WHPA Revives Debate over Abortion Restrictions at Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing

Rhiannon DiClemente, Guest Blogger (’16, Temple University Beasley School of Law)

Early Thursday morning on July 15, 2014, the Senate halls were bustling with interns, staff members, and local advocates eager to witness the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on S. 1696, also known as the Women’s Health Protection Act of 2013 (WHPA). Attendees, who managed to overflow the room, patiently awaited testimony provided by members of Congress, doctors, and activists, both for and against the bill. In light of the decisions in Hobby Lobby and McCullen, it was reassuring to see politicians taking a long over-due stand to protect a woman’s constitutional right to determine whether and when to bear a child or end a pregnancy.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), addresses medically unnecessary state restrictions claimed to “protect” women’s health. It requires that state legislators prove state laws restricting abortion are in fact medically necessary, rather than politically or ideologically motivated. It also requires that states regulate abortion providers in exactly the same way they do other clinics and doctors who provide comparable services. The bill has its shortcomings, such as failing to address clinic violence, insurance prohibitions, and parental consent laws, as a March 2014 blog post highlights. However, it is an important step forward in combatting laws that have a disparate impact on low-income women, immigrant women, LGBT persons, and women of color.

Why is this bill important? As a LSRJ chapter leader at Temple University School of Law and a summer legal intern at the Center for Health and Gender Equity (CHANGE), I know that despite the fact that we have Roe , the web of state restrictions has decimated abortion access. In states like Louisiana, Texas, and Mississippi, the situation is dire. In 2012, the Mississippi legislature passed HB 1390, mandating that any physician performing abortions in the state have admitting privileges at an area hospital (an unnecessary practice). During the Senate committee hearing, Dr. Willie Parker, a board-certified OB/GYN and the last physician providing abortion care in Mississippi, testified that despite 13 attempts to gain admitting privileges at regional hospitals, not one of his requests has been granted. This is just one example of how seemingly ‘safety-oriented’ legislation is really aimed to shut down clinics and restrict abortion access.

At the hearing, Rep. Janet Chu (D-CA27) testified that between 2011 and 2013, states passed over 200 restrictions blocking access to abortion services. This translates to more restrictions on women’s health care in three years than in the entire preceding decade. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) highlighted that these restrictions have forced women to travel greater distances and endure longer wait times to obtain an abortion. “The effect of these laws is that a woman’s constitutional right now depends on her zip code,” stated Rep. Chu, “We need laws that put women’s health and safety first – not politics.”

By speaking out against arbitrary restrictions that do not reflect medical best practice standards, supporters of S. 1696 have declared their respect for the constitutional right to access abortion services and trust in a woman’s ability to make the best choices for her own health and life.

Full testimony can be found here.

New Study Debunks Six of the Worst “Myths” About Sex-Selective Abortion

Gavin Barney, LSRJ Summer Intern (’16, University of California, Berkeley School of Law)

The documentary It’s a Girl was released in 2012 to immediate acclaim in traditionally progressive and pro-choice corners – the Amnesty International Film Festival made it an official selection and Ms. Magazine called the movie “unflinching” in its positive review. Fully titled It’s a Girl: the Three Deadliest Words in the World, the film describes the problem of son preference in India and China, telling how, tragically, as many girls are “eliminated” yearly in those countries as are born in the United States. However, the documentary was not quite what it appeared: a 2013 article in Slate uncovered that It’s a Girl was produced with strong, but well hidden, ties to an organization called Harvest Media Ministry that makes anti-choice videos. The film also has a subtle, but real anti-abortion message. The really troubling thing about It’s a Girl is not necessarily who produced it however – anti’s are not automatically incapable of producing material of worth. Rather, the problem is how films like this fit into the narrative of another issue here in the United States: the recent onslaught of “sex-selective abortion” ban legislation that impose criminal penalties on the performance of an abortion sought because of the sex of the fetus.

