were strong supporters of family planning in general, and Planned Parenthood in particular. Alveda King, who lives in Atlanta, has also spoken out strongly against gay rights and in support of charter schools.

A widely known Black anti-abortion minister is Rev. Clenard H. Childress of New Jersey, founder of the BlackGenocide.org project and website. He is the president of the Northeast Chapter of Life Education and Resource Network (L.E.A.R.N.), established in 1993. He claims that the "high rate of abortion has decimated the Black family and destroyed Black neighborhoods to the detriment of society at large." He led protests at the 2008 NAACP convention in Cincinnati and has accused the organization of practicing racism against Black children. He is also on the board of the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform that circulates the Genocide Awareness Project.

Alan Keyes, perennial presidential candidate, is also well known in anti-abortion circles. Keyes first came to national attention when President Reagan appointed him as adviser to Maureen Reagan (daughter of the president), as she led the official U.S. delegation to the UN World Conference for Women in Kenya in 1985. At this meeting, the U.S. affirmed its support for the infamous 1984 "Mexico City" policy that banned U.S. funds from supporting abortion worldwide. Keyes helped lead the anti-abortion protests at the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver, and is a favorite of the right for his fierce extreme views on a number of issues.

There are a handful of other Black spokespeople for the anti-abortion movement. The point is not how many there are, but the disproportionate impact they have. They have created the false impression that if only Black people were warned that abortion is genocide, women would stop having them in order to preserve the Black race, either voluntarily or pressured by the men in their lives.

The Sexism They Sell

The sexism in their viewpoints is mind-boggling. To them, Black women are the poor dupes of the abortion rights movement, lacking agency and decision-making of our own. In fact, this is a reassertion of Black male supremacy over the self-determination of women. It doesn't matter whether it is from the lips of a man or a woman. It is about re-enslaving Black women by making us breeders for someone else's cause.

I am reminded of the comments of Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman in Congress, who dismissed the genocide argument when asked to discuss her views on abortion and birth control:

To label family planning and legal abortion programs "genocide" is male rhetoric, for male ears. It falls flat to female listeners and to thoughtful male ones. Women know, and so do many men, that two or three children who are wanted, prepared for, reared amid love and stability, and educated to the limit of their ability will mean more for the future of the Black and brown races from which they come than any number of neglected, hungry, ill-housed and ill-clothed youngsters.

We need our leading African American women's and Civil Rights organizations to speak out more strongly in support of reproductive justice. We need to organize young people to resist the misinformation directed at them by these groups. Many of our campuses are unaware of the activities of the Black anti-abortionists until they show up, usually invited by a white anti-abortion group.

But mostly, we need to let the world know that they do not speak for Black women. As my mother would say, "they might be our color, but they are not our kind."

Unearthing Common Ground on Abortion

2008-12-05T16:43:54Z

Written by Rev. Debra Haffner for RHRealityCheck.org - Information, commentary and community for reproductive health and justice.

There comes a moment in justice movements when society edges forward just enough that once-heated controversies - suffrage, racial integration, interracial marriage - become part of the cultural fabric. Sexism and racism may continue to simmer, but the overall movement can declare victory and move on.

On Election Day, the reproductive justice movement may have achieved its moment. The election of a pro-choice President-elect puts Roe v. Wade back on firm ground. Ballot measures that would have restricted reproductive health rights in three states were all soundly defeated. The Mexico City Policy, which blocks U.S. aid to international family planning organization that counsel women on abortion, is expected to be quickly reversed. A post-election survey by Faith in Public Life showed that a clear majority of Americans want to keep abortion legal.

The fiercest opponents of women's reproductive rights are not giving up. But over the past few weeks, we have heard a commitment from several Catholic and evangelical Protestant leaders to finding a new common ground on abortion. David Gushee, writing for the Associated Baptist Press, notes that, "Over 80 percent of white evangelicals and Catholics believe elected officials should work together to find ways to reduce abortions by helping prevent unwanted pregnancies, expanding adoption and increasing economic support for women who want to carry their pregnancies to term."

I welcome the support and collaboration of Professor Gushee, as well as Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners, Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec, Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals and others, who are calling to "reduce the number of abortions." But I am puzzled that their goal is to reduce abortions rather than the unintended pregnancies that force women and families to consider abortion in the first place.

The call to reduce unintended pregnancies is the right one. What we must focus on now are the means to do so - specifically, comprehensive sexuality education (not abstinence-only) and universal access to contraceptive services, including emergency contraception.

The advocates for a new common ground correctly note the correlation between poverty and abortion rates. But they fail to mention how poverty first contributes to unintended pregnancies. Adoption alternatives and economic support for poor pregnant women are important - but these strategies do not address the fact that poor women are at least five times more likely than other women to become pregnant unintentionally.

Here's what the Guttmacher Institute's Susan Cohen wrote the last time an abortion reduction strategy was floated by Democrats for Life in 2006: "While it is theoretically possible that increased social supports for pregnant women and even more 'adoption-positive' problem-pregnancy counseling could have some impact, neither can hope to approach the real reductions in the abortion rate that could be achieved by preventing unintended pregnancy in the first place." (Emphasis added.)

This is the real moral challenge we face. I've worked with thousands of women facing unintended pregnancies. They aren't looking for "abortion on demand"; with only a handful of exceptions, these women sat with me (often with their partners or parents beside them), and they wept as they tried to decide what was best to do. Often they did have financial concerns - not so much about how they would pay for prenatal care or infant care, but about how they could afford to raise a child (or in many cases, another child) to adulthood. Too often, they did not have partners who they wanted to spend their lives with or who could support them. As one of my colleagues has said, such women have "too much responsibility already and too few resources, both personal and economic."

So here is my suggestion for common ground. Let's stop talking about reducing the number of abortions as a goal in itself. Such talk obscures what should be the principal objective - reducing unintended pregnancies - and leads to counterproductive strategies that would place restrictions on abortion access. It also misrepresents the platform that President-elect Obama ran on, which affirmed a woman's right to choose and opposed "any and all efforts to weaken or undermine that right." The Democratic platform called for "access to comprehensive affordable family planning services and age-appropriate sex education which empower people to make informed choices and live healthy lives," as well as economic support for pregnant women.

Let's start talking about reducing unintended pregnancies. This is not only the better public health position, it is a faithful and moral one as well. Five years ago, the Religious Institute published an Open Letter to Religious Leaders on Abortion as a Moral Decision, which includes this eloquent and irrefutable statement: "The sanctity of human life is best upheld when we assure that it is not created carelessly."

Surely this is the common ground where all of us - the new Administration, the new Congress, even my Catholic and evangelical colleagues - can proudly stand.