RH Reality Check's Comments - Talk Back!

Celebrating Choice: The New Fad Among Anti-Choicers

Amanda Marcotte — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:00:00 -0500

Ben Smith at Politico wrote an article about the way that the anti-choice movement has moved beyond fetishizing fetuses to attaching themselves to an actual person with sentience and feelings: Trig Palin, whose mere existence has turned Sarah Palin into an anti-choice hero, because she chose to have her baby even when she received a Down’s diagnosis.

Indeed, it’s hard to refrain from applauding the anti-choice movement for this brave move towards finding love in their meager hearts for an actual person; usually, they feel safer only expressing affection for the non-sentient, who conveniently have no feelings or thoughts that could conflict with what the anti-choice movement wishes to project on them. However, Trig is still a baby. Perhaps as he grows older and forms opinions of his own, the anti-choice movement will abandon him as a love object. Too risky.

But what Ben Smith fails to note in his article describing this rather silly Sarah-and-Trig-Palin-worship is the deep irony of it. Despite the fact that the anti-choice movement is organized around the desire to deprive women of choice and force them to bear children against their will, to celebrate Sarah and Trig Palin is to celebrate choice. In the world that anti-choicers say they want---a world where women don’t have a right to terminate a pregnancy that’s unwanted for any reason---there would be nothing to celebrate. Without the existence of choice, there is no reason to celebrate someone for making the choice you want him or her to make. In order for Trig Palin to be an object of worship, and Sarah Palin to be a childbearing hero, there has to be a choice. Same story with all the women who die bearing children when they didn’t have to do that become Catholic martyrs. Without access to abortion, death in childbirth is just life, and not some sort of sacrifice to be celebrated by misogynists who see no problem celebrating the unnecessary deaths of perfectly nice women.

It’s easy to chalk up the fact that anti-choicers overlooked this aspect of their stupidity. Maybe they didn’t notice that celebrating a choice a woman makes requires you to celebrate that she had a choice in the first place. But unfortunately, it’s not so simple. While the anti-choice movement does have its share of intelligence blunders, they actually are wise to focus on celebrating choice in this case. It works beautifully to paint them as decent people, and to conceal the fact that they agitate to deprive women of a basic human right.

Let’s face it. Choice is so popular that anti-choicers are pretending they invented it.

Celebrating women who make what they consider the “right” choice is a way of using a genuinely good value---choice---to polish up their fundamentally coercive beliefs. When anti-choicers celebrate choice, in their disingenuous fashion, they give outsiders an easy opportunity for sacrifice-free moral self-righteousness. Judging other women for making choices you consider “wrong”---such as deciding not to bear a disabled child---is an easy way to feel like a good person without lifting a finger. After all, you’re not actually being put to the test by being asked to make that decision yourself. It’s always so very easy to tell someone else they have to have a baby they don’t feel they can raise.

But when the focus is where it belongs, which is on the anti-choice movement’s actual policy ideas, it’s not so easy to get that moral glow off siding with them. When you realize that they’re not actually about celebrating choice, but depriving women of it, then suddenly siding with them means siding with people who want to force women to bear children against their will, force women to die in childbirth, and create maternity homes where teenage girls are chained to delivery tables so the child they were coerced into giving up can’t be snatched by the desperate, sobbing mother. And that makes you less a morally self-righteous person, and more a misogynist monster. But it’s also closer to the truth.

The surest evidence that we have that anti-choicers know being anti-choice is fundamentally wrong is the way they run from their actual beliefs, conceal them, and pretend that it’s the pro-choicers that oppose choice. For instance, this quote Smith runs from Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, on the subject of why feminists “hate” Sarah Palin.

You just can’t escape it — she really is cut from a completely different cloth than most men, but also women, in politics,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports anti-abortion candidates. “She had the audacity in the eyes of the abortion rights world to actually have this child and then has the audacity to bring him along with her and feature him as a centrally valued person in their family.

Except, of course, this is a lie. As much as anti-choicers wish that pro-choicers were the ones who demand coercion, who want to force women to make choices they’re uncomfortable with, the proof is in the pudding, or in the policy. Pro-choice movements do not advocate for forced abortion laws. Pro-choicers don’t say that one should be forced to have or not to have a disabled child against your will. Pro-choicers don’t come out against women who have babies. Most pro-choicers will have children at some point. Pro-choicers don’t have an issue with Sarah Palin’s reproductive choices. We have an issue with the fact that she doesn’t want to allow the rest of us to have those choices.

Unfortunately, the dishonest concealing of legitimate policy differences on choice is an effective strategy at painting a smiley face on a misogynist anti-choice movement. I recently had a Twitter battle with an anti-choicer who refused to admit that banning abortion would equal forced childbirth. She wanted to believe that she was for “choice”, because “abortion is never the answer.” But what happened when I asked what she would do to a woman who had listened to her pleas to bear a child and give it up for adoption and rejected that argument---would she force her under threat of jail to bear the child or would she allow her the choice to abort? She called me a meanie. But meanie or no, the point stands: You can tell more about anti-choicers from what policies they stand for than by their misleading, soothing political rhetoric.