CaptureLast week I attended a talk coinciding with the release of a new report on the issue of sex-selective abortion bans called “Replacing Myths with Facts.” Produced by Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF), and the University of Chicago, the study identifies six common and damaging myths and misconceptions that have allowed sex-selective abortion bans to worm their way into so many legislative sessions. Chief amongst these myths is that male-biased sex ratios “are proof that sex-selective abortions are occurring,” (spoiler: there are other major factors at play) and that the “primary motivation behind laws banning sex-selective abortion in the United States is to prevent gender-based discrimination” (another spoiler: it’s really about restricting access to abortions in general).

The speakers began their presentation by introducing the room to It’s a Girl. It was suggested at the talk, and I am inclined to agree, that one of the reasons both that It’s a Girl has been a hit among pro-choice people and that anti-choice organizations and politicians have so aggressively pushed sex-selective abortion bans is that the issue of sex selection is particularly uncomfortable for pro-choice folks. The notion that people would be actively choosing boy babies over girl babies, and acting on those choices, is disturbing to any person with even the broadest feminist beliefs. Additionally, recent technological innovations that potentially open the door to allowing people to use artificial reproductive technologies to choose traits, including sex, for so-called “designer babies” make questions of sex preference more current and significant. In light of these realities, it is not terribly surprising that many normally pro-choice people may be willing to start carving out exceptions to abortion access – and it is equally unsurprising that racial stereotypes and misconceptions have played a major role.

This, of course, is where “Replacing Myths with Facts” comes in. In its introduction, “Replacing Myths” explains how proponents of sex-selective abortion bans focus on “the problem of ‘missing women’ in China and India in particular” to justify their policies. They rely on and reinforce stereotypes that people in the Asian and Pacific Island community bring these presences and practices to the US. This is myth #5 that “Replacing Myths” debunks: the most recent studies have found that foreign born Chinese, Indians, and Koreans actually “have more girls overall than white Americans.” This is a particularly important myth to debunk because the way the laws are designed – putting the onus on the health care provider to deny abortions based on son preference with the threat of criminal sanctions –opens the door to doctors generally denying API women abortions out of stereotype fueled fear.

Sex-selective abortion bans have become an extremely prevalent tactic to limit abortion access, and the fact that these policies are based heavily on racist stereotypes and spread by playing on people’s racial misconceptions make this an issue of particular import to supporters of reproductive justice. I encourage you to read “Replacing Myths with Facts” and to inoculate yourself as best you can against the lies around sex-selective abortion.

Nouns and Adjectives and Why Neither Addresses the Issue

Sasha Young, LSRJ Summer Intern (’16, Northwestern School of Law)race-391x260

Last weekend at LSRJ’s annual Leadership Convention I co-moderated the Women of Color Issue Caucus. The name struck me. I hadn’t realized that we were called “people of color” now.  Minority? Non-white? Person of color? The landscape of terms to describe race in America is full of landmines, and it looks like “people of color” is the new standard of political correctness. I find this to be problematic in some significant ways. First of all, I don’t think it’s any better or worse than most other terms. Secondly, I think it still fits into the same structure of white being the default or standard. Lastly, it prevents some people from doing the legwork of thinking about race and its complexities.

Whenever someone uses the term “person of color,” they are referring to a group of people who don’t benefit from white privilege. Many people feel like the existing terms describing a group of oppressed-and/or-marginalized-in-one-way-or-another people have been insufficient: “minority” could be technically incorrect in certain places or situations, and “non-white” defines a group by what it’s not. “Minority” might not technically be correct, but neither is “person of color” if you’re referring to a fair-skinned Asian woman who might be the same color as a white person. Race is not just about pigment.

