Archive for the ‘abortion’ Category

Sexual Violence against Native American Women and the Denial of Reproductive Healthcare Services

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

As I sat in the audience at Friday’s symposium on “Law, Gender & Citizenship: Contemporary Issues for American Indians and American Immigrants,” I was shocked by what I learned about the endemic sexual violence perpetrated against Native American women in the United States.  Data indicates that a minimum of one out of three Native American women has been the victim of sexual violence.  One of the speakers shared that in conducting her research she had yet to talk with a Native American woman who had not been the victim of sexual violence.  Research further shows that 80% of perpetrators of these crimes are non-Native American persons.  High rates of women being violently sexually assaulted by men not of her ethnic or racial group, like this, are the type of statistics I have come to associate with war zones rather than common life experiences. 

The violence perpetrated against Native American women, however, is only one of the many offenses carried out against them.  The U.S. government under the responsibilities assigned to Indian Health Services (HIS) is responsible for providing all health care services Native American Indians.  However, the U.S. government and IHS have failed to meet this mandate.  Native American Indians must often travel long distances to reach health facilities whose services are limited.  (more…)

Why am I the only 20-something in the room?

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

On January 1, 2010, I began a three-year service on the Board of Directors of Planned Parenthood of San Diego and Riverside Counties.  Last week, I experienced my first event as an official board member by attending the President’s Council Speaker Series at one of our local affiliates.  I was one of the first to arrive, and since I am new to the board, I only knew a handful of people.  However, I eventually found myself speaking with Dawn and Connie, two members of the community who feel incredibly committed to serving Planned Parenthood and its mission.  They recounted how they worked as volunteers for Planned Parenthood when they were in college in the 70’s and now that they are retired, they are feeling an urge to volunteer again.  These women were lovely to speak with; they were funny, intelligent, and passionate.  And then Dawn said, “Now tell me, Jenn.  Why are you the youngest person in this room?  Why aren’t more people your age here?”  I turned around and noticed that the reception area had filled with more than a hundred people in the time I had spent getting to know my new acquaintances . . . and they were right.  Aside from the Planned Parenthood staff, I was the youngest guest in attendance—it was easy to tell that everyone else was from a completely different generation.  And then it really hit me—why am I the only 20-something in this room?  Why aren’t my peers more represented?  Why aren’t more law students here? Aren’t law students interested in protecting “people’s rights”?

            Law students are busy.*  There’s no denying that.  And it can be difficult to motivate students to attend an event where there may not be many lawyers present.  But women (and men) worked hard to gain the rights my generation often takes for granted.  We forget that there was a time when our mothers and grandmothers couldn’t walk into their nearest health clinic and walk out with a year supply of birth control, no questions asked.  Many of us may enjoy certain rights today, but that doesn’t mean those rights aren’t limited for many people out there or can be taken away from the rest of us.  There are people out there actively opposing us and trying to limit our rights . . . especially our right to control our reproductive freedom.  I shouldn’t be the only 20-something in a room full of reproductive rights advocates and supporters.  I urge those of you who want to get more involved but haven’t been able to find the time, to make the time. 

 

*I realize that people may read this who are not law students.  However, this is the lens I am applying since I am a law student, surrounded on a daily basis by other law students.

 

Jenn Kish

 

From Page to Practice: Reclaiming Values and Morality

Friday, February 5th, 2010

“Reproductive rights” is a legal term. When a woman is making a decision about abortion, she’s not making a legal decision - she’s making a personal, moral decision that involves matters close to her heart - her religious beliefs, moral values, and life circumstances. Yet this is rarely recognized in legal and policy work, and that is having an adverse effect on efforts to preserve support for legal abortion. To claim or reclaim the language of values and morality in a positive way, we have to recognize that reproductive and sexual issues are primarily personal and begin to use moral - as opposed to rights - language when appropriate and sincere.