Celebrating Choice: The New Fad Among Anti-Choicers

Amanda Marcotte — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:00:00 -0500

Let’s face it. Choice is so popular that anti-choicers are pretending they invented it.

You just can’t escape it — she really is cut from a completely different cloth than most men, but also women, in politics,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports anti-abortion candidates. “She had the audacity in the eyes of the abortion rights world to actually have this child and then has the audacity to bring him along with her and feature him as a centrally valued person in their family.

Celebrating Choice: The New Fad Among Anti-Choicers

Amanda Marcotte — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:00:00 -0500

Let’s face it. Choice is so popular that anti-choicers are pretending they invented it.

You just can’t escape it — she really is cut from a completely different cloth than most men, but also women, in politics,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports anti-abortion candidates. “She had the audacity in the eyes of the abortion rights world to actually have this child and then has the audacity to bring him along with her and feature him as a centrally valued person in their family.

Celebrating Choice: The New Fad Among Anti-Choicers

Amanda Marcotte — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:00:00 -0500

Let’s face it. Choice is so popular that anti-choicers are pretending they invented it.

You just can’t escape it — she really is cut from a completely different cloth than most men, but also women, in politics,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports anti-abortion candidates. “She had the audacity in the eyes of the abortion rights world to actually have this child and then has the audacity to bring him along with her and feature him as a centrally valued person in their family.

How the Bishops Lost Sight of Their Own Priorities

Jessica Arons — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:00:03 -0500

This article is co-authored by Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program and a member of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and Ellen-Marie Whelan, a Senior Health Policy Analyst and Associate Director of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress.

As longstanding advocates for universal health care, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has played an ongoing, and increasingly controversial, role in health reform. Early in the process, they set out a number of criteria—eight to be exact—that they set as priorities to be included in health reform legislation.

Taking them at their word, we at the Center for American Progress undertook an analysis of their criteria, using their own classifications and definitions, and examined whether the bills pending in Congress measured up. We found that they did.

From “access for all” to “priority concern for the poor” to “pluralism,” provisions in current health reform legislation in both the House of Representatives and the Senate would achieve significant progress toward these goals. We also noted where the legislation fell short of some of these goals, most notably the exclusion of undocumented immigrants from the expansion of health coverage.

Yet despite the fact that these bills would accomplish so much of the Bishops’ stated agenda, they have continued to threaten to oppose current legislation over one issue: abortion. The Bishops have stated that they will oppose health reform legislation entirely unless it includes what has become known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, a measure in the House bill that would prohibit women receiving health premium subsidies from purchasing any private insurance plan that includes abortion services, even if no tax dollars may be used to pay for abortion care. They refuse to accept the compromise, still in the Senate language, that segregates government subsidies from private premiums in order to address the concerns of those who do not want their taxes to pay for abortions in circumstances beyond threats to the life of the woman and rape or incest.

In doing so, the Bishops have moved the goalposts. They testified in a congressional hearing that they would oppose legislation that included abortion as part of a national health care benefit. Both bills explicitly exclude abortion from required health benefits packages, yet their opposition remains. They also asked for “abortion-neutral” legislation. The Senate bill is abortion-neutral because it preserves the policy of prohibiting federal funding for abortion while allowing insurance plans to cover abortion. The House bill, however, goes far beyond current law—rather than applying current policy to the proposed health insurance exchange, it imposes new obstacles to obtaining private abortion coverage.

As our analysis shows, there are a number of ways both bills would achieve the Bishops’ “pro-life” goals: they would save the lives of thousands each year, reduce the suffering of millions, and increase the dignity with which people are treated when ill. Moreover, providing quality health care to women and families in need is a much more effective and humane way to reduce the number of abortions than restrictions on funding ever have been. In the United States, as throughout the world, restrictions on abortion make the procedure more expensive and less safe; they do not make it less common.

The old adage “actions speak louder than words” is instructive here. The clear implication is that, despite their statements articulating a variety of priorities for health reform, the Bishops ultimately place a single priority—abortion—above all others. This is indeed a shame.

The Bishops have the power to end this controversy should they wish to do so. Whether appropriate or not, their influence in this matter cannot be understated. Less than a month ago, negotiations among pro-life and pro-choice legislators to forge a stronger compromise on abortion funding broke down when the Bishops insisted that the Stupak-Pitts Amendment be put to a vote. But there is still time to work out a compromise that both sides can accept, especially if the Bishops signal a willingness to move in that direction.

