Rosie Wang, Resident Blogger (’14, Columbia Law School)

Women being catcalled on the street, paparazzi spying on celebrities’ intimate moments – these are two unsavory, disrespectful practices with unfortunately long legacies and deep roots in our culture. With the modern technology and social networking thrown in the mix, these practices start to intersect and evolve in disturbing ways. Parallels definitely exist between society’s fascination with spy-style photos of Kate Middleton topless on private, secluded property and the power that perpetrators of street harassment feel – parallels that find an overlap in certain internet communities.

Creepshots was a sub-forum of popular link-aggregator Reddit, where anonymous posters upload and comment on photos they take of women’s bodies, taken without these women’s knowledge as they go about their everyday lives. Part of their stated motto was “When you are in public, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. We kindly ask women to respect our right to admire your bodies and stop complaining.” The photos’ distribution for mass consumption, the flippant physiological and sexual commentary they produce, and the fixation on the nonconsensual nature of the photos all combine into something supremely icky although probably not illegal.

Now, some have taken to fighting fire with fire. Gawker exposed the identity of a prominent member of the Reddit community who has the stellar track record of starting sub-Reddits promoting domestic violence and sexual attraction to underage girls. Others tracked usernames into other sites that Creepshots users were active in, gathering personal information and then posting it to a tumblr named “Predditors” that has since been shut down, but not before the arrest of a teacher in Georgia [need link]. The exposed people in question unironically invoked both their 1^st Amendment freedom of expression to photograph women unawares and their own right to privacy and internet anonymity.

This summer, while interning for LSRJ, one of the most inspiring talks I heard was from Sujatha Jesudason and Tracy Weitz of CoreAlign. They asked why, if reproductive rights is the most funded field in women’s issue, do we still seem culturally deadlocked? One of their major points was that the reproductive justice movement has often aimed for incremental changes – reform rather than radical transformation and immediate rather than long term goals. Calling out individual offenders seems to fall squarely into the immediate and incremental. It is reactionary rather than revolutionary and responds to this particular instance, rather than an overall culture of viewing women’s bodies as public property and fetishizing women’s nonconsent. While it is crucial to have discussions on the individual facts of this situation, how can we proactively work to create a different dominant mindset? Perhaps, start by educating people while they are younger. Perhaps the answer is to build into our public school system a more explicit and complex discussion of the importance of privacy and autonomy. Perhaps the answer is to encourage more open discussions among men as a jumping off point to encourage internal moderation of both online communities and real life social groups.

These tactics have echoes of the Hollaback movement, which posts photos of catcallers and narratives of harassment. Both situations have an element of turning the tables of public humiliation on the offenders. But does posting the name, age, and phone numbers of the perpetrators cross the line? While it has undertones of quid pro quo, poetic justice, and may indeed deter future creep-shooters, these tactics raise questions to ponder: Is this sinking to the same level? Is this perhaps engendering (misguided) feelings of victimhood that may fuel a feeling of entitlement or an alienation from seeing women as people rather than a desire to change one’s way of thinking? What can be done that is productive rather than destructive?

Ash Moore, Resident Blogger (’14, University of Oklahoma College of Law)

If you had three tries to guess “closest place to get an abortion,” I bet “Dutch boat” wouldn’t fly out of your mouth. But that’s exactly where Moroccan women can turn starting this week. The “abortion ship” will dock in international waters, keeping it legal despite the fact that abortion is outlawed in the Muslim-majority country.

With all the bad news coming from the American abortion front, it’s nice to see a shining beacon of hope bobbing in water. Last year, 92 restrictions on abortion were passed in the U.S. and with a new state Department of Health report revealing that abortions in Ohio dropped 12% in the wake of new, restrictive laws, there may only be more to come.

In the same study, we learn that most women who had abortions were unmarried, poorly educated, and under 25. I don’t know about you, but it sounds like a raw deal for a kid to me. All these people hollering about “best interests of the child” should really look at the mother’s situation and ask themselves what kind of chance for success a baby would have if the mother brought it to term.

