Joanne Caceres, Harvard Law School

Amidst the utter chaos that is the first week back at Harvard Law School, I feel a certain calm returning to the classroom where HLSRJ has taken to holding its board meetings. By calm, I partially mean the happiness of seeing familiar faces, but it goes beyond that. It’s the feeling I get being in a room of capable, passionate, and brilliant women and men who are committed to engaging in the same issues as I am. It is moments like these that I reflect on my personal mantra: dripping water carves a stone.

High on our list this year is increasing our visibility on campus in order to create a campus wide conversation on Reproductive Justice. Our first focus is recruiting new 1Ls and building relationships with other progressive campus groups. We are hitting it off next week with the ever-important Reproductive Justice 101 event. I fondly remember the first time I learned about Ms. T, a case study that illustrated the intersectional nature of reproductive justice. It was during that presentation that I knew that RJ would become a major part of my law school career. If we are lucky, we will meet some of our new rising stars at this year’s event!

As we seek to build our core, however, we also are considering opportunities for engaging the entire campus. Through our relationships with other organization leaders, we became aware of a point/counterpoint event that will be looking at the recent anti-abortion bills that have been spreading out throughout many state legislatures, including South Dakota. Many of these bills are slated as being pro-women, because they require providing women with “more information” and more time to make a decision through mandatory wait periods. In reality, these laws are little more than attempts to further limit and prevent abortions, often making what is already a difficult process more difficult. Although we are not officially involved as an organization at this event, our members will be attending and we hope to use this as an opportunity to bring people together to reflect on the conversation. We want to do more this year than talk at people, we want to engage people and allow them to process what is an all too often not openly and intellectually discussed on our law school campus. And hopefully, if we can’t change some minds, at least have our views listened to and understood. It’s shaping up to be quite an active year, drip drip drip.

Burke Bindbeutel, University of Missouri School of Law

“The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy” is a disappointing recent New York Times article. Ruth Padawer describes a discomfited backlash to the medical procedure that allows a pregnant woman to opt for a single childbirth when she is carrying twins. Beneath a patina of thoughtful consideration, the author reverts to some tried and true anti-choice tropes: that the choice to abort will make a woman a social pariah, that she will never overcome her regret. The article casts a woman’s personal choice in a thoroughly negative light.

I am a fraternal twin, as well as an older brother, and a younger brother. I have never thought of myself as fifty percent of a natural, God-given package deal. Once born, a person is an independent entity and not a spectral reminder of a difficult choice, despite what the pundits believe.

Padawer’s waiting room is a coven of hysterical second-guessing and guilt. When parents exercise discretion in building their families, Padawer reasons, they are opening themselves to the frustration of too much choice. In a consumerist society, endless choice leads to bafflement, so judicious would-be mothers must naturally end up with the nagging dissatisfaction of discount shoppers.

The article points to a rift amongst abortion rights advocates by quoting from the comment board of urbanbaby.com. Reduction, this contingent insists, is less defensible than abortion because a woman ought not resist the number of fetuses that nature, or fertility drugs, has provided her. When a Philadelphia doctor in the early 1990’s agrees to reduce a pregnancy, “a stream of patients” quickly mobilizes to selfishly request reductions. This narrative stigmatizes not just the right to choose, but female empowerment in general.

I was haughtily summarizing the article to a fellow LSRJ member over lunch. She pointed out that the case for pregnancy termination is very strong when complications, or too many fetuses, jeopardize a mother’s health. But the decision to go from two to one probably turns on a parent’s preference rather than impending danger. The issue reminded my friend of sex selection, which does not appear to deserve the same legal protection as other controversial procedures.

Dismounting from my high horse, I started to see where my friend was coming from. The issue was not an easy one. Our campus events aim at coalition-building, and elective pregnancy termination wrinkles a lot of noses at Mizzou.

But reduction helps our LSRJ chapter to focus on just what sort of reproductive justice we advocate. If you support the right to choose, you should be prepared to disagree with someone’s choice. Access to family-planning resources is a human right, and how those resources are used is a personal decision.