The question before them is this: Is it worth jeopardizing legislation that would provide nearly universal access to health care, improve quality, be much more affordable, assist the poor and low income, reduce fraud and waste, protect the conscience of providers, and so much more simply because it would preserve the status quo on public funding for abortion but not impose new restrictions on private coverage?

Given the immense good that could be achieved with health reform, we fervently hope the Bishops, their allies, and their supporters will place equal value on each of their stated principles and promote rather than stand in the way of current health reform efforts.

The Center for American Progress fact sheet on the Bishop’s health reform criteria can be found here.

Celebrating Choice: The New Fad Among Anti-Choicers

Amanda Marcotte — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:00:00 -0500

Let’s face it. Choice is so popular that anti-choicers are pretending they invented it.

You just can’t escape it — she really is cut from a completely different cloth than most men, but also women, in politics,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports anti-abortion candidates. “She had the audacity in the eyes of the abortion rights world to actually have this child and then has the audacity to bring him along with her and feature him as a centrally valued person in their family.

How the Bishops Lost Sight of Their Own Priorities

Jessica Arons — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:00:03 -0500

This article is co-authored by Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program and a member of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and Ellen-Marie Whelan, a Senior Health Policy Analyst and Associate Director of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress fact sheet on the Bishop’s health reform criteria can be found here.

Celebrating Choice: The New Fad Among Anti-Choicers

Amanda Marcotte — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:00:00 -0500

Let’s face it. Choice is so popular that anti-choicers are pretending they invented it.

You just can’t escape it — she really is cut from a completely different cloth than most men, but also women, in politics,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports anti-abortion candidates. “She had the audacity in the eyes of the abortion rights world to actually have this child and then has the audacity to bring him along with her and feature him as a centrally valued person in their family.

How the Bishops Lost Sight of Their Own Priorities

Jessica Arons — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:00:03 -0500

This article is co-authored by Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program and a member of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and Ellen-Marie Whelan, a Senior Health Policy Analyst and Associate Director of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress fact sheet on the Bishop’s health reform criteria can be found here.

How the Bishops Lost Sight of Their Own Priorities

Jessica Arons — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:00:03 -0500

This article is co-authored by Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program and a member of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and Ellen-Marie Whelan, a Senior Health Policy Analyst and Associate Director of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress fact sheet on the Bishop’s health reform criteria can be found here.

How the Bishops Lost Sight of Their Own Priorities

Jessica Arons — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:00:03 -0500

This article is co-authored by Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program and a member of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and Ellen-Marie Whelan, a Senior Health Policy Analyst and Associate Director of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress fact sheet on the Bishop’s health reform criteria can be found here.

Celebrating Choice: The New Fad Among Anti-Choicers

Amanda Marcotte — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:00:00 -0500

Let’s face it. Choice is so popular that anti-choicers are pretending they invented it.

You just can’t escape it — she really is cut from a completely different cloth than most men, but also women, in politics,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports anti-abortion candidates. “She had the audacity in the eyes of the abortion rights world to actually have this child and then has the audacity to bring him along with her and feature him as a centrally valued person in their family.

How the Bishops Lost Sight of Their Own Priorities

Jessica Arons — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:00:03 -0500

This article is co-authored by Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program and a member of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and Ellen-Marie Whelan, a Senior Health Policy Analyst and Associate Director of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress fact sheet on the Bishop’s health reform criteria can be found here.

How the Bishops Lost Sight of Their Own Priorities

Jessica Arons — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:00:03 -0500

This article is co-authored by Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program and a member of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and Ellen-Marie Whelan, a Senior Health Policy Analyst and Associate Director of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress fact sheet on the Bishop’s health reform criteria can be found here.

Celebrating Choice: The New Fad Among Anti-Choicers

Amanda Marcotte — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:00:00 -0500

Let’s face it. Choice is so popular that anti-choicers are pretending they invented it.

You just can’t escape it — she really is cut from a completely different cloth than most men, but also women, in politics,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, which supports anti-abortion candidates. “She had the audacity in the eyes of the abortion rights world to actually have this child and then has the audacity to bring him along with her and feature him as a centrally valued person in their family.

The Audacity of Goodness

Charlotte Taft — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:00:00 -0500

When abortion provider Renee Chelian created a video called “Every Day, Good Women Choose Abortion” for her Northland Family Planning Clinics, all she was thinking about was what would be good for her patients.

Chelian, a long time member of the Abortion Care Network, is the Executive Director of three clinics in Detroit. She has spent the last 33 years offering the highest quality medical care, combined with compassionate attention to her patients’ emotional well-being. On her website a letter to patients includes these words:

The discussion that centers on a woman’s right to an abortion is so much bigger than any debate OR any law. It’s about my heart, a woman’s heart, and both the right and responsibility of bringing a child into the world... women of all ages need to make these decisions with people who care for them, people they trust.

A sign in the clinic reads: “We do sacred work that honors women and the circle of life and death. When you come here bring only love.”

Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, over 45 million women have had legal abortions in the United States. It is estimated that one in three women will have an abortion during her lifetime.

And for 36 years the anti-choice forces have waged a well-financed and nearly unopposed war of words to shame and demean women. They don't even try to hide their hatred and disdain for us. Outside our clinics the ‘sidewalk counselors’ scream "The blood from your crotch will rise up against you, you whores" , “Satan will drink your baby’s blood and you will die”, and "Loose women burn in Hell."

We can see from the shame and silence of 45 million women that the propaganda has been effective.

So, for Chelian, it only made sense to remind women of their own basic goodness. Her video reflects the truth that abortion providers know:

"Every day, good women choose abortion", and "To have an abortion is a normal experience."

It reminds us that goodness is:

Courage, honesty, wisdom, risking for what you believe is right for you, making choices that you believe are good for yourself. Goodness is not perfection, it is not obedience, and it is not martyrdom.

If you have made the decision to have an abortion, and are having a hard time feeling good about yourself and remembering that you are a good person, let us remind you and help you see the goodness in yourself and your choice.

She put the video on her website. But she wanted to reach more women.

When Renee posted the video on Youtube the anti's went ballistic.
The XM Satellite radio station WILCOW-XM has been playing the recordings over and over and telling their listeners to call and complain, which of course is jamming the clinic's phone lines.

The antis have bombarded the clinic with vile, unprintable attacks over the phones directed at the staff. Comments on Youtube included:

“If you are ripped to shreds...just like the unborn children you’ve murdered...it would be just” and “Bottom feeding serial killers of unborn children with no voice to protest their murder!” and “This is a very shallow attempt at pandering to weak minded people who would rather kill their children when it is inconvenient so the clinic can make more money.”

LifeSite, an anti-abortion on-line newsletter, headed its article “Michigan Abortion Facility Advertizes Abortion as ‘Sacred Work’”. Of course their conclusion was that “The videos are just the latest attempts by Northland to make abortion seem as attractive as possible.”

The fear-based hatred has been overwhelming. For now Chelian has taken the video off YouTube, but the horrible calls continue. She is seeking help from authorities. The video is still on her website, and will also be shown to each patient in the clinic.

Abortion providers have known the kind of people who make these calls for years. The rest of the country has just been introduced to them as they stalk health care, vilify and threaten the President, spread their bile and display their hatred. It is very important not to abandon women and the men who care about them to the cruelty of the anti abortion forces.

Their arguments are based on their belief that women are stupid--that we don’t know that abortion is about life and death---and that we do not recognize that it is not just our right, but our responsibility to decide whether and when to bring new life into the world through our bodies. Theirs is a bankrupt movement of moral hypocrisy. They lost even the claim to their own name when they started shooting us.

Whether it is Rene Chelian's "Goodness" videos, a banner that says, "When You Come Here Bring Only Love", a poster that reads, "We Honor Your Dreams", putting our patients' words in hearts on the walls, making patient journals available in our waiting rooms, or our willingness to acknowledge that of course abortion is a complex emotional experience, the antis react by attacking us because there is nothing else they can think of.

But America needs to hear from us. When the experience and voice of independent providers and the women we serve is truly part of the national conversation about abortion we will see a transformation.

In 1964 the poet Muriel Rukeyser wrote “If one woman told the truth about her life, the world would split open.” She may have been over-optimistic about the power of the voice of just one woman.

But how about 45 million?

The Audacity of Goodness

Charlotte Taft — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:00:00 -0500

The discussion that centers on a woman’s right to an abortion is so much bigger than any debate OR any law. It’s about my heart, a woman’s heart, and both the right and responsibility of bringing a child into the world... women of all ages need to make these decisions with people who care for them, people they trust.

A sign in the clinic reads: “We do sacred work that honors women and the circle of life and death. When you come here bring only love.”

Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, over 45 million women have had legal abortions in the United States. It is estimated that one in three women will have an abortion during her lifetime.

We can see from the shame and silence of 45 million women that the propaganda has been effective.

So, for Chelian, it only made sense to remind women of their own basic goodness. Her video reflects the truth that abortion providers know:

"Every day, good women choose abortion", and "To have an abortion is a normal experience."

It reminds us that goodness is:

Courage, honesty, wisdom, risking for what you believe is right for you, making choices that you believe are good for yourself. Goodness is not perfection, it is not obedience, and it is not martyrdom.

If you have made the decision to have an abortion, and are having a hard time feeling good about yourself and remembering that you are a good person, let us remind you and help you see the goodness in yourself and your choice.

She put the video on her website. But she wanted to reach more women.

The antis have bombarded the clinic with vile, unprintable attacks over the phones directed at the staff. Comments on Youtube included:

“If you are ripped to shreds...just like the unborn children you’ve murdered...it would be just” and “Bottom feeding serial killers of unborn children with no voice to protest their murder!” and “This is a very shallow attempt at pandering to weak minded people who would rather kill their children when it is inconvenient so the clinic can make more money.”