I’ve known several women who had abortions not because they wanted to, but because they felt it was in the best interests of the fetus. Not just because they didn’t have the resources to take care of the baby once it was born, but also because they didn’t have the resources to care for the fetus. I don’t know what I would want to do if I turned up pregnant tomorrow (other than repent because it’s obviously the second coming). I do know I have a personal objection to abortion despite my unwillingness to deprive another grown woman of the option. But I also know that if I tried to have a baby now, it would hurt me and the baby.

All these right-to-lifers go up in arms and yell about adoption. Ok. How many kids have you adopted? How many have the people you know adopted? Now do you think that’s enough to cover all the kids already waiting for a family? I’m a law student, not a mathematician, but even I think the numbers don’t add up.

The organization running this abortion ship gives me hope. Hope that rationality and compassion will win out in the end. Hope that every woman will one day have access to all the reproductive health care she needs, no matter how controversial it is. Hope that America will stop passing draconian laws and nominating political candidates who believe women’s’ bodies can protect themselves from pregnancy after “legitimate rape.” This is my hope. Even if modern day pirates of the Robin Hood tradition have to take to the high seas to fight for what’s right.

This post originally appeared at RH Reality Check on Wed., September 26th and was updated on Mon., October 1. It was written by LSRJ alumna Bridgette Dunlap (’12, Fordham Law School). She and fellow chapter leader Emily Wolf created and implemented the first-ever Prescribe Fordham!, a sexual health fair clinic for Fordham students. Read more about their campus activism here.

UPDATE TO CONTRACEPTIVE COVERAGE LAWSUITS:

Shortly after the original article on this issue was published, a district court in Missouri made the first ruling on the merits in any of the contraceptive mandate challenges, dismissing all claims in O’Brien v. HHS. The court held, among other things, that providing contraceptive coverage is not a “substantial burden” on religious exercise barred by the Religious Freedom Information Act and that the religious employer exemption does not excessively entangle government with religion in violation of the First Amendment.

The case involves a secular for-profit employer, but the arguments rejected by the court are representative of those found in the complaints filed by religiously-affiliated plaintiffs. The decision is a fairly readable primer on the controlling law in these cases. It illustrates that beyond these cases being premature in the case of the religiously-affiliated plaintiffs, the substantive claims are extremely weak. For this reason, the religiously-affiliated plaintiffs might not see any benefit in waiting until they have standing in cases that are likely to fail. The weakness of these cases may also explain their quantity. In addition to making a big pre-election statement, filing numerous cases increases the likelihood of finding one judge willing to depart from settled law or expand the reach of a statute, in an act of so-called “judicial activism.”

Original article follows below.

Thirty lawsuits have been filed by corporations challenging the Health and Human Services regulationrequiring that most health plans cover contraceptives. The plaintiffs are primarily Christian-affiliated institutions, but include some secular for-profit companies as well. A survey of these cases yields some useful information as to what the “religious freedom” debate is all about.

The strangest thing about these cases is that the plaintiffs, with the exception of the secular for-profits, have not yet been required to provide contraceptive coverage and may never be. The Obama administration has exempted objecting religiously-affiliated organizations from the regulation for one year while the accommodation is negotiated and finalized. The administration has been extremely generous in allowing objecting institutions to take advantage of this “safe harbor,” even amending the eligibility requirements to include institutions that have provided contraceptive coverage in the past but recently discovered they were violating their religious beliefs by doing so.

Thus, the claim of Cardinal Timothy Dolan, quoted in a number of the complaints, that the safe harbor gives religiously-affiliated institutions “a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,” does not comport with the facts, to put it nicely. The safe harbor is not merely a delay. It is a period intended for continued dialogue. At this point, the religiously-affiliated plaintiffs do not know if they will ever have to provide insurance with contraceptive coverage, which is why the three cases decided so far have been dismissed.

Opponents of the regulation have claimed repeatedly that the problem isn’t that it will make contraception more accessible, but that its exception for religious organizations is too narrow. But, oddly, rather than arguing they meet the criteria for an exception or should, the plaintiffs in these cases argue that that they are not exempt. Why do this? Why not ask and argue for an exemption and sue only if the government does require that plaintiffs provide coverage for contraception? These cases are premature and courts are likely to continue to throw them out without reaching the merits.

It takes a lot of time and money to bring so many bad cases before the government has made you do anything you don’t want to. What’s the big rush?

I suspect there’s a looming deadline at play here that has nothing to do with litigation strategy: the election. Bringing these cases now, allows opponents of the Obama administration to say essentially, “Look, thirty lawsuits! What an unprecedented violation of religious freedom! Stop this man who has forced your humble bishop to sue.” These cases are politically useful because the fact that the administration let these institutions have their way for the time being and may forever isn’t what gets reported. And should the courts ever reach the merits of these highly dubious claims, it will be after November 6^th.

Beyond what the timing suggests about the political objectives, these cases reveal the nature of the objection to the policy. Plaintiffs are going to court claiming not to be exempt instead of arguing they should be because they don’t actually want an exemption. They want the whole law struck down. In many of the complaints, plaintiffs are not just asking the courts to bar enforcement of the regulation against their particular institutions for religious reasons, but explicitly seeking that the mandate be vacated in its entirety.

That the exception isn’t the problem is also evident in the support of religious contraception opponents for the challenges brought by secular, for-profit corporations. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops cheered when a judge temporarily barred enforcement of the regulation in the case of a manufacturing company that was clearly not a religious organization eligible for an exemption. Cardinal Dolan has described the change to the regulation he would find acceptable: “All Washington has to do is say, ‘Any entity that finds these mandates morally objectionable is not coerced to do them,’ and leave it there.” The issue with this proposal, however, is that when you get to decide whether or not to do what the government says that is not what we call a law. In demanding that providing coverage be optional, Cardinal Dolan is claiming the government cannot regulate any health plan in a way that conflicts with his beliefs, no matter how secular the employer.

Many of the complaints in these cases contain a further bizarre argument that the inquiry into whether or not an institution qualifies for a religious exemption is so intrusive as to entangle the government in religion in violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Now, as a matter of well-settled constitutional law, the government is not required to grant any accommodation whatsoever to those whose religious expression is burdened by a generally applicable law. However, the general consensus is that it should do so in some circumstances and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act requires this. But we can’t have any exemptions without a determination of who is exempt. This commonsense principle has been noted by courts upholding state contraceptive coverage mandates that contain religious accommodations identical to the one in issue. If the argument that granting an exception amounts to entanglement were adopted, it would harm the interests of a religious person who has a genuine need for an exemption from a law that burdens her religious expression, rather than a policy disagreement as seems to be the case here.

The potential unintended consequence of the intrusiveness argument is not the only reason it is striking. As currently written, the criteria for the exemption includes factors such as an institution’s corporate form, primary purpose, and who it hires and serves. This inquiry is relevant to whether insured persons have notice of and have consented to having their health plans governed by religious precepts.

The plaintiff institutions, on the other hand, are effectively demanding a less reasonable and more intrusive inquiry into the circumstances of individual plan participants. As Notre Dame notes in its complaint, Catholic doctrine does not prohibit the use of contraceptives to treat medical conditions. Therefore, the University is not purporting to have a sincere religious belief that bars providing coverage for contraceptives, but demanding the right to investigate why a woman has been prescribed contraception and the authority to adjudicate whether that prescription was justified by a medical condition of a type and severity deemed worthy of treatment by some unidentified arbiter.

Ultimately, the picture that emerges from these cases is not of religious adherents trying to alter the difficult balance between laws enacted for the general welfare and respect for individuals whose religious exercise stands to be limited. These cases reject the opportunity to compromise or even negotiate. They are an assertion of institutional religious power that appears to be aimed at influencing American politics and undoing policy put in place by officials obligated to represent Americans of all faiths.

Follow Bridgette Dunlap on Twitter, @bridgettedunlap

Rosie Wang (’14, Columbia Law School)

My parents have been joking for 15 years that when I have children, they’ll move close by so they can help babysit them and tutor them in math. This scenario has always absolutely horrified me because (1) learning the times table at age 4 was an experience I wouldn’t wish on anyone and (2) who said I wanted kids? Its a matter I’m ambivalent on, but start feeling actively resistant towards on principle, once people knowingly say that I’ll change my mind and or rehash the tropes of parenthood being the noblest calling. This may have contributed to me amusing myself as a young adolescent by reading “childfree” livejournal groups that served as forums for people to discuss the stigma they felt from not wanting to have children. Specifically, there was a childfree group that I read out of interest in some of the feminist, pro-choice ideas, and a childfree “hardcore” group I read out of a morbid fascination with people who had built up so much resentment that they called parents “moos” or “breeders.”

This movement, more extreme parts included, is still alive and well. And looking at it from a reproductive justice angle is fascinating. Believe it or not, it is possible for reproductive justice advocates who work for healthy mothers and infants and for who say they actively dislike children and mothers to find common ground. For instance, some women who do not have children feel taken advantage of by the workplace accommodations given to women with children. From a different point of view though, you could say both groups of people are on the same side. Both women with and without children want their choices to parent or not to parent respected. Rather than developing antagonistic feelings, the answer may be better found in working together to develop workplaces that do not ask women without children to “pick up the slack,” but instead hire more employees so that no one has to disproportionately sacrifice their life outside of work.

On another workplace angle, as recently as 1991, courts have reviewed cases in which employers have banned fertile women from job duties that may cause birth defects with both an assumption that their female employees would all have children and an assumption that they knew what was best for these women. The posts I used to find the most interesting were by people who had never had children chronicling the frustrating experience of being denied tubal ligations by doctors who were sure they would regret it. Though the reproductive justice movement was founded by women of color, who have historically experienced forced sterilization, it makes perfect sense that it also champions the rights of the “childfree” to be voluntarily sterilized. The recurring theme is a familiar one from legislative battles surrounding abortion and contraception: Those with power arising from political clout, a professional degree, or employment position are trying to control how those with less power how to live their reproductive lives. And though the ability to choose is usually associated with the right to time and space having children – it is just as much of a reproductive right to choose to never have children.

Elisabeth Smith, LSRJ Summer Legal Intern

Everywhere you look someone is pontificating about the war on women. We must defend ourselves! No, there isn’t a war! Wait, actually the President is the one waging it.

Lately those of us who support the right to safe and legal abortions and the ability to access them regardless of race, economics, legal status, or geography, have been reacting. We’ve been told to be fearful because fear can be a powerful, yet short-term motivator.  March, yell, scream, protest, call your Senator, your Governor, your Representative!  Where does such fear take us though? Does it marginalize our beliefs far better than a zealot on the other side ever could?

Fear precludes discussions of why contraception and abortion and the ability to plan our families are crucial. Reacting fearfully does not allow for conversations about gender, race, and class. If we’re only focused on today’s crisis how can we explain that if rights don’t include access then for many people they are meaningless?

Reproductive justice (RJ) recognizes the effects of compound identities (race, ethnicity, gender, age, class, legal status, etc.) on reproductive autonomy and the interactions of those identities with healthcare, education, access to information, and social support. RJ advocates envision a world in which people with the necessary rights, information, and resources could make reproductive choices with dignity and free from violence or oppression.

In order to achieve the goals of our movement, we need to stop reacting and start talking, start imagining what an RJ world would look like. Sure, it wouldn’t include the District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act or similar state laws, but why wouldn’t it? If I just scream and say no and thrash about, I’m not giving anyone reason to listen to me or be persuaded.

I’d like to propose something radical. Let’s stop being angry and quash the fear that manufactures short-term effects. Let’s talk, let’s brainstorm, let’s help people understand why realizing reproductive justice is crucial for the betterment of our communities, our country, and the world. Let’s stop using the language of fear and oppression: war, battle, struggle, fight, strike, blow, assault.

Now, please understand that I’m not suggesting that we naively sing kumbaya while the states and the federal government limit our rights and inhibit access. We need allies who work to counter those measures, but we also need allies who explain why RJ is necessary on our terms, using our language.

Reframing conversations about contraception and abortion, one piece of the RJ framework, requires recognizing basic truths: people will always have sex, sometimes without wanting that sex to lead to pregnancy and sometimes with the hope of having a child.   Let’s start there.

In terms of contraception and abortion, what would an RJ world look like to you?

Rosie Wang, LSRJ Summer Legal Intern

In many ways Bei Bei Shuai’s story sounds like my mom’s. Both women were raised in large Chinese cities, in households where both parents worked. Both came to the United States, following partners with promising job prospects. Both worked in Chinese restaurants while harboring plans to improve their English and get graduate degrees. It’s the story of many Chinese immigrant women, but Ms. Shuai’s narrative diverged when, at eight months pregnant, she was abandoned by her boyfriend who, it turns out, had another family.

Suffering from major depression, Ms. Shuai ingested rat poison as a suicide attempt and was rushed to the hospital by friends. She consented to all treatment to save her life and her pregnancy, but while she survived, but the baby she gave birth to died after a few days. She was charged with murder and attempted feticide while still hospitalized for an emotional breakdown and then spent 435 days in prison. She is now out on bail, but paying for a GPS-enabled ankle bracelet that will cost her $2500 until her trial.

What is wrong with this picture?

Well, what part of what Bei Bei Shuai did was criminal? Suicide is not a crime in Indiana and the law used to charge Ms. Shuai with feticide was targeted at third party attacks on pregnant women, not abortion. This particular interpretation of the law is the result of a swelling segment of anti-choice advocates who want to give fetuses separate legal personhood. This in turn criminalizes the behavior of pregnant women and subjects them to investigation for miscarriages or poor birth outcomes. Pregnant women would become a separate class with fewer rights.
Second, criminal penalties hardly seem like an effective deterrent to actions made under extreme emotional disturbance. That just isn’t how mental health works! Instead there needs to be careful screening and medical treatment for the 13-20% of women who experience depression while pregnant, and the 30% of depressed pregnant women have suicidal ideation.
Finally, let’s go back to the familiar story of Ms. Shuai’s immigrant experience. Many media outlets have portrayed Ms. Shuai sympathetically, but this sympathy can misguidedly stem from referencing the model minority myth rather what is owed to all women. The one interview with Bei Bei Shuai currently online shows her answering the questions about her family, her hopes upon arriving in America, and how she spent her time in prison. She answers that she came to the US wanting independence and an MBA, has been taking classes in prison, and is still strongly determined to live in America.

Together, Ms. Shuai’s optimistic answers and lack of hard feeling toward the American justice system form a perfect narrative of the grateful, educated, and ambitious immigrant. It seems to announce to white viewers, “Hey! She might be a foreigner and a woman of color, but she’s middle class, loves this country, and believes in its bootstrapping principles! We can sympathize with her and thus she deserves better!” But the insidious implication in the media constructing this type of narrative is that only people who have lived “perfect” lives up until that point — those who can answer those questions as Ms. Shuai or my mother would — are entitled to bodily autonomy and freedom from state intrusion into their private grief. And even if Bei Bei Shuai’s Chinese upbringing might look like a non-threatening analogue of the stereotypical American family, 34% of American children actually do not live in a home with two married parents. Many women from these families are especially vulnerable in terms of the ability to access health services and will see their rights stripped away by fetal personhood statutes. Bei Bei Shuai is admirably resilient and positive and her story demonstrates how even women who have conformed to the mainstream can become victimized. But women who do not fit that profile, who might be undocumented immigrants, on public assistance, raised in nontraditional families, angry about the way American society has written them off, all deserve justice and dignity just as much. It’s a basic human right.

Shelley Halstead, LSRJ Summer Legal Intern

We interns here at the LSRJ national office spent the greater part of our first week drafting a memo on shackling. If you haven’t heard, prisons around the country continue to shackle pregnant and birthing women immediately before, after, and while they are giving birth. I knew this was happening but honestly, hadn’t made it a priority to acquaint myself with the ins-and-outs of it. With the onslaught of reproductive rights and services being attacked it is sometimes easier to fight on a front that is more familiar and more established. Basically, I wasn’t comfortable.

But one of the responses I received when sharing my research affirmed for me why we have to continue talking about the things that make us and others uncomfortable.  I was asked to not keep saying the word “shackling,” not because it was inaccurate (I suppose I could have used “restraints”), but similarly for me, it conjured up images of a not too distant past when black women were once chattel. And why shouldn’t it? The disproportionate numbers of black and brown women in prison continues to tell our story as a disenfranchised minority in this country. Fifty percent of incarcerated women are African-American yet make up thirteen percent of the female population in the US while two-thirds of incarcerated women are women of color.  It’s something you might suspect, but when confronted with the numbers, it’s rather disturbing.

If reproductive justice is truly what we’re after, not just choice, then this issue is one central to our path toward it. Until we address the social reality of inequality, (specifically, the inequality of opportunities that we have to control our reproductive destinies) then our realization of autonomy and self-determination will cease to materialize.

The great news is that more and more legislatures are restricting this practice. A lot of people across the political and social spectrum agree; shackling is barbaric. It is something we can stop. I’m not saying that our other challenges are something we can’t change, but clearly racism, sexism, and classism are systemic, otherwise we would have changed them by now. And while the reason there is such disproportionality in prison is systemic, the actual practice of shackling is symptomatic—an outward manifestation of those systems. The long-game is reproductive justice, and eliminating the practice of shackling is but one of the ways we will achieve it.

Mallory Carlberg, University of Oklahoma College of Law

The views expressed in this blog post are those of the blogger herself; she is not speaking on behalf of Law Students for Reproductive Justice or the University of Oklahoma Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

Spring is my favorite season despite the Oklahoma legislature’s attempts to ruin it for me every year. Every legislative session I think they can’t possibly come up with more ways to undermine reproductive health in our state, but every year they do. At Take Root, we heard about some of the worst bills from Tamya Cox who is a former lobbyist at the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma and now works for Planned Parenthood of the Heartland.

The Oklahoma Senate recently passed the Heartbeat Informed Consent Act, which requires a doctor to tell a person seeking an abortion that they have the right to hear the heartbeat of the fetus before the pregnancy is terminated. Originally, the bill required the person to actually hear the heartbeat, but the bill’s author amended it at the last minute. When asked to comment, the Senator Dan Newberry, author made no attempt to justify the bill on any grounds other than dissuading people from obtaining abortions. He claimed that the heartbeat is the only way for a fetus to communicate that it wants to live. “It can’t say please don’t kill me, it can’t say I want to live. It can’t say anything,” he said.

The House also recently passed a bill requiring people seeking Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) to be drug tested before receiving it. The Daily Show already did a wonderful take down of similar bills requiring drug tests. The only difference between our bill and others is that those seeking TANF would have to pay for their drug tests and then get reimbursed by the state if they pass. Obviously for someone seeking TANF, paying $50 to $100 for a drug test is not small feat.

The Personhood Act that the Oklahoma Senate passed has galvanized a lot of Oklahomans.The bill would define legal personhood at conception and give all the rights and privileges of citizenship to fertilized eggs. The bill’s authors insist that the Personhood Act is just a “foundational principle” that would not have legal significance. However, Parents Against Personhood reports that out-of-state group Personhood USA has spent well over $50,000 on radio and television advertisements in support of the bill. Additionally Personhood Oklahoma announced this month that they had begun collecting signatures to put a personhood amendment on the November ballot. People in Oklahoma are spending a lot of time and money on personhood for it to be just a “foundational principle.”

The good news is that the personhood debate has inspired more people to get involved and pay attention to what Oklahoma legislatures are doing. There was a rally against personhood at the capitol last month and there are online conversations happening about the the personhood movement where people are planning direct actions to combat it. OU LSRJ has also seen interest in our organization increase. There were far more law students at out last event than there has been at previous events. Next week we also expect a decent turn- out as Senator Connie Johnson of ‘every sperm is sacred’ fame and Ryan Keisel of the ACLU of OK give us a legislative update.

An Ohio state senator presents legislation to regulate men’s access to Viagra by requiring a notarized confirmation of erectile dysfunction in response to strict legislation on women’s contraceptive…hi-lar-i-ous.

Known for its social commentary, Garry Trudeau’s comic strip Doonesbury ran a weeklong series dedicated to the recent ultrasound legislation popping up around the country, and has been censored by various newspapers.  Read an interview with Trudeau in the Washington Post and Slate Magazine.

Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett supports the state ultrasound bill arguing that the ultrasound doesn’t force women to watch— ‘you just have to close your eyes’ …Close your eyes?

Feministing sent a call for women to share their experiences with birth control ‘in their own words’ and compiled them thematically voicing the needs and concerns of the people who use it. Real women, real talk.

Women with the power to vote are asserting their sexuality and defending access to affordable birth control, in a political climate that continues to shame and pathologize the sexual identities of Women of Color. Way to own your sexuality!

Candace Gibson, University of Utah College of Law

The views expressed in this blog post are those of the blogger herself; she is not speaking on behalf of Law Students for Reproductive Justice or the U of U Law Students for Reproductive Justice.

The legislative session in Utah has, as usual, offered some bad and patriarchal legislation.  Although Senator Osmond has dropped his “personhood” bill, both chambers will be sending some golden nuggets to each other.  Unfortunately, given the lack of parity between Democrat and Republican representation in both chambers, these bills have a good chance of passage.

The first nugget is HB 363 which would allow schools to drop sex education classes altogether.  The bill also prohibits schools that continue to teach sex ed from instructing students in “the use of contraceptive methods or devices.”  Prior to this legislation, schools were allowed to emphasize abstinence as a method or teach abstinence only sex education.  Furthermore, under Utah law, parents can take their kids out of sex education classes.  What inspired this bill you may ask? The sponsor, Representative Wright, was appalled that some schools were using a Planned Parenthood maturation program for fifth and sixth graders.  (Of course the bill isn’t another way to discredit Planned Parenthood but it’s about stopping the brainwashing of kids to have sex whenever they want).  Not only does the ACLU and Planned Parenthood oppose this bill but so does the Utah PTA.  I’m thinking when parents are telling you that this is bad news for their kids you probably should listen to them.

The bill is not only comedic but disturbing because it comes on the heels of a report from the Centers for Disease Control saying that half of Utah teens who became accidentally pregnant were not using birth control.  The reasons why they weren’t using birth control were pretty unique among the nation.  These included: obstacles to obtaining birth control, the belief that they couldn’t get pregnant at the time, and the belief that they or their partners were sterile at the time of the sexual encounter.  Rep. Wright’s legislation is irresponsible to say the least when you have data demonstrating the need for more information and access to birth control.  However, from my personal experience on the Utah Hill, data does not influence the majority of these law makers.

The second nugget is Senate Joint Resolution 21 which recognizes the “valuable” contributions of pregnancy care centers.  Although the resolution has no legal ramifications, the text of the resolution includes this lovely phrase, “BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislature of the state of Utah expresses disapproval of the actions of any national, state, or local groups attempting to prevent pregnancy care centers from effectively serving women and men in relation to unplanned pregnancies.”  Maybe this is code for saying that we disagree with lawsuits against pregnancy care centers that affirmatively misinform women about the services they provide.  As of now, it’s still in the Senate.

The third nugget is another bill aimed at extending the waiting period for an abortion in Utah.  Currently, it’s 24 hours but HB 461 would push it to 72 hours.  Unfortunately, the bill passed the House Health and Human Services Committee and I am certain it will make it to the Senate.  If it does pass the Senate, Utah will be tied with South Dakota for having the longest waiting period in the nation.  That’s something to be proud of, right?

There are only two weeks left in the Utah session.  I know that there are some who will do their best to persuade legislators about the grave social risks which will be amplified due to these bills.   At the same time, I’m unsure if these legislators are willing to listen.