And that’s what seems to disturb Padawer’s medical establishment most: the freedom of a woman deciding if and when to have children. The doctors in the article are more preoccupied with advancing their own ethical credentials than with serving their patients. “We were in the business to improve pregnancy outcomes, and those reductions didn’t fit the criteria,” says Dr. Ronald Wapner. A woman’s evaluation of economic and social limitations to child-rearing does not fit into Dr. Wapner’s career ambitions.

Reproductive justice allows people to determine how they establish their families. Medical technology facilitates that goal. Having a choice allows parents to allocate their priorities as compassionately as possible.

Last weekend I was grabbing drinks with a friend who used to work “in the movement” and she asked me, “So what’s going on with our reproductive rights? Are we doing anything about this?” As I started to explain the important work advocates are doing and my optimism about the fate of reproductive justice policy in the long-term, I found myself recounting many of the experiences I had during my fellowship year.

I was placed with the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress (CAP). CAP is a think tank that develops new policy ideas, critiques policy that stems from conservative values, and challenges the media to cover the issues that truly matter and shape the national debate. The Women’s Health and Rights Program incorporates a reproductive justice framework into this work.

My fellowship year has been filled with invaluable opportunities for learning and growth thanks to the Director of the Women’s Health & Rights Program, Jessica Arons, and Senior Fellow Shira Saperstein, who are incredibly smart, quick, thoughtful, and creative (hence my aforementioned optimism).  But one of the most significant takeaways from my year at CAP is about the importance of collaboration.

It seems obvious, right? It is, especially since I’m not new to the DC machine. Yet CAP’s unique organizational structure – various teams and sub-teams divided by policy area, each with experts in the given field – gave me a lesson in how to strategically collaborate with seemingly un-usual suspects.

One example of this type of cross-cutting collaboration was on the issue of access to abortion for women in the military. Much has been done by reproductive rights and justice advocates to argue that servicewomen deserve coverage for the full range of reproductive health services. Congress gets it – the “women’s rights-ers” don’t like military health care. Perhaps we could use an additional messenger.

Enter Lawrence Korb, a Senior Fellow for CAP’s national security team and seasoned military expert.  Among other things, Korb served as Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration. He also thinks the military’s health care for servicewomen is inadequate. Thanks to this connection, the unlikely voice of a former Department of Defense official is speaking out about the DoD’s unfair reproductive health policy. (Read Korb’s op-ed here).

I was able to collaborate with many other teams at CAP on reproductive justice issues – not only broadening the available expertise, but also broadening the audience. Every little bit helps in this town. I am grateful to Jessica and Shira and LSRJ for showing me that although issues may appear siloed, there are opportunities for strategic collaborations!

Alex Walden (’10 University of San Francisco School of Law)

2010-2011 RJ Fellow at the Center for American Progress

Good news!  San Francisco has become the latest city to propose regulating “crisis pregnancy centers.”  The Board of Supervisors recently introduced a bill that would prohibit fake abortion clinics (like Bay Area-based First Resort) from using deceptive advertising practices to scare or mislead pregnant women into foregoing abortion.  As I mentioned in a previous post, these clinics are particularly sneaky because they do not represent themselves as “pro-life.”  Instead, they purport to be medical clinics, and they sometimes even offer free medical services.  As a result, they create one more barrier to accessible abortion.

CPCs might be laughable—a fake abortion clinic really is a twisted idea!—if they weren’t so widespread and well-funded.  According to Legal Momentum, a women’s legal defense fund, there are between 2,300 and 3,500 CPCs in the U.S., as compared to…get ready for this…1,800 actual abortion clinics.  State and federal governments have placed innumerable funding restrictions on abortion clinics (or have attempted to de-fund them outright). Meanwhile, CPCs (most of which are not even clinics) receive abstinence-only federal and state funding.

Furthermore, city-wide legislation may not be the answer.  Legislation similar to SF’s passed in New York City, only to be enjoined by the federal district court on First Amendment grounds.  Unfortunately, CPCs really walk a fine line—what some people see as deceptive advertising, they see as constitutionally-protected free speech.