Non-white is probably the most technically precise word to use, but it defines a group as a negative, but in another way so does “person of color.” The default “person” is not “of color” unless you specify so. The frame certainly isn’t that we have “people of color,” and then “people lacking color.” “Person of color” feels like it’s expressing the same concept—that the default is white unless expressed otherwise. Also, it doesn’t go without saying that everyone who isn’t white doesn’t have the same experience. Clumping us all together just supports the structure of supremacy.

Loretta Ross says the term “woman of color” emerged from a racially diverse group of women as a political term denoting solidarity against white supremacy. I can appreciate the political nature, but I think the phrase is often used as a safe word for white people nervous about discussing race. Race is difficult to discuss for everyone, and it’s not clear how to avoid offending anyone. But that difficulty isn’t fixed by using “color” as the object of a prepositional phrase instead of an adjective. I think that finding one word or phrase which we—persons with very different experiences not marked by white privilege—can sign off on is simplistic. There is no simple way around the question, “Who exactly am I referring to?” White people can’t hide behind “people of color” if they are actually referring to black people and Latinos defending their place in law school as more than waiters or gardeners, or Arabs and Muslims constantly being targets of suspicion, or non-white people who are allowed into a “closed” space without white people. The answer to the question “what term is ok to describe people marginalized by white privilege?” is predictable: it depends.

Race is problematic; language describing it is problematic. “People of color” belongs on the same list as “racial minorities,” “racially marginalized people,” and “non-white people.” They are all phrases that can be appropriate, inappropriate, offensive, or fine depending on how and by whom they are used.

 

See this and this for more.

LSReJuvenated after the Annual Leadership Institute

Grace Ramsay, LSRJ Summer Reproductive Rights Activist Service Corps (RRASC) Intern (’16, Smith College)

Ever experience “social justice burnout”?  When your day-to-day is filled with researching and discussing painful topics, it can feel daunting, or even impossible, to continue in RJ work.  The 2014 Leadership Institute gave me new energy to approach the rest of this internship and to continue my work in reproductive justice.  After a whirlwind weekend starting and ending with the cute/ creepy Virgin America safety music video, the LSRJ national office is back in Oakland.  The LSRJ seventh annual Leadership Institute, hosted at George Washington University School of Law, was beyond successful from both the national office side and the attendees’ side.  I was excited to represent an organization and wear the “LSRJ hat,” while also wearing the “attendee hat” which  meant that I could check in with folks who I could consider my peers for honest feedback of the conference.  Everyone I had the chance to talk to loved the weekend as much as I did! Here were my five favorite parts of the 2014 LSRJ Leadership Institute:

1) Panels and workshops.  Of course, this was the main content of the LI, and I had the opportunity to sit in on several workshops as the point-person.  During the presentations – which varied from ways to message around abortion, to a how-to for strategic LSRJ chapter planning, to an introduction to policymaking – I got to absorb knowledge from experts across the spectrum of RJ advocacy.  Judging from how engaged our attendees were, they also appreciated the breadth of knowledge that they can now take back to their LSRJ chapters.

2) Experiencing behind the scenes facilitation.  There’s so much that goes into facilitating a conference, and I only played a small part in making sure this LI went smoothly.  Working with the national office to ensure every detail was set made me appreciate how much forethought and planning has to go into organizing successful events.  From handing water bottles to speakers, to timing each workshop, I was only able to successfully complete my part of the work because of the effort that Keely and Samantha had already put in.  Y’all are awesome!

3) Giving a presentation to a large audience.  Part of my responsibility at the LI was presenting one of LSRJ’s event toolkits to the chapter leaders.  Because of the preparation work we all put in beforehand, I felt 100% comfortable and in control of the materials I presented.  As I said to my mom on the phone afterwards, now I understand why you’re supposed to prepare presentations instead of winging it!  I’m hoping that my presentation of the sex-ed event toolkit, along with Gavin and Sasha’s event toolkit presentations, helped chapter leaders better understand how to put on successful events on their campuses.

4) Connecting with LSRJ folks. One person I spoke with this weekend called the LSRJ network a “family.”  She said the term networking is too scary and inaccessible to describe the connections formed during the LI.  I appreciated that so many law students were willing to engage with me – a lowly undergrad!- and suggest different organizations I should check out in the upcoming semester.  Like I said before, I was lucky enough to both represent internsLSRJ and interact with attendees in a more interpersonal sense.

5) Bonding with the office!  There’s something about flying across the coast that makes a national office closer.  I can’t speak for all of us, but I have the feeling everyone had a more-than-fun time together, especially us interns.  Yes, this is a Snapchat:

Thanks to everyone who attended the 2014 Leadership Institute, and I hope that everyone there found it beyond worthwhile!

Pregnant in a War Zone

Sasha Young, LSRJ Summer Intern (’16, Northwestern School of Law)

A couple of years ago a dear friend of mine had her dream wedding “back home” in Palestine. She’s now battling the Atlanta heat through her first pregnancy, and with the recent surge in violence in the Occupied Territories, I thought for the first time what it would have been like for her to be pregnant “back home.”  The Occupied Palestinian Territories are fraught with human rights situations. I’ve thought about many of the different aspects before, but before I imagined my friend, I had never really taken a reproductive justice lens to the conflict. Immediately, my mind jumped from sexual assault, to access to abortion services, to getting maternity care in a place where sanitary napkins were only recently removed from the list of blockaded items.

The implications for pregnant women are predictably scary. An investigation into the 2008-2009 siege in Gaza revealed horrifying stories of women walking for miles through heavy shelling to find safe places to deliver. Hospitals prioritize the injured, travel is nearly impossible, and physicians are overwhelmed by trauma injuries. One woman, Dalal, recounted her doctor shouting at her for putting the ambulance driver’s life at risk when she should have delivered at home. Another woman, Rula, recounted walking alone for more than an hour in active labor only to be turned away from the hospital because there were too many injured people and not enough staff. Another report found that between 2000 and 2007, ten per cent of pregnant Palestinian women in the Occupied Territories were forced to give birth while stopped at Israeli checkpoints. Of the 69 documented births, 35 babies and 5 mothers died.

Obviously Occupied Palestine is not the only place where women are pregnant and give birth under violent and dangerous conditions. Stories like these are undoubtedly repeated throughout Syria, Congo, Timor, and every conflict zone in between. The immediate trauma of violent conflict leaves practically everything else as “collateral damage” of war, but I suppose this is just a little known bullet point on a long list of reasons we need a sustainable solution to the conflict in Israel and Palestine.

Mirena IUD Litigation, Misinformation, and a Few Thoughts on Informed Choice

Gavin Barney, LSRJ Summer Intern (’16, University of California, Berkeley School of Law)

According to a recent commentary in the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP) peer reviewed journal, Contraception, reproductive health care clinics are currently witnessing a notable upswing in the number of patients requesting the removal of their Mirena IUDs. Mirena is a hormonal intrauterine system that prevents pregnancy for around five years through the release of levonorgestrel. And like other types of IUDs and long-term birth control, Mirena is very popular among the public health community: the ARHP refers to the device as safe and effective a number of times throughout the commentary. However, many women are choosing to have their IUDs removed and report being frightened by prevalent online and television publicity of common and devastating side-effects, including migration, perforation, and infertility. The problem, explains ARHP, is that these side-effect are not common, and some of them are actually fake – or “medically implausible” as the article puts it.