In 1964 the poet Muriel Rukeyser wrote “If one woman told the truth about her life, the world would split open.” She may have been over-optimistic about the power of the voice of just one woman.

But how about 45 million?

The Audacity of Goodness

Charlotte Taft — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:00:00 -0500

The discussion that centers on a woman’s right to an abortion is so much bigger than any debate OR any law. It’s about my heart, a woman’s heart, and both the right and responsibility of bringing a child into the world... women of all ages need to make these decisions with people who care for them, people they trust.

A sign in the clinic reads: “We do sacred work that honors women and the circle of life and death. When you come here bring only love.”

Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, over 45 million women have had legal abortions in the United States. It is estimated that one in three women will have an abortion during her lifetime.

We can see from the shame and silence of 45 million women that the propaganda has been effective.

So, for Chelian, it only made sense to remind women of their own basic goodness. Her video reflects the truth that abortion providers know:

"Every day, good women choose abortion", and "To have an abortion is a normal experience."

It reminds us that goodness is:

Courage, honesty, wisdom, risking for what you believe is right for you, making choices that you believe are good for yourself. Goodness is not perfection, it is not obedience, and it is not martyrdom.

If you have made the decision to have an abortion, and are having a hard time feeling good about yourself and remembering that you are a good person, let us remind you and help you see the goodness in yourself and your choice.

She put the video on her website. But she wanted to reach more women.

The antis have bombarded the clinic with vile, unprintable attacks over the phones directed at the staff. Comments on Youtube included:

“If you are ripped to shreds...just like the unborn children you’ve murdered...it would be just” and “Bottom feeding serial killers of unborn children with no voice to protest their murder!” and “This is a very shallow attempt at pandering to weak minded people who would rather kill their children when it is inconvenient so the clinic can make more money.”

In 1964 the poet Muriel Rukeyser wrote “If one woman told the truth about her life, the world would split open.” She may have been over-optimistic about the power of the voice of just one woman.

But how about 45 million?

How the Bishops Lost Sight of Their Own Priorities

Jessica Arons — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:00:03 -0500

This article is co-authored by Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program and a member of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and Ellen-Marie Whelan, a Senior Health Policy Analyst and Associate Director of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress fact sheet on the Bishop’s health reform criteria can be found here.

The Audacity of Goodness

Charlotte Taft — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 07:00:00 -0500

The discussion that centers on a woman’s right to an abortion is so much bigger than any debate OR any law. It’s about my heart, a woman’s heart, and both the right and responsibility of bringing a child into the world... women of all ages need to make these decisions with people who care for them, people they trust.

A sign in the clinic reads: “We do sacred work that honors women and the circle of life and death. When you come here bring only love.”

Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, over 45 million women have had legal abortions in the United States. It is estimated that one in three women will have an abortion during her lifetime.

We can see from the shame and silence of 45 million women that the propaganda has been effective.

So, for Chelian, it only made sense to remind women of their own basic goodness. Her video reflects the truth that abortion providers know:

"Every day, good women choose abortion", and "To have an abortion is a normal experience."

It reminds us that goodness is:

Courage, honesty, wisdom, risking for what you believe is right for you, making choices that you believe are good for yourself. Goodness is not perfection, it is not obedience, and it is not martyrdom.

If you have made the decision to have an abortion, and are having a hard time feeling good about yourself and remembering that you are a good person, let us remind you and help you see the goodness in yourself and your choice.

She put the video on her website. But she wanted to reach more women.

The antis have bombarded the clinic with vile, unprintable attacks over the phones directed at the staff. Comments on Youtube included:

“If you are ripped to shreds...just like the unborn children you’ve murdered...it would be just” and “Bottom feeding serial killers of unborn children with no voice to protest their murder!” and “This is a very shallow attempt at pandering to weak minded people who would rather kill their children when it is inconvenient so the clinic can make more money.”

In 1964 the poet Muriel Rukeyser wrote “If one woman told the truth about her life, the world would split open.” She may have been over-optimistic about the power of the voice of just one woman.

But how about 45 million?

From a Young Woman to (Some) of the 'Menopausal Militia'

Shelby Knox — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:00:32 -0500

I write as a member of the so-called “millennial generation” that’s been the subject of several lectures from older feminists this week, from an article proclaiming our ignorance in the New York Times to Rebecca Sive’s lecture demanding my generation “wake up and realize that women’s reproductive rights can only be secured by battling to secure this human right.”

Well, excuse you. Some of us have been here the whole time. And we’re damn tired of our experience being disappeared by older activists who, in their (sometimes) valid critiques of portions of the younger generation who aren’t as engaged as we are, seem to forget every single young activist who ever crossed their path.

