JoAnna Smith, Emory University

During the first day at the Leadership Institute, we discussed how the reproductive justice model differs from other frameworks for reproductive rights or social justice.

It made me think back to when I was working as a labor doula before law school.  A labor doula is a trained and experienced professional who provides continuous physical, emotional and informational support to a woman before, during and just after birth.  A doula learns that she is there to help the woman have a safe and satisfying childbirth as the woman defines it. It is not the role of the doula to discourage the laboring woman from her choices, nor to project their own values and goals onto her.

As a doula, I was required to listen more than I talked.  I learned to encourage women to ask questions and get information rather than doing it for her.  I learned that I couldn’t possibly understand all the circumstance of another woman’s life that drive her to make the decisions she does, but that I should do everything in my power to hear her and help her achieve those choices.  I learned to work behind the scenes, providing valuable skills and resources when needed, but never taking the spotlight away from those who really mattered: the woman, her family, and supporters.  Outside of the birthing room, I advocated for changes in a complex system of institutions, laws, and circumstances that make it difficult for women to have the birth they knew was best for them.

What I heard during the RJ 101 session made me think hard about the role of an RJ lawyer.  In law school we learn how to be the interpreter of the law and the one who gives advice.  We are taught to stand up in front and speak confidently.  We are taught to be, or at least act like, the experts our education prepares us to be.

But the reproductive justice framework asks us to focus on the intersections of race, class, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender expression, immigration status, and ability and how they impact access, agency, and autonomy in shaping one’s reproductive destiny.   It shifts our role from achieving a right or winning a case for someone to one that requires us to listen and to act only once we attempt to understand those we serve.  It asks us to work with communities as allies, strategists, and advisors to overcome the complex systems, laws, and circumstances that make it difficult for people to have the reproductive destiny they know is best for them.

We must be doulas in the reproductive justice movement.

I am incredibly honored to be at the L I with so many soon-to-be lawyers who will continue to doula this movement, and those it affects, forward with compassion, grace, and integrity.

Ash Moore, University of Oklahoma College of Law

When I signed up for this weekend, I wasn’t too sure I was going to enjoy it. From the first moment I stepped in to the LSRJ Leadership Institute, I knew I was in for a bit of a culture shock. People were throwing around the “f” word like it was perfectly acceptable language.

I’m talking about “feminism,” of course. That word scares folks in Oklahoma and surrounding states. Everyone gets an immediate picture of bra-burning, man-hating, bleeding-heart liberal vegans. And I have to admit, I came here with some preconceptions as well. Even I was expecting a much higher vegan attendance (there’s only one here).

It was really refreshing to see a room full of people from different backgrounds coming together and civilly talking about reproductive issues (and it ain’t all about abortion folks. I know, color me surprised). But even in this group, we had disagreements over the issues. Astonishingly though, there was no yelling and, as far as I know, no one was offended. It was truly amazing to have an open, honest, discourse about these issues and not be vilified. Day one is at an end, and I can’t wait for day two.

Candace Gibson, University of Utah College of Law

It has been a whirlwind ride for me as a 3L.  Last summer, when I was planning my 3L year, I wasn’t thinking of starting a LSRJ chapter.  However, I became convinced by one of my mentors to start one. Now, I am sad to leave the U of U Law Students for Reproductive Justice Chapter.

We’ve had a great year. Unlike some of our sister chapters in the Mountain West, we did not have any bureaucratic obstacles to fight and so far, we have gained the respect of our student body and of the other student organizations.  Maybe, we’ll know we have arrived when there is a pro-life law students group on our campus.  We planned and co-hosted five panels, the topics ranged from academic scholarship in reproductive rights to domestic violence in immigrant communities to the valuable contributions of medical practitioners.  We made condom kits twice to help the HIV Prevention Program at the Utah Pride Center and we created a presentation around the legal issues that some Latina adolescents face in Salt Lake City.  We also tabled the months of October and November on various RJ topics.  It was a fun but exhausting year!

All of this could not have been done without the energy and work of our 2011-2012 board who stepped up when they needed to and told me that they were too exhausted to do another thing.   These moments remind me that when you are doing social justice work you have to set some boundaries or else you will be exhausted and no longer useful to your community or your movement.

The other important lesson I am learning is that we always need to mentor.  Often, as adults either pursuing education or because we are still getting our act together, we never think of ourselves as mentors but as mentees.  We need to keep thinking as chapter leaders and as members that we not only mentor during a transition meeting and after we have left, but that we are mentoring while we are leading our chapters and are mentored by our other chapter members.   As a movement, we need to keep mentoring so that we never become irrelevant or worse, we end up erasing the efforts of younger members by saying they aren’t doing anything. (I’m sure you have all heard about the comments made by older feminists who think that we younger feminists are only sitting on their laurels and twiddling our thumbs.)

Aside from these serious thoughts, I want you all to wish next year’s U of U Law Students for Reproductive Justice Chapter board the best of luck.  I’m thinking they will certainly put us one step closer to having our archrival, Law Students for the Right to Life, on campus.

This year, OULSRJ was a new student group, so initially we were concerned with visibility and navigating unfamiliar bureaucratic processes. Since our student body leans more conservative, I was also secretly concerned that my co-chair and I would be the only law students interested in the group. I was happily proved wrong though. At our first meeting, we introduced people to the reproductive justice framework and elected officers. We had more than enough people to fill all six positions that we’d created!

We knew we needed to be strategic with the events we planned. Hosting an event like a sex pleasure workshop was probably going to cause more harm than good four our reputation at least for the first year we existed. Instead we wanted to focus on topics that are less controversial but still important.

In February we were honored to have Lynn Paltrow of National Advocates for Pregnant Women and Julie Burkhart of Trust Women speak at an event titled Pro-Life or Pro-Lives. Paltrow’s discussion of how fetal rights claims can also harm women seeking to carry their pregnancy to term resonated with at least one student who was undecided about the issue. My only regret is that we did not reach out enough to the more conservative groups at school.

The Women’s and Gender Studies department at the University of Oklahoma also hosted a regional conference on reproductive justice for the first time in February. There were about 200 attendees from Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas and other states. Topics included sexual assault, religion and reproductive justice, and the LGBTQ movement and reproductive justice.  This conference exposed attendees to the reproductive justice framework and showcased a wide variety of topics.  Many students in Middle America do not have the money or time to travel halfway across the country to conferences on the coasts, so it was nice to have these large-scale conversations on our own campus.

We also had Ryan Keisel of the American Civil Liberties Union of Oklahoma speak about reproductive rights-related legislation. The main topic was personhood since it seems like advocates are trying to enact this policy in Oklahoma from all possible angles. Some people also shared their individual experiences with reproductive rights restrictions in Oklahoma and how the laws affected the health care they received. To me, these conversations are more productive than the traditional ones we often have that involve pro-choice rhetoric. OU LSRJ tried to steer clear of phrases like “get your laws off my body” or “get your religion off my body” not only because critiques of “choice” are central to the reproductive justice framework, but also because those sentiments just don’t resonate with folks here.

As we begin planning for next year, I want to remember our successes and our failures. Next year I’d like to concentrate on meeting more frequently and working with other student groups, while still focusing on how to message reproductive justice issues in a state that identifies predominantly as pro-faith and pro-life.

Joanne Caceres, Harvard Law School

What a year it’s been. In the fall our LSRJ was thinking about what most campus organizations struggle with: how do we recruit, train and retain students to our cause? Partially inspired by the 1in3 Campaign, we started the year with a Speak Out Week, where we encouraged the men and women of Harvard Law School and the Boston Area to share their reproductive health stories. In addition, we hosted events that focused on a specific community and their stake in the pro-choice movement. One such event was “Bro-Choice,” which was geared towards the men at Harvard.

Bro-Choice was a huge success and affirmed our belief that men can play a role in the reproductive justice movement, and it is something our organization will continue to expand upon in the future.

Equally exciting this year was Obama’s announcement whereby religious exemptions for insurance mandates requiring access to $0 co-pay contraceptives would only apply narrowly. The following conservative backlash brought women’s health to the forefront of the national conversation. LSRJ’s very own Sandra Fluke, from Georgetown, testified to the nation on the importance of contraceptive coverage.

Our annual Sex Week took place shortly after Fluke’s testimony, amid the controversy firestorm (thanks to a radio personality who will not be named). Our events included academic legal topics related to sex, including Affirmative Consent and the Law with Judge Nancy Gertner, and more lighthearted and social events, including our annual Sex Trivia event. Perhaps unsurprisingly, our most controversial event of the week was a sexual pleasure workshop entitled “Sex Positivity and SlutPride: Sex Tips for a Modern World from Good Vibrations”. The event drew the ire of people for many reasons, but most notably for the use of the word “slut.” Although much of the criticism that surfaced was of a “gotcha” variety, arguing that women’s groups can’t have it “both ways” with the use of the word—it was valuable in that it encouraged an open discussion of feminist arguments both for and against reclaiming a word that has historically been used to dehumanize and degrade women (you can see HLSRJ’s formal press release here).

As we prepare for the rest of the year, I wonder what opportunities and challenges lay ahead. How much of this year’s general election will become about women’s health issues? How can we educate more men and women around this issue? We may not have all the answers now, but HLSRJ will be here, keeping the conversation going.

Susy Prochazka, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

Amid the increasing adversity that the reproductive rights and justice movement currently faces, including the recent passing of both the Virginia ultrasound bill and the Arizona contraceptive bill, reproductive rights and justice activists and supporters gathered at Thomas Jefferson School of Law on February 24th for the annual Women and the Law Conference to educate, celebrate, and advocate for the movement.

Topics ranged from the recent commodification of human reproduction through gene patents and parental contracts, to the current threats to abortion rights across the U.S., to the racial implications behind bans against breastfeeding in the workplace. Speakers included law professors, professors of sociology and psychology, and abortion providers.

Sarah Weddington, the attorney that argued Roe v. Wade before the Supreme Court in 1973, was the conference’s keynote speaker. Mrs. Weddington discussed the sometimes-overwhelming experience of speaking before the Supreme Court as a young attorney. She spoke of her own personal commitment to the RJ movement, originating from her passion for women’s rights and her own harrowing experience in obtaining an abortion during a time when it was illegal. Mrs. Weddington ended on a note of advocacy, calling for the younger generation of lawyers to stand committed to the RJ movement, and take up the task of protecting reproductive rights.

The turn-out for the keynote speech was incredible: the audience numbered in the hundreds and the conference rooms were overflowing. People jostled to get a chance to speak to or take a photo with Mrs. Weddington. Mrs. Weddington’s call for activism and drive for reproductive justice sparked discussion and passion. Hearing one of the great icons of the past movement for reproductive rights call for renewed activism to exceed that of years past to address recent threats was inspiring. It was an invigorating moment in a year that has seen numerous attacks against reproductive rights and a woman’s autonomy. With the same dedication and zeal as Mrs. Weddington displayed throughout her life, the RJ advocates and their allies can surmount and transcend the these adverse times.

Candace Gibson, University of Utah College of Law

One of the most awesome things happened last week.  The U of U Law Students for Reproductive Justice Chapter combined forces with the Reproductive Health Interest Group and the American Medical Women’s Association, students groups of the University of Utah’s medical school, to host the first annual Reproductive Justice and Health Panel.  The objectives of the panel were to foster dialogue among medical and legal practitioners (and soon to be practitioners) regarding reproductive justice and to discuss how the current political situation is impacting the women accessing reproductive health services and the ability of their providers to give them the health care they deserve.

As law students advocating for RJ, we often focus on the individuals and the communities impacted by oppressive policies. We get lost in the complex, constitutional web of reproductive rights, or we have to respond to the inane, irresponsible rhetoric from the likes of Rush Limbaugh.  We often forget about the medical providers who are putting themselves on the line to ensure that women have safe, healthy, reproductive lives.  We need to start forming alliances with medical practitioners, particularly abortion providers, and become their advocates as well.  It probably has never been safe to be an abortion provider and with the string of laws targeting all aspects of reproductive health, it’s getting harder to be a medical provider in this field.  Just think of all the TRAP regulations, the transvaginal ultrasound bills, fetal homicide laws, and state attempts to dictate what is excluded from the medical school curriculum.    And it’s not just the regulations but the domestic terrorism these providers face.  According to the National Abortion Federation, providers and their staff have dealt with arsons and bombings, butyric acid attacks, anthrax threats, and let’s not forget that 8 abortion providers have been shot and killed because they were abortion providers.  With all of this happening, if I were in medical school, I probably wouldn’t want to be an OB/GYN or do anything in this field.  That’s why as law students we need to continue to support these brave professionals so that following generations aren’t driven away from providing the basic care that women in their communities deserve.

For U of U Law Students for Reproductive Justice, we plan to co-host this panel every year, and who knows what may evolve from this.  All I know is that it’s the start of a beautiful relationship.

Burke Bindbeutel, University of Missouri School of Law

Mizzou LSRJ was pleased to host Pamela Sumners, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Missouri for a legislative update. Our chapter often takes a friendly, accommodationist approach to divisive reproductive issues. Bleating aggressiveness can drive away potential allies. But the the anti-choice brigades are so entrenched and emboldened that our chapter feels it’s important to present a response.

And Sumners is plenty comfortable talking back. She explained that her preternatural obstinacy comes from her Scotch-Irish blood. It takes chutzpah to do battle in Missouri’s General Assembly, where only 40 reps out of 162 can call themselves pro-choice, with zero Republicans among them. Missouri’s demographic shift towards oldness and whiteness has pulled our political conversation rightward. As Sumners put it, “They say they want a small government…apparently small enough to fit in your uterus!”

The opposition has relied on ideology at the expense of facts. They have inflamed their base with misleading stereotypes: Sumners regularly hears an apocryphal anecdote about a binge-drinking sorority girl who hides her irresponsibility with abortion. In fact, 61 percent of abortion-seekers are already mothers. RU-486 should be in pharmacies, argued Sumners, but a general ignorance of science has stalled this progress.

It’s also no accident that the criminal abortion statute still on the books today (not in force due to Roe v. Wade) penalizes doctors. The best way to restrict access, Sumners said, is to go after the providers. And framing the issue that way favors the anti-choice side: if public health providers are required to betray their moral convictions, we must really be living under tyranny. Pro-choice advocates understand abortion in a different way: as part of a paradigm of choice.

Sumners discussed how consumer protection laws should cover the “crisis pregnancy centers” which intentionally mislead patients. These faux-providers don’t do referrals and they don’t offer accurate information to abortion-seekers. Sumners insisted that despite living in a “red state,” Missourians don’t want to see vulnerable women lied to. So in a legislative context, the best response to hostility and untruth is calm and patient rationalism. This standpoint legitimizes the pro-choice position, but it is also less inflammatory and inspiring than the attitude of moral outrage that characterizes anti-choice operators. Sumners urged pro-choice advocates not to resemble “cold-eyed bean counters, like John Kerry.”

To that end, RJ activists need to understand current medical science and to reach political compromise, but we also need to articulate our own moral vision. We can shift from defensive mode with an insistence on a society that values dignity and self-determination.

Mallory Carlberg, University of Oklahoma College of Law

This blog is cross-posted from OK4RJ.

Yesterday, Lynn Paltrow of National Advocates for Pregnant Women and Julie Burkhart of Trust Women participated in “Pro-Life or Pro-Lives: What the Difference Means for Women and Families” at the OU College of Law. Both speakers focused on the possible consequences of criminalizing abortion and of the need for policies that value the lives of pregnant women and their families.

Julie Burkhart, a former colleague of the late Dr. Tiller, works in Wichita, Kansas, the home of  Operation Rescue. Wichita is  the largest city in Kansas and now has no abortion clinic thanks in no small part to the efforts of Operation Rescue (though Trust Women is opening a new clinic this year. Despite this, literally thousands of people seek abortion services in the state and must travel far to do so. Julie and her colleagues face unimaginable harassment, but Julie said she continues to work in Kansas because it is simply un-American that based on geography some people are not able to obtain reproductive health services. If Kansans go to such great lengths to obtain abortions, criminalizing abortion will not deter people from obtaining the procedure. Anti-choicers swear that criminalizing abortion will mean punishment for doctors not patients, but we need to be wary of giving the State power to interfere into the decisions we make about our bodies. Once the State is given a little power, we cannot be sure how far and in what direction state policies will take it.

Lynn Paltrow highlighted the danger of giving the State this power. She spoke of several instances of courts using fetal rights claims to violate a pregnant woman’s right to medical decision making, right to due process of law, right to liberty, and right to life. For example, Laura Pemberton was attempting to have a home birth when a sheriff knocked on her door. Doctors at a hospital had used fetal rights arguments to get a court order to force her to have cesarean surgery. She was taken into custody, restrained while in active labor, judged without representation and forced to undergo the surgery. Other examples include Amber Marlowe and Angela Carder who were also forced to have court-ordered cesarean sections without due process of law. In every case, the judge determined that a state interest in fetal life trumped the rights of the pregnant person. Many fetal rights claims originated in state feticide laws that were meant to protect the pregnant person but are now being used to harm them.

I was so glad that OU LSRJ was able to take part in bringing conversations about the potential for State abuse to the law school. Unfortunately, the student population at most law schools is still overwhelmingly white and middle to upper class. For most, privilege allows us to ignore the ways state policies like the drug war are being used in a racist and classist manner to target certain populations for control. We are more likely to trust state actors because our experiences with police and judges are often positive. It is critically important that we be exposed to discussions on ways State power can be used to oppress not protect people since we are the next generation of policy makers. It is unlikely that many law students will ever experience this oppression firsthand, but it is a reality for countless people in this country. Ignoring this reality perpetuates an unjust judicial system – an unjust judicial system that, as last night’s talk and the recent push for personhood amendments across the nation show, has the potential to be used to strip anyone of their status as a full Constitutional person upon becoming pregnant.

Susy Prochazka, Thomas Jefferson School of Law

For the lonely hearts, the coupled hearts, and all hearts in between this Valentine’s Day, our chapter arranged a lecture on the history of human sexuality and the ongoing effects of racism, sexism, and homophobia on sexual expression. Ms. Lea, the owner of a local sexuality boutique and sociological scholar, prepared a discussion on the lingering negative stereotypes surrounding a woman’s sexuality, especially where that sexuality does not conform to a white, hetero-normative standard.

Understandably so, the discussion detoured from a historical perspective into the more recent hardships that women face in exercising their right to a healthy and autonomous sexuality. One member of our chapter posed the question, “How will the recent obstacles to contraception coverage affect women’s sexuality?” Building on a religious liberty platform, the campaign by US Bishops forced the White House to compromise on insuring contraception. We voiced our fears that forcing women to rely on their employers for coverage will further restrict timely access to birth control. A woman’s sexual health will be dependent on her employer’s personal beliefs and opinions, an unacceptably restrictive limitation, in our eyes.

Some of the most vociferous opposition to the coverage of contraceptives stem from conservative religious organizations. However, there are statistics that 98 percent of sexually active Catholic women use a method of contraception banned by these same US bishops. The bishops represent the views of very few people other than themselves. One of our members is a devout Catholic and an active participant with Catholics for Choice. She brought these statistics to our attention and this led to a fiery debate about the failure of the separation of Church and State.

In the end, our discussion gave us resolve to create an event to emphasize the fact that religion and contraceptives can co-exist. Our school is fairly conservative, both politically and religiously, and we seek to ensure a place for contraceptives and frank discussion on campus.

To accomplish this, our LSRJ chapter has teamed up with the Jewish Students Association and Christian Law Society to host an event addressing the dissonance between religion and contraceptives, a conflict that is being pushed to the forefront.

Our Valentine’s Day event was a huge success. It not only provided a background to the history of oppression of sexuality, but it also addressed the obstacles that very recent legislation continues to pose.