The supposed dangers of the Mirena device have made their way into the public consciousness as the result of solicitations for plaintiffs in mass litigation against the device’s manufacturer Bayer. This all initially passed me by, but after researching for this blog post I can report back that there is a lot of if-you-or-a-loved-one-has-been… out there. Mirena, like any other form of birth control, has potential risks, but as a result of media and advertising coverage these risks appear hugely magnified. ARHP contends that this hurts women in two ways: 1) by decreasing the number of women using long lasting birth control, and 2) by deterring contraceptive development by threatening that future technology will be met with similar litigation – note that from the 1970s to the 1980s, the number of companies pursuing contraceptive research fell from 13 to 1.*

For me, the most significant impact that misinformation around the Mirena device causes is not a reduction in the overall number of women using long term contraception. Rather, I am most concerned that opportunistic Mirena litigation and junk science could dissuade women from pursuing or keeping a birth control method that they would otherwise have chosen. IUDs do have some common side-effects – especially immediately following insertion – that can range from unpleasant to awful, so there are entirely legitimate reasons to remove the device early. But for those who actually do want to use and keep an IUD, misinformation can be tantamount to manipulation. Therefore, the central question the ARHP article raises is: what does informed and dignified decision making actually look like when we are so often bombarded with misinformation?

A quick search of the word “Mirena” shows just how murky the waters are when it comes to information on this IUD. Case in point: the first search result on Google, after Mirena’s official website, is DrugWatch.com, which describes a terrifying and “frequently encountered complication,” called “migration,” in which the IUD perforates the uterus and enters the body cavity, causing pain, infection, and damage to nearby organs. The ARHP article, on the other hand, scathingly refers to this problem as “fictitious.” Another site, in its review of the truth behind Mirena lawsuit ads, refers to migration as “so rare that even with tens of millions of women using IUDs worldwide, we can’t estimate how often it happens.”

I can easily envision a situation where a woman may encounter that first explanation of migration and immediately visit her doctor to have her IUD removed. Should the doctor simply dismiss her concerns out of hand because she knows that they are unfounded? Or should the doctor obey her patient’s wishes with the knowledge that she may have been manipulated into removing a device she actually wanted? The answer, as answers so often do, falls somewhere in the middle. LSRJ’s definition of reproductive justice holds that people must be able to “exercise the rights and access the resources they need to thrive and to decide whether, when, and how to have and parent children with dignity…” Here, my hypothetical patient has the right to access the resources she actually wants and needs, so it is her doctor’s responsibility to explain the true nature of the risks and dispel the misinformation. Then, should the patient still decide that the risk is too great, that choice should be met with the same degree of respect. Of course this all relies on the doctors themselves being entirely up on the most recent data about the device they are inserting/ removing and that they themselves are not intent on spreading misinformation.  So… fingers crossed on that one.

*From the ARHP article, this appears to have resulted from the litigation concerning the Dalkon shield. I do not think the writer intended to suggest that that was a case of junk science or junk law. I certainly don’t suggest that.

The Changing Abortion Conversation in Latin America and the Caribbean

Sasha Young, LSRJ Summer Intern (’16, Northwestern School of Law)

I recently saw a film that caught me by surprise, “La Espera” (released in the States as images“Expecting”) by Chilean filmmaker Francisca Fuenzalida. The film is devoted to one night, when Natalia and Rodrigo, a teenage couple from Santiago, self-induce an abortion with Misoprostol. The film was released in 2011 to critical praise for great filmmaking and the courage to tackle the subject of abortion in a country with one of the strictest abortion bans in the world.

Earlier this year I traveled to Chile, the skinny country that lines the western coast of South America, with a bit of angst over what I would find. I wondered what a country that in the last 50 years had a socialist president, a revolution, and a dictator [who, despite his human rights violations, brought incredible economic development and one of the most oppressive abortion laws in the world] would actually look like. I’d heard stories from friends about their own botched Misoprostol abortions, and I’d read about little Belén, the 11-year-old girl who was raped by her mother’s partner and then praised by the former president for deciding to continue her pregnancy. What I found was a country where, although it’s not uncommon to see hormonal teens passionately rolling around the manicured lawns of el Cerro Santa Lucía or see street art cursing the bourgeoisie, the conversation about abortion is hard to find.

I worked in an abortion clinic in Bogotá, lived beside an abortion clinic in Mexico City, and marched to stop restrictions on reproductive rights in Atlanta. I’m from a little island where abortion is still illegal, but even there in Aruba, the conversation of abortion happens. So I was really excited a few weeks ago to hear a debate happening around new Chilean president Michelle Bachelet’s plans to introduce therapeutic abortion exceptions to Chile’s abortion law later this year. The controversial president is a physician by profession, a single mother of three children, and possibly made of steel considering the political risk she’s taking with this new initiative. Abortion is a controversial topic, but in a region with one of the highest rates of teenage pregnancy, where bad abortions are the leading killer of young women, and where criminal penalties for abortion disproportionately affect poor women, we have to at least have a conversation about what reproductive justice in our region looks like.  The winds are changing throughout Latin America and the Caribbean, and having an open and honest conversation is the first step to achieving equal access to tools that help us decide when, how, why, and if we want to parent.

 

Reproductive Oppression Comes at a Cost, Literally

Grace Ramsay, LSRJ Summer Reproductive Rights Activist Service Corps (RRASC) Intern (’16, Smith College)

In 2010, I needed emergency contraception.  Asking my moms (yes, moms) for help was out of the question. So, I waited in the CVS parking lot while my 18 year old friend bought it for me because I was sixteen and Plan B was not yet over the counter. If my friend had said no, if I couldn’t afford the $50 upfront charge, or if I lived in a different state, there’s a good chance I wouldn’t have gotten the morning after pill at all.

Contraception access should not depend on your age, your provider or pharmacist’s religious beliefs, or the employer you work for. Naturally, I was dismayed to see the Supreme Court decision that allows corporations to refuse birth control coverage on religious grounds.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg  reminds us that reproductive oppression comes at a cost, literally: “It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage.” 

My snarky feminist side can’t help but wonder, (as so many have already lamented,) how come Hobby Lobby still covers vasectomies and Viagra? And why are condoms are available at practically any store, to any age, but it took until last year to have OTC emergency contraception? Can it be as simple and paternalistic as men not wanting women to have control over their personal reproductive decisions? I’m trying to remain hopeful that the outpouring of negative response to the Hobby Lobby decision will translate into renewed activism for reproductive justice.  In the meantime, I have to keep remembering that progress does not move in a linear direction and we have to keep up the good fight.

Birth Control vs. Population Control, and Why it Matters

Grace Ramsay, LSRJ Summer Reproductive Rights Activist Service Corps (RRASC) Intern (’16, Smith College)

Earlier this month, I attended a discussion hosted by Population Action International, NARAL, and the Ibis Foundation, addressing the global gag rule and its effects on reproductive health worldwide.  Basically, the gag rule is a U.S. executive policy that prevents any countries receiving U.S. family planning aid from offering abortion services, even if the country wants to use its own funds to do so.  It was created under the Reagan administration – every Democratic president has since reversed it, and every Republican president has reinstated it.  It’s a clear anti-choice policy that has disastrous effects on family planning initiatives worldwide.

During the talk, the NARAL representative alluded to allying with environmental action groups.  When birth control advocates/family planning initiatives “go abroad” and team up with environmentalists, I tend to get concerned.  The language can quickly move away from the need for universal access to the variety of contraceptive methods and instead focus on how developing nations are “irresponsibly reproducing”.   So often I hear rhetoric like, Lower birth rates will put less strain on our natural resources! Or, We’re reaching our carrying capacity!  Such statements are especially misleading because the U.S. actually consumes more natural resources than developing countries.  I was pleasantly surprised that this talk kept its focus on ensuring the right to family planning for all women.

As a person who cares about RJ, I absolutely support the right to global contraceptive access and I also think it’s really important to take a nuanced look at the way we talk about population control in relationship to birth control access, in the light of the U.S.’s own eugenic history.

Let’s not forget that not one generation ago we were forcing sterilization upon disabled people, incarcerated people, and poor people, in an attempt to create a more “fit” American population.

Let’s not forget that in the 1970s, African American and Puerto Rican women were disproportionately sterilized without their consent.  Meanwhile, white women were campaigning for the right to birth control.

Let’s not forget that the United States knowingly sold the dangerous Dalkon Shield contraceptive to developing countries, after it was removed for sale in America.

Let’s not forget that the reproductive justice movement aims for the freedom to choose when and how to have a family (or not).   When we introduce anything else into the equation – even for the sake of “saving our planet” – it becomes coercive.  If we shift away from this concept for the sake of “saving our planet” we lose the voices that matter most: the people in the population.  And if replacement population rates become the end goal for contraception distribution, rather than enabling women’s agency and autonomy worldwide, we’re at risk of replicating our eugenic past (and present).  Population control efforts and RJ efforts may both create the same result (a lower population), but to me, intent is what matters most.

It’s the World Cup Again! Time to think about RJ.

Gavin Barney, LSRJ Summer Intern (’16, University of California, Berkeley School of Law)

I adore the World Cup.  I try my very best to spare my friends and loved ones, but I could happily talk all their ears off about the tournament all day without it ever getting old. And the fact that this year’s games are taking place in Brazil – the spiritual home of futebol – has made it all the more exciting.

However, given the ludicrous scale of this kind of global sporting event, some of the most important, fascinating, moving, and upsetting stories have taken place outside the newly built stadiums and team base camps. For example, with the collective eyes of the world trained on Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo in the months preceding the games, Brazilian citizens spilled into the streets to protest their government’s allocation of massive funds to stadium building at the expense of transportation, education, healthcare, and other vital services. Events like the World Cup or the Olympics give people around the world a unique opportunity to learn about the internal issues of the host nation because mainstream news outlets give the country more in-depth coverage than they ever would otherwise.

You might be wondering, well what does the World Cup have to do with RJ? Well, several articles have been cropping up about the effects the World Cup has had on sex work in host cities around Brazil. The tone and content of articles have varied widely, and while the influx of tourists and media has created an environment of heightened exploitation, it has also given some Brazilian sex workers an opportunity to be heard on a world stage.

Sex work is legal in Brazil, so long as the worker is over the age of eighteen, but according to the Huffington Post, the World Cup is expected to cause a marked increase in child prostitution in areas near the stadiums. The HuffPo article points out that this type of phenomenon is all too common and cites an expert writing on human trafficking at this year’s Super Bowl who wrote that events that attract huge numbers of (male) fans “could never not be breeding grounds for sexual exploitation.” Apparently, the last two World Cups also saw increases in child exploitation as high as 30-40%, and this year’s tournament will once again juxtapose the vibrant celebration of the games with the tragic reality of human trafficking. As advocates for reproductive justice –or any kind of social justice for that matter – this type of pattern is unacceptable, and the notion that it is just the-way-these-things-are needs to be strongly countered.

Elsewhere, in an altogether different kind of story, RT.com reported on a public pick-up style game of soccer played between professional (adult) sex workers and a group of American Christians on a street in Belo Horizonte. The “naked match” was organized by the Prostitutes’ Association of Minas Gerais to draw attention to sex workers’ rights and to protest prejudice and stigma. Above all else, these members of the “naked Brazilian forces” called for their profession to be treated like any other legal job. In addition to providing a refreshing take on the dignity of sex work, this event has produced some of the most striking images I have seen during the World Cup. I highly recommend that you take the time to look through them.

Ultimately, I’m not entirely sure what to take from these stories or how they should color my enjoyment of the actual soccer matches. Just as the World Cup itself is complex – simultaneously a bloated and exploitative celebration of excess and an event of pure joy – this small sample size of media coverage speaks to many more complicated issues than these journalists have the time or inclination to fully flesh out. But in the end, I suppose it is just more proof that there are very few things in this world that don’t lend themselves to some thoughts on reproductive justice.