I’m not arguing that some young women aren’t apathetic about reproductive rights. Some young women don’t identify as feminists and some are as caught up in maintaining the patriarchy as Congressman Stupak and his clan of faux progressives. Women are the only group that grows more radical with age and the gains of the Women’s Liberation movement shield many young women from blatant sexism until they start to see pay disparities, or discover that their workplace has no childcare plan, or that the sexual power they thought liberated them one day disappears. It is both my responsibility and yours to raise the consciousness of these young women. I know how I do it. Besides screaming at them, what may I ask are you doing on this front?

So no, I’m not talking for or about these young women. I am addressing you as a sister. I am not your daughter, your niece, your granddaughter or your goddaughter. I am your colleague. I’m 23 and I’ve been in this movement for eight years, more than a third my lifetime. I was not raised with “feminism in the water” nor am I an anomaly – I travel across this country organizing with young women on campuses and in communities for reproductive justice, better sex education, access to birth control and pre-natal services for teen mothers. And yes, abortion rights.

As a colleague, a bit of friendly advice: it does nothing to build our movement when you channel frustration about the rollback of women’s rights in this country onto young women in general, as if we more than any other group can be considered a homogenous lump. In fact, it does the opposite, perpetuating the generational divide that has weakened our movement since even before Betty Friedan had select words for a young writer named Gloria Steinem.

Yesterday at the National Day of Action, every speaker fell all over herself to thank young women for simply showing up. The stage behind the podium was carefully dotted with young faces sporting bright pink t-shirts and signs. Yet only one speaker was under the age of thirty – a white woman from a private college whose only role was to list the universities from which student activists had traveled.

But, behind the scenes, young feminists who are dedicated organizers crafted a youth specific response. Sarah Audelo, a twenty-four year old organizer at Advocates for Youth, created The Hanger Project, which mobilizes college students to distribute wire hangers with facts about illegal and inaccessible abortion on their campuses and send pictures of their actions to elected representatives. The team of twenty-something organizers from the Feminist Majority Foundation coordinated with young activists across the country to plan local call-ins and rallies to coincide with the national day of action. When buses from New York and Philly and Toledo and Atlanta descended on the Capitol yesterday, many of the riders were students taking time out during the last week of classes to fight for the right to control their bodies.

Sadly, many gender justice minded young women have abandoned mainstream feminist organizations after realizing their pleas for young voices were really nothing more than casting calls for politically expedient window dressing – a position none of our barrier-breaking Second Wave sisters would have settled for, either. As any veteran of social justice movements knows, tokenization without a real seat at the table is just another form of oppression.

Still others leave our movement because, after making the signs and running registration and sending out the email blasts and designing the social media campaigns and taking the pictures and doing all the things young women happily do in this movement, we still have to listen to our bosses and sheroes bemoan young women’s apathy and inaction. It’s disheartening. It’s hurtful. And, it’s not true.

The road to “generational cooperation” is a minefield, with ageism as well as racism, classism, homophobia, and cissexism from both sides mixed in with very valid ideological disputes that can only make our movement stronger. Feminists of all ages have a responsibility to do better - to see ourselves as both pupils and teachers and to remember that our movement is about at it’s very core honoring and celebrating one another’s lived experience. But most of all, we can't be throwing each other under the bus because that's what everyone else is trying to do!

Sister, are you with me on that?

Millennials and The Right To Choose

Elisabeth Garber-Paul — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:04:00 -0500

Since Bart Stupak tried to ban federal funding of abortion in a House bill earlier this month, there’s been an abundance of opining articles on the public perception of abortion. And according to two articles published recently, the real split isn’t between red states or blue states, but generational approaches to the issue of abortion.

In yesterday’s New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote about 80-year-old Representative Louise M. Slaughter—a Democrat from New York, staunch defender of abortion rights, and member of what NARAL’s Nancy Keenan calls “the menopausal militia”—who secretly helped her unmarried friend receive the procedure in the early 1950’s. According to her, the pain and secrecy of the experience was “seared into my mind,” no doubt helping to inform her pro-choice policy decisions since entering congress in 1986.

But in the 37 years since Roe v. Wade was decided—including the time in which my generation, the Millennials, has grown up—there has been fewer opportunities for pregnant women and their friends to have these kinds of scarring experiences. Instead, we’ve grown up during a time when abortion, while often expensive or difficult to come by, is at least a legal option. “The result is a generational divide,” writes Stolberg, “not because younger women are any less supportive of abortion rights than their elders, but because their frame of reference is different.” Ana Greenberg, a Democratic pollster who studies public attitude towards abortion, backs up this theory.

Here is a generation that has never known a time when abortion has been illegal…. For may of them , the daily experience is: It’s legal and if you really need one you can probably figure out how to get one. So when we send out e-mail alerts saying, "Oh my God, write to your senator," it’s hard for young people to have that same sense or urgency.

True, there has been no single event to inspire Millennials to fight for the right to abortion. But, as the Times points out—and as New York Magazine thoroughly covered—the other change for our generation has been the development of the sonogram.

As fetal ultrasound technology improved during the nineties, abortion providers, conditioned to reassure patients that the fetus was merely tissue, found it much harder to do so once their patients were staring at images that looked so lifelike. Banking on the emotional power of seeing a beating heart on a television screen—many in the pro-life movement refer to sonograms as “God’s window”—organizations like Focus on the Family began to use this technology to their advantage, sending ultrasound machines to Crisis Pregnancy Centers in an initiative taglined “Revealing Life to Save Life.”

So what does this mean for Millennials? First, it means that we need our theory and rhetoric to catch up with the technology, and quick—otherwise, Roe v. Wade may soon be as obsolete as the tape deck. While we shouldn’t abandon other, more modern issues—such as GLBTQ rights, a distant dream in the 1970s—we should find ways to update our arguments. On Wednesday, the Stop Stupak coalition will hold a “National Day of Action,” which will include a number of abortion rights advocacy groups hosting events and campaigns to inspire pro-choice Millennials to voice our support for pro-choice legislation. Our mothers and grandmothers fought hard to make sure that we could make decisions about our body, and now it’s the Millennial’s duty to ensure that abortion will be safe and legal for the next generation.

Maybe Stupak is just the galvanizing opponent we’ve been looking for.

From a Young Woman to (Some) of the 'Menopausal Militia'

Shelby Knox — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:00:32 -0500

Sister, are you with me on that?

How the Bishops Lost Sight of Their Own Priorities

Jessica Arons — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:00:03 -0500

This article is co-authored by Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program and a member of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and Ellen-Marie Whelan, a Senior Health Policy Analyst and Associate Director of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress fact sheet on the Bishop’s health reform criteria can be found here.

How the Bishops Lost Sight of Their Own Priorities

Jessica Arons — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:00:03 -0500

This article is co-authored by Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program and a member of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and Ellen-Marie Whelan, a Senior Health Policy Analyst and Associate Director of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress fact sheet on the Bishop’s health reform criteria can be found here.

Baltimore's Limited-Service Pregnancy Centers Disclaimers Bill signed into law

Robin Marty — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:45:48 -0500

In a major victory for women wanting to take charge of their reproductive health, Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon signed the Limited-Service Pregnancy Disclaimers Bill into Baltimore law. The bill, introduced by City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake and co-sponsored by ten other council members, ensures that women who enter Baltimore area Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) hoping to find access to birth control, information about a potential pregnancy, or referrals to abortion providers will be immediately informed if those services are not available.

Prior to the passing of this legislation, a woman who visited a crisis pregnancy center may not receive the assistance she is seeking. CPCs were not mandated to disclose their limited services, including, in many cases, their lack of support for birth control, their belief that abortion causes breast cancer, or their refusal to refer a patient to a clinic that could terminate a pregnancy. With the passage of the Limited-Service Pregnancy Center Disclaimer bill, CPCs will now need to provide that information up front to their clients.

Among others applauding the bills passage is Jennifer Blasdell, Executive Director of NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland

“This law will empower women by giving them full information up front about what to expect from a limited service pregnancy center. This provision does not ask a facility to provide any services they find objectionable, but only asks them to tell the truth about the nature of their services.

Baltimore City is the first local jurisdiction in the United States to introduce a bill regulating limited service pregnancy centers and the first government in the country to pass a law.

A Crazy Idea That Just Might Work

Michael Sean Winters — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:00:50 -0500

This post originally appeared in America Magazine, the national Catholic weekly

The issue of federal funding for abortion threatens to derail final passage of a health care bill. All sides claim the same goal: Extending the logic of the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funds from covering abortions in any current government insurance program, to the newly configured exchanges and public option. But, translating that goal into legislative language that both pro-choice and pro-life legislators can live with has proven elusive. And, unlike other potential impediments to health care reform, the abortion issue is all about principle, moral principle at that, and so it is not easily the subject of a compromise.

Pro-life groups, most especially the nation’s Catholic bishops, were thrilled when the Stupak Amendment passed the House because it really does bar federal funds from going to pay for abortion coverage. Of course, the Stupak Amendment produced a backlash among pro-choice groups, and in the Senate, pro-life senators are in the minority. The current Senate bill tries to avoid federal funding in subsidized health insurance by "segregating" the money that comes from the government from the money contributed by the individual, and only paying for abortion coverage from the individual’s contribution. The bishops have said this "segregation" of funds is only an accounting gimmick (money is fungible) and the non-partisan group Factcheck.org agrees with the bishops. Now, both sides have dug in and they are talking past each other, insisting that their way is the only way to achieve the goal both acknowledge they share. That means it is time to seek a new way forward, a different approach from that envisioned by either the Stupak Amendment or by the "segregated" funds approach of the Senate bill.

The most nettlesome difficulty is how to deal with insurance plans to be purchased with a mix of federal subsidies and private premiums in the proposed exchanges. Stupak says: If you get a federal subsidy you can’t buy a plan with abortion coverage. The Senate bill, as noted above, merely indicates that the federal funds will be segregated from the private funds. But, if the subsidies are calculated based on a person’s income, and given to the individual as a voucher to shop with in the exchange, why should we not let the individual choose whatever coverage they want? If they prefer a more expensive plan with abortion coverage, the voucher is not going to increase, so they really are making their own decision about what to do with their money and de facto as well as de jure they are buying their abortion coverage with their own funds. Additionally, the voucher is going to the individual, not the insurance company directly, so this arrangement does not constitute federal funding in any way.

Vouchers are currently used to cope with another complicated issue, helping poor parents pay for tuition at religious schools. There the difficulty arises from the First Amendment not the Hyde Amendment, but the idea is the same. In the health care debate, the difficulty arises from the profound ambivalence of many Americans about abortion: They do not want the procedure to be illegal but they really don’t want to encourage it with their tax dollars. The Hyde Amendment, after all, was never about saving money, it was about expressing this ambivalence about abortion. The idea of using vouchers was floated this summer, but not embraced. At the time, a spokesman for the U.S. bishops, Richard Doerflinger, told Beliefnet.com that the idea of using vouchers was "such a crazy idea it just might work." That is not an endorsement, but it is also not a veto. It is time to explore the "crazy idea."

The public option, already in great difficulty because the GOP succeeded in framing it as a "government take-over," is further complicated by the abortion issue. Again, Stupak is straightforward: the public option does not cover abortion, period. In the Senate, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has to jump through some hoops to get abortion in the public option, but it is not excluded. It should be. The public option should be as close as possible to the health care coverage congressmen receive. (This might also help Democrats sell the public option. There are worse tag lines than "Because you should have access to the same insurance your congressman gets!") Although the hysterics from pro-choice legislators like Cong. Diana DeGette and Sen. Barbara Boxer about the Stupak Amendment putting women back to the days of back alley abortions suggest otherwise, the fact is that DeGette and Boxer do not have abortion coverage in their health care because they are federal employees. Do either of them really want to equate their situation with that of women in the 1960s?

Finally, the last difficulty is the easiest to fix. The Stupak Amendment does not technically bar plans that are purchased in the exchanges completely with private funds from offering abortion coverage, but it has that effect because the insurance companies say the pool of people not receiving federal subsidies would be too small to offer such a plan. In this sense, pro-choice critics are correct that Stupak goes beyond Hyde. The law should require that the exchanges have at least one plan with abortion coverage and one plan without such coverage. And, because people with federal subsidies would be using vouchers, you do not have to separate those who are paying with their own money from the pool of those people receiving subsidies. The pools would be large enough to ensure both kinds of policies are offered.

Those of us who are lifelong pro-life Democrats were heartened when President Obama said he sought "common ground" on abortion and pledged that health care reform would not entail government funding of abortion. We were willing to look the other way on the Mexico City policy and we understood that the decision on embryonic stem cells would have occurred if John McCain had won the election too. As well, it is difficult to see how passing health care with abortion funding will help the Democrats: They stand to lose enough seats in next year’s midterm elections without also replacing a group of pro-life Democratic legislators with pro-life Republican congressmen. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to remain Speaker, she needs to have Democrats representing more conservative districts like NC-14 and VA-5 and MI-1, currently represented by pro-life Democrats Health Shuler, Tom Perriello and Bart Stupak, respectively.

Catholic social teaching is unambiguous when it comes to the fact that health care is a right not a privilege. In today’s political climate, there is simply no alternative to the current legislation making its way to the President’s desk. It would be criminal to see this goal derailed because legislators can’t find a way to achieve what they all admit they want: health care coverage that does not include federal funding of abortion, especially when all that is needed is some creative thinking and a new approach. Instead of getting dug in, both sides need to reach out.

How the Bishops Lost Sight of Their Own Priorities

Jessica Arons — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:00:03 -0500

This article is co-authored by Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program and a member of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and Ellen-Marie Whelan, a Senior Health Policy Analyst and Associate Director of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress fact sheet on the Bishop’s health reform criteria can be found here.

A Crazy Idea That Just Might Work

Michael Sean Winters — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:00:50 -0500

This post originally appeared in America Magazine, the national Catholic weekly

How the Bishops Lost Sight of Their Own Priorities

Jessica Arons — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 12:00:03 -0500

This article is co-authored by Jessica Arons, Director of the Women’s Health and Rights Program and a member of the Faith and Progressive Policy Initiative at the Center for American Progress, and Ellen-Marie Whelan, a Senior Health Policy Analyst and Associate Director of Health Policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Center for American Progress fact sheet on the Bishop’s health reform criteria can be found here.