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…)

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…)

I attended a Roe v. Wade anniversary dinner last night where five speakers acting as “The Voice of Reproductive Choice” shared their stories about the importance of reproductive freedom in their lives.  There was an OBGYN who talked about not being able to find a nurse to perform a first trimester abortion in a hospital setting because of opt-out conscience clauses; a Latina mother with five children who works with Planned Parenthood in her community so that her children will have information about sex, STI’s, and reproduction that she never received; a gay father who affirmed that it “took a village to make his child” and praised the people and legal process that allowed him to make that choice; and a woman who spoke about her pre-Roe abortion. She was 16, and her parents paid a man, recommended by the family doctor, to perform the procedure.  After the procedure, the man requested that she kiss him to show her appreciation.  She said she thought she would have to carry the shame of that day to her grave. But then Roe v. Wade happened, and she could talk about her abortion without feeling ashamed all through the 80s and 90s. She referred to those years as “good times.”  I was shocked that anyone, ever, felt comfortable openly talking about her abortion, but then I realized that I came to political and sexual maturity during the eight years of the Bush administration, when the country saw reproductive and sexual freedom attacked and undermined on every front.  I never considered that these repressive policies might also have repressed the voices of those who exercised what little reproductive freedom they had left.

I am one of those repressed voices.  I’m white, and I grew up in an upper-middle class, Midwestern, Christian home where my very loving and supportive family never talked about sex.  My Church and my community taught me that sex occurred within marriage, and my mother communicated that she hoped I would act on those values.  I didn’t.

I had sex. I got pregnant. Not the first time. I used condoms and the pill with my partners.  I can’t pinpoint the exact experience out of which the pregnancy arose.  There was a broken condom, and I didn’t know that I could get EC at my college’s health center, and I couldn’t find anyone to drive me to Planned Parenthood, so I didn’t get plan B until the end of the 72 hour window.  A couple days later, my boyfriend removed the condom before ejaculating.  I don’t remember how or whether we responded to that situation. (more…)

As most of you heard the Nelson-Hatch amendment failed in the Senate this week. Many reproductive organizations, among others, launched a visible grass-roots campaign to make sure that this Stupak-like amendment was not included in the Senate’s version of a health reform bill. Some were critical that pro-choice groups did not work proactively enough to defeat these measures before the debate entered the public arena.  I had informal discussions with friends regarding the matter. On one hand, I am frustrated that advocates for reproductive justice are once again in a reactionary position (defeat Stupak-Pitts! defeat Nelson-Hatch!) rather than proactively advocating for expansive and inclusive reproductive justice measures. I am also concerned that other important reproductive justice issues are being ignored in the public debate. What about affordability, prevention, and immigrant rights?   

On the other hand, I do not think it is fair to place all responsibility and blame for the passage of the Stupak amendment on just two organizations. I have heard some say that advocates hoped to work quietly behind the scenes to avoid turning the federal health reform debate into an abortion debate. What is the appropriate role for reproductive health, rights, and justice organizations? What can we learn from the Stupak-Pitts and Nelson-Hatch advocacy efforts? How can we work better moving forward?

Jennifer Smith

The American health care system has been largely criticized over the last couple of years as administratively burdening, financially inefficient and inaccessible leaving millions of people uninsured without any medical care at all.  But let us look now at the other side of the spectrum: the universal health care systems adopted in most of the European countries. 

The founding idea of universal health care systems is based upon providing health care coverage to all or as widely as possible through some form of government action.  The idea took different forms in different countries throughout Europe according to various socio-economic and cultural circumstances.  In Scandinavian countries and the United Kingdom, for example, the government has a high degree of control in developing and providing health care, basing the eligibility criteria upon residency and not on one’s ability to pay.  In these countries every facet of health care is covered primarily from tax revenues, so that beneficiaries need not pay anything.  Other countries such as France and Serbia developed systems based on mandatory medical insurance with contributory insurance rates deducted from salaries or income, which are usually jointly funded by employers and beneficiaries.  The insurance rates, however, are kept low through subsidies, thus they are considerably lower than US rates.  Sometimes the health care funds are derived from a mixture of insurance premiums and government taxes, and many countries use mixed public-private systems to deliver universal health care.

Although the idea was first achieved on a national level in Germany, in the 1880s, through reforms conducted by Otto von Bismarck, one of the most socialized systems of universal health care today is the English health care system provided by the National Health Service (NHS).  The NHS services are available to all irrespective of an individual’s ability to pay.  The services include among other things; primary care, long-term health care, dentistry, psychiatric care, in-patient care.  Hospitals provide treatment either free or at minimal charges with certain exceptions for optical and dental care (which are still free for elderly, unemployed, children and people on low incomes).  Private health care paid by private insurance coexists with the NHS, but it only covers approximately 10% of the population, providing merely acute care from specialists.  

As idealistic as it sounds, the idea of a universal health care system is not without problems in its practical application.  (more…)

In her feature on the supposed generational divide in the pro-choice movement, which ran in Sunday’s New York Times, Sheryl Gay Stolberg correctly observes that abortion has hit the headlines recently in the context of health care reform and the horrendously restrictive Stupak amendment—and it’s not something reproductive rights advocates are happy about.  But there isn’t much else I can relate to in her assessment of the current landscape in reproductive rights advocacy and activism.  In fact, I think the story—which argues that there is a chasm between the “menopausal militia,” meaning the generation of feminists who came of age before Roe v. Wade and view abortion in “stark political terms,” and the “millennials,” the younger set for whom Stolberg suggests abortion is a personal issue—misses the mark in a sad but revealing way.

Relying on quotes from Naral Pro-Choