Given that abstinence-only programs have been proven time-and-again to be ineffective, it’s no surprise to see pressure mounting to defund them. RH Reality Check today posted a letter, signed by ten prominent researchers in the area of teen reproductive and sexual health, and sent last week to Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Harry Reid. In the letter, the experts call on Congress’s Democratic leaders to make good on their promise to change things in D.C. by stopping the stream of millions of dollars each year that flow to abstinence-only programs (and to Crisis Pregnancy Centers). They wrote:

As a group of leading scientists who have recently conducted research on adolescents, reproductive health, and abstinence-only education, we are writing to express our strong concern about increasing federal support for abstinence-only education (AOE) programs.

***

The federal programs promoting AOE have prompted multiple scientific and ethical critiques. These critiques were summarized in a January 2006 paper by Santelli, Ott and others. By design, abstinence programs restrict information about condoms and contraception - information that may be critical to protecting the health of young people and to preventing unplanned pregnancy, HIV infection, and infection with other sexually transmitted organisms. They ignore the health needs of sexually active youth and youth who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning for counseling, health care services, and risk reduction education. Withholding lifesaving information from young people is contrary to the standards of medical ethics and to many international human rights conventions. International treaties and human rights statements support the rights of adolescents to seek and receive information vital to their health. Governments have an obligation to provide accurate information to adolescents and adolescents have a right to expect health education provided in public schools to be scientifically accurate and complete.

It goes on. And on. There’s just so much that’s wrong with abstinence only programs. I, for one, hoped the Democrats would own up to that and make getting rid of — or at least minimizing funding for — misogynistic, hetero-centric abstinence only programs a priority. But, as Amanda Marcotte points out, the Dems are in a bind:

Right now Democrats are in a political bind, because abstinence-only proponents are super eager to label anyone who advocates for effective programs (i.e., comprehensive sex education) as advocates for teenagers f–king in the streets.

So, in Lakoff-ian fashion, Amanda calls for a reframing:

What needs to happen is basic reframing. This isn’t about who wants who to have sex with who when, but about who wants kids to be healthy, and who is resigned to letting them get sick. Which is all you’re going to get with abstinence-only. But it’s more than just what “works” better in terms of reducing STDs and pregnancy rates (though comprehensive sex education does), but it’s a philosophical question, too. The very idea that schools should be in the business of reinforcing ignorance instead of improving knowledge is a violation of basic American ideals.

I think Amanda’s right that a reframing would help make real, comprehensive sex-ed more palatable (shocking that providing kids with accurate sex information is not enough).  What strikes me, though, is how often we on the progressive side of this issue find ourselves in this bind. We need to reframe on abortion. We need to reframe on sex-ed. We need to reframe on women and work. I’m left scratching my head a little about why it is that we are so bad at framing in the first place.

Over the past few years, the RJ community has been watching the Right’s shift in abortion rhetoric. The forced pregnancy folks went from talking about dead fetuses to focusing on how abortion is supposedly bad for women.

Or so we thought.

This week, two proposed state bills would bring the those fetuses back…with a vengeance.

In Colorado this week, the state Supreme Court cleared the way for a ballot initiative that would change Colorado law to recognize a fetus as a person from the moment of fertilization. That’s right. Before there’s even a pregnancy (which doesn’t occur until the fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining and starts to produce the hormones that sustain it), there would be a person. With full constitutional rights to due process and equal protection. Which makes me think that anything from using embryonic stem cells to having your period could make you at best responsible for a violation of someone else’s constitutional rights and at worst a murderer. Not sure what I mean? As bean at Lawyers, Guns & Money puts it:

If the law were to pass, it would mean no abortion. No selective reduction for women who become pregnant with several embryos through IVF. No stem cell research. And, yes, no menstruation. Because about 1/3 to 1/2 of fertilized eggs fail to implant and are flushed out of the body during menstruation. Which, as Amanda notes, would make “your average tampon a potential scene of negligent homicide.”

Echidne wonders:

And do pregnant women count as two persons if this measure is passed? Do they have to pay for two at theaters and at movies? Do they get double rations in the military? What about a pregnant woman who watches an R-rated movie? Should we punish her for exposing the microscopic American to filth?

Funny, but only because it’s so damn appalling.  What’s worse, it’s not unique. Today, the National Partnership for Women and Families reported that a Montana legislator has proposed a similar bill to define person as beginning at fertilization. Rick Jore, the bill’s sponsor, had this to say:

According to Jore, the measure would not directly outlaw abortion but would establish constitutional rights for a fetus or human embryo, so they could not be deprived of “life, liberty and property” without due process of law, Jore said. “There’s been an effort across the nation to go to this strategy in the pro-life arena, to challenge the whole notion of Roe v. Wade by establishing the definition of a person,” he said.

The good news is that he proposed an identical bill last year, and it failed. The bad news is that he got 45 votes in support of it (and 53 opposed). It can’t be that 45 of 100 average Americans think fertilized eggs are constitutional people too, can it? If I’m wrong, we might have even more work to do than I thought.

A book to add to my very long list of books to read: Dr. Susan Wicklund’s “This Common Secret:  My Journey as an Abortion Doctor.” In her book, Dr. Wicklund, an abortion provider who flies into underserved areas to perform abortions, takes on the abortion taboo.

We don’t talk about it,” she said in a telephone interview. “People say, ‘Nobody I know has ever had an abortion,’ and that is just not true. Their sisters, their mothers have had abortions.”

She’s right. We don’t talk about abortion. We don’t talk about how common it is. We don’t question loudly enough our tacit acceptance of abortion as something shameful. And - and this is a hard pill even for many RJ advocates to swallow - we don’t talk about how even with all the prevention in the world, abortion would still exist, would still be central to women’s reproductive health, and must still be legal.

That said, Dr. Wicklund’s not perfect. It seems she too is focused on the line of rhetoric we have been fed — the idea that the central problem of abortion opponents is that they do not support prevention, say. Yes, this hypocrisy is central to their advocacy, but it’s only one of many many hypocrisies. What about the fact that the antiabortion movement is also, on the whole, against childcare subsidies and universal healthcare, and even SCHIP?  What about the fact that a so-called “pro-life” stance should include helping protect the lives of teenagers by teaching them, through comprehensive sex-ed, how to prevent STDs? What about public financing for abortions (are you listening Mr. Hyde, you freedom of medal winner you?) so that women who want to terminate their pregnancies can do so as early as possible - when it’s safest and when Dr. Wicklund actually performs abortions?

I don’t want to bite a generous hand - and Dr. Wicklund certainly gets a lot of it right. But if we’re going to stop being so ashamed to talk about abortion, we’ve got to really talk. Not only about abortion per se, but about abortion as an integral part of a patchwork of social justice initiatives and conversations.

Last week, President Bush named the recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. There are some good ones among them — Harper Lee, the author of To Kill a Mockingbird; and Benjamin Hicks, a civil rights pioneer. But there’s one real sleeper in there (warning: don’t have anything in your mouth while you read this or you may spit it out): Henry Hyde. Yes, he of the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of federal medicaid funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or if the woman’s life is threatened.  The same Hyde Amendment that places an enormous obstacle in the way of poor women seeking abortions in this country, and that discriminates against poor women (though the Supreme Court has said otherwise) in that federal medicaid funds cover other reproductive healthcare expenses for men and women. The same Hyde Amendment that a coalition of reproductive justice groups is currently fighting to repeal.

And for this, he gets the medal of freedom, complete with this citation from the White House:

Henry J. Hyde has served America with distinction. During his career in the House of Representatives, he was a powerful defender of life and a leading advocate for a strong national defense and for freedom around the world.

Ann at Feministing takes the words right out of my mouth:

 Because nothing says “freedom” like severely curtailing the reproductive rights of low-income women.

Hyde’s “defense of life” has meant that many women have been forced to carry pregnancies to term when they would have preferred to abort, often because they feel it’s what’s in the best interests of the child or children they already have. Or they have had to choose between buying food or paying the electric bill and paying for their abortion. Or they have been forced to consider dropping out of school to take care of a child when they would really rather graduate.

The good news is that some states provide public funding for abortions out of their own coffers. These states recognize that access to safe and legal abortion is a necessary part of a woman’s reproductive health, and of her life outside her reproduction. The bad news is that the President (et al.) think that denying this access warrants an award. And not just any award, but one that carries the name “freedom.” It would be funny if it weren’t real.