A decision about abortion is a moral decision in another sense: it can be more ethical - or more moral - to terminate an unwanted pregnancy than to continue it, for a host of reasons, including severe family conflict, the needs of other children, and a woman’s or family’s ability to care for another child.   (more…)

From Page to Practice: How Thinking Like Pro-Choice Lawyers Can Win the Battle and Lose the War

Friday, February 5th, 2010

 

I founded National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) in order to do cross–issue work. Having had the privilege of working in many of the main-stream pro-choice organizations and having worked extensively with the founders and leaders of the Reproductive Justice Movement, I came to the conclusion that women’s reproductive rights and health would never be secure if the focus of our legal work remained on the defense of abortion rather than on the women who have them. Women’s lives are not just influenced by whether or not they can end a pregnancy, but also by all of the political, economic, and social conditions that enhance or limit their ability to be full and equal participants in society. I also became clear to me that the mainstream pro-choice movement was missing an extraordinary number of opportunities to build alliances and strength across issues.

 

As a result, NAPW has worked to build bridges between reproductive rights and drug policy reform advocates, identifying shared interests and the strong relationship between the war on abortion and the war on drugs. NAPW has also taken the lead in building bridges between those who defend the right to choose abortion and those who defend the rights of pregnant women at all stages of pregnancy, including during labor and delivery. NAPW believes that “Birth Justice” must be fully part of the definition and agenda of the Reproductive Justice Movement.  In this post, however, I want to focus on one case and one example of how failure to do cross-issue, multi-strategy work undermines the effort to defend Roe v. Wade, and more importantly, the women who become pregnant and sometimes have abortions. (more…)

From Page to Practice: Abortion Liberalization: Transnational Legal Advocacy across a Procedure-Substance Divide

Friday, February 5th, 2010

 

Procedure and substance are well-acknowledged to be elusive categories in law. Procedure shades off into substance, such that their divide is not discoverable by mere logic or reason. It is a divide drawn to carry out a purpose.[1] This acknowledgement does not deprive the divide of meaning. It redirects the inquiry. Rather than ask on what side a set of facts falls, we ask: why categorize as procedure or substance? What is both the purpose and effect of drawing the divide?

 

A procedure-substance divide in abortion liberalization can be traced to the 1994 U.N. International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) and its Programme of Action.[2] The ICPD was an intergovernmental meeting under the auspices of the United Nations, where abortion was first recognized as a matter of concern for the transnational collective. To be particular, unsafe abortion was the subject of concern. Following much controversy and prolonged debate, governments and other participants agreed to address “the health impact of unsafe abortion as a major public health concern.”[3] Unsafe abortion is pregnancy termination undertaken by persons without necessary skills or in an environment that fails minimum medical standards, or both.[4] Unsafe abortion is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity in developing countries. Every year an estimated seventy thousand women die and millions more suffer with complications from unsafe abortion.[5] Controversy stemmed from the legality of abortion. Regardless of modifier, safe or unsafe, abortion is a criminal offence under penal code or other statute in the vast majority of the world. (more…)

From Page to Practice: International Human Rights Law in the Struggle for Reproductive Justice in Latin America

Friday, February 5th, 2010

Reproductive justice remains an unfulfilled promise for Latin American (LA) women. This is particularly the case with regard to abortion. With the exception of Mexico City and Puerto Rico, the region’s laws still embrace either a model of total criminalization (i.e., Chile, Nicaragua or El Salvador) or variations of a hardly accessible model of indications (i.e., Argentina, Brazil, Colombia or Peru). Moreover, irrespectively of the regulatory approach adopted, LA abortion laws share at least two traits: (a) they are largely non-complied with by women forced to resort to backstreet abortions in significant numbers; and (b) they are extensively unenforced both from the point of view of criminal prosecution and from the perspective of the duty to provide legal abortion services when indications are the rule. Another common characteristic of the region’s abortion rules is the stability of the practices of noncompliance and under-enforcement. A stability that has endured the transitions to democracy underwent by a majority of LA countries since the 1980s. As it has proved to be the case with other women rights issues during such transitions, in Latin America, democratization did not equal liberalization.

 

Faced with the reluctance to embark or even address abortion law reform by politicians and players from all sides in the ideological spectrum, LA feminists turned to international human rights law in search of another tool to promote a liberalizing reinterpretation of domestic laws. Indeed, in the years following the UN Conferences in Vienna, El Cairo and Beijing, feminists increasingly began to explore alternative uses of what was then slowly becoming a more woman friendly international human rights law with respect to many issues, reproductive rights among them. As part of this shift, feminist organizations timidly began to bring cases to international forums. Such feminist move towards international law in the quest for reproductive justice reforms took place in a context in which the internalization of international human rights had achieved some potential and where transnational networks of activists were successfully building a common legal language.

(more…)

From Page to Practice: Theorizing Lesbians and Abortion

Thursday, February 4th, 2010

 

For my comments on Panel One, Reproductive Justice: Expanding the Vision to “Collateral” Fields, I would like to “expand” by focusing more specifically on the interrelationships of lesbians and abortions.

 

Lesbians are by definition “reproductive outsiders,” as Jenni Millbank has rightly theorized.  This outsiderness, in theory and in practice, is most obvious in several categories:  as the protection of legal parenthood status from challenges by non-lesbians, including the state in its child protective powers;  as the conflict between lesbians who have legal parenthood status and lesbians who do not have legal parenthood status (often, although not always, following biological status); and as the legal ability to access “reproductive technology,” including very basic and rather non-technological technology such as insemination.

 

Thus there is an important argument to be made that lesbians and other sexual minorities do not inhabit a “collateral” field to be integrated into the house of reproductive rights.  Additionally, it is also true that reproductive rights have an essential place in the LGBT legal reform movements.   The symbiotic relationship between reproductive rights and sexual rights is not unproblematic, but it is an experience that is lived, litigated, and theorized.   The experience occurs across various societies and states, with diverse economic, racial, ethnic, and disability hierarchies.  

           

Here I’d like to highlight the specific relationship between lesbians and abortion. (more…)

From Page to Practice: Health Excepted, Health Accepted

Thursday, February 4th, 2010

                                                                       

What is the relationship of health and abortion in law? How do the responses to this question change as one moves through various historical periods, from states to the national level in federations, or from the domestic to the international arena? Does conceiving (pun intended) of abortion as tethered to women’s health result in more authority, autonomy, equality, or safety for women — or less?When contraception and abortion were legal in England and the United States, the banner of health provided arguments for their criminalization. Once contraception and abortion were criminalized, health became one of the justifications for regimes of partial decriminalization that allowed conditional access to methods of controlling fertility. For example, doctors and midwives who could demonstrate a patient’s health-based need for a “therapeutic” abortion sometimes had defenses to criminal prosecution. “Health” similarly justified immunities for those who sold condoms to men.

Roe v. Wade reflects both these traditions: in Roe, “health” offers reasons for regulation as well as for exemption from regulation. Roe recognizes, in the second trimester of a pregnancy, the state’s interest in regulating abortion to protect maternal health, and in the third trimester, the state’s interest in regulating abortion to protect potential life — so long as government allows women access to abortions necessary to protect their lives or health. (more…)

Learning to Listen

Wednesday, February 3rd, 2010

I had the pleasure of attending Law Students for Reproductive Justice’s West Regional Conference last Sunday.  Among the amazing speakers, was Apsen Baker, of Exhale. Just saying the org.’s name puts me at ease.  Knowing that Exhale provides women the ability voice to their experiences with abortion, free from judgment or the risk of damage to personal relationships, gives me great comfort. 

At the end of Aspen’s presentation, she posed a question to our group, “What do you think is the role of law students and the legal community in creating a more supportive and respectful social climate around abortion?” Support and respect are not central tenants of a profession that is inherently adversarial, so I found this question challenging. (more…)

Go Saints! Go Colts! Go Abortion!?

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010


On Sunday, Americans will unite in front of television screens across the county, but two things will divide them: team affiliation and abortion. Yes, abortion will be part of this year’s Super Bowl festivities because Focus on the Family, the uber-conservative “family values” group, has purchased an advertising slot allegedly featuring quarterback Tim Tebow’s mom discussing her decision not to terminate her pregnancy despite her doctor’s recommendation. The message being: “If I’d had an abortion, my son never would have won the Heisman.”

 

Although Americans are used to taking sides on Super Bowl Sunday, how will they react when they’re asked to take sides on one of our nation’s deepest cultural divides during the Big Game? Some national women’s and reproductive rights organizations, including LSRJ, have already reacted–they’re petitioning CBS to pull the ad. This seems like a reflexive, even if justified, reaction. Though I haven’t seen the ad, I’m relatively certain that if it crossed my screen on Sunday, my TV and I would have it out–as we often do when I’m blindsided by bigotry and intolerance wrapped up in American flags, bald eagles, and yes, football uniforms. However, reproductive justice organizations aren’t being blindsided by the ad, so we have the time to formulate a well-reasoned, articulate response. (more…)