Which leads me to my newest idea—perhaps the way to go about this is to form non-profit “crisis pregnancy centers.” Bear with me here—what if we created a clinic, purported to be pro-life, and used CPC-style deceptive advertising? (their ads seem to favor pictures of happy pregnant women and little babies)  Then, we could apply for state and federal funding.  We could call ourselves “abstinence-only”—it’s not as if we would be an actual clinic providing actual contraceptive services.  Like one CPC in New York, lwe could even set ourselves up right across the street from a Planned Parenthood.  And then…here’s the sneaky part…when women come in, we could offer them non-judgmental, medically-accurate abortion information!  Ha ha ha!!

OK—I’ll need some funders on this one.  Anyone interested?

Seriously, for more information on CPCs, visit Legal Momentum and NARAL. For information on how to avoid visiting a CPC, check out the Feminist Women’s Health Center’s website.

Sharone Assa

Sara Taylor, former LSRJ national office intern, LSRJ resident blogger, ’11 graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, and new mother, wanted to share some of her hopes for her daughter.

Dearest Overlords,

Within days of bringing a little girl into “our” world, there are a few things I wish to discuss with you—some critiques and possibly some ground rules for going forward.  You seem to have convinced quite a few of us that we’ve come a long way, maybe far enough that we can stop “nagging” or else prove, as you said all along, that we’ll simply “never be happy.”  Knowing how sincere you are about this, I wish to point out (for my daughter’s sake, at least) some places where it’s possible you may have misunderstood what I want. (more…)

Early Sunday morning, Nancy begins to have excruciating abdominal pain. Immediately, she begins to worry about the health of her fetus. She wakes her husband and he rushes her to the town hospital thirty minutes away. Upon her arrival, it is determined that Nancy is miscarrying and there is no chance her fetus will survive. However, the town hospital (the only hospital within 180 miles), is a Catholic hospital governed by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services (Directives), a document developed and enforced by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Directives provide guidance on reproductive health services including surgical sterilization, family planning, emergency contraception, infertility treatment, and abortion. Though the doctors are certain Nancy’s fetus will not survive, they would not treat Nancy. They withhold this information from Nancy and continue to run painful and expensive test on her until hours later they determine there is no longer a fetal heartbeat. Under the Directives, abortions are not allowed even in cases of emergencies or when the mother’s life is at risk. In Nancy’s case, because there was still a fetal heartbeat, even though the doctors knew the fetus would not survive, termination of her pregnancy would be considered an abortion.

Though this story is fictitious, it is the reality of millions of Americans today.  One in six patients in the United States is cared for in a Catholic hospital.  Catholic institutions control 622 hospitals nationwide, the largest single group of nonprofit hospitals in the United States. Five of the ten largest healthcare systems, which operate hospitals and medical centers throughout the United States, are Catholic. A large number of these hospitals are in rural communities where these hospitals are the only health care options for the sick. The Catholic Bishops promote “natural family planning,” which means that no drugs, devices, or surgical procedures can be used to avoid pregnancy. Instead, families monitor the woman’s menstrual cycle and abstain from sex during her fertile phase.  The Directives prohibit almost all reproductive health services: contraceptives that do not promote “natural family planning” are prohibited, most treatments for infertility are not allowed, sterilizations for men and women are banned, and abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, or to save a pregnant woman’s life, is impossible to obtain. Special government exemptions, known as “refusal clauses,” permit hospitals to use religious doctrines as patient care guides while remaining eligible to receive public funding. Almost every state has some sort of refusal clause allowing individual health providers to refuse to provide abortion services. However, some states have religious-based refusal clauses for reproductive services such as birth control and sterilization.

Like Nancy, many women have no idea their local hospitals will not provide certain services to them even if their life is on the line. Further, many women do not know that these hospitals are not being held liable for the consequences of refusing to provide these services or for not making women aware of other alternatives at non religious hospitals. This is an issue that affects women all over the country and needs the attention of women universally. The more people who are aware of these lack of services, the larger an impact we can have on our country to stop merging public and religious hospitals. Reproductive justice will be achieved when women have access to the resources to have children, not have children, or parent the children they have with dignity. This is not achievable when women are being denied specific services because of practitioner’s moral beliefs. This cannot be achieved when women are not being given the information to make responsible decisions over their reproductive health with dignity and good faith in their doctors. Make yourself aware of your local hospital’s policies and your state refusal clauses.

Click here for a state directory of laws regarding reproductive health.

Erika Willis

I worked in an abortion clinic for years.  Many people, therefore, are surprised to learn that I completely respect the view that abortion is wrong.  When I began counseling patients, one of the first things my supervisors drummed into me is that a woman’s religious and cultural beliefs are always valid.  My job was not to convince women to have an abortion, or to tell them that abortion was morally right or wrong.  I was only there to provide support, guidance, and detailed knowledge about the abortion procedure itself.

My point of view diverges from the antis, however, when they try to force their personal convictions on everyone else.  The violence, deceit, and hatred that many in the movement embrace shocks and saddens me, and leaves me wondering how true Christians, Jews, or Muslims could act so counter to the tenets of their religion.

One particularly insidious, and increasingly popular, tactic is the antis’ operation of misleading abortion hotlines and “pregnancy help centers.”  These hotlines and “clinics” purport to be neutral, but what they really do is lie to and intimidate women.

I have been reading more news lately about this strategy, so I decided to investigate for myself.  Armed with my own detailed knowledge about the abortion procedure, I started calling different hotlines.  When I began, I was nervous that somehow, the woman on the other end of the line would be able to tell that I was a faker.  It quickly became apparent, however, that this would not be a problem—the lack of respect I received could only be based on the belief that callers are ignorant and easily manipulated.

“Please tell me about different types of abortions,” I asked the women, but she was not going to be easily led into that discussion.  “Well first,” she said, “could you tell me a little about your situation?”  I told her I was eighteen, pregnant, and anxious to have an abortion.  “Well, let’s slow down here,” she responded.  “Who is this guy?”  I replied, “Oh, just someone I barely know.  He’s going off to college, and I know he won’t be interested in helping me.  Plus, I want to go to college in the fall too.”

This is when our discussion got (actually, kind of hilariously) disturbing.  Here are some of the things the woman said: (more…)

As proponents for reproductive justice, we advocate for access to the resources people need to thrive and to decide whether, when, and how to have and parent children with dignity, free from discrimination, coercion, or violence. What happens, however, when we don’t agree with the decisions other people are making?

Maria Hvistendah discusses the large gender imbalance occurring in certain parts of the world due to sex-selective abortion in her new book, “Unnatural Selection.” In places such as China and India, cultures with a strong son preference, many couples are partaking in sex selection abortion to terminate pregnancies when they find out the fetus is female. This practice skews the gender ratio so that by 2020, there will be about 45 million more men than women in the world. This gender imbalance significantly impacts culture and society, not only because it sends a clear message that women are less valuable to society than men, but because it fuels other practices like the selling of women from rural areas for marriage and even sex trafficking. (more…)

As you’ve likely seen covered in the news, several cities have been blanketed with racist and harmful billboards purporting to “save hundreds of thousands of black babies from being aborted every year in the United States…,” a claim that is offensive, outrageous, and, equally importantly, outright ignores the serious reality of health disparities in this country. To learn more, check out the round-up below of some of the more recent blog posts on this issue. If you know of more, put them in the comments! And congratulations to California Latinas for Reproductive Justice (CLRJ), who successfully mobilized and got 3 of the billboards in the Los Angeles area removed!

“Racist billboards come to Oakland. WTF.” from Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice (ACRJ) in Oakland.

“The continuing fight against anti-abortion billboards targeting communities of color” at Feministing.

“One Racist Billboard Comes Down, Another Goes Up” at RH Reality Check.

“Antiabortion Groups Launch Attacks on Latinas’ Health, Rights, and Dignity” by LSRJ’s very own Alex Walden, Reproductive Justice Fellow at Center for American Progress.

OK, we can all admit that things in the world are pretty intense currently, correct? Countries are rising up against their governments, earthquakes are enormous, nuclear plants are threatening to melt down, the world’s economy is in turmoil, and state and federal legislatures in the United States are advancing bills that hurt women. With all that is going on, it seems like a government like ours in the U.S. would prioritize disseminating accurate information, based on sound logic and the best available science. Accurate reporting would mitigate the mania, after all. Right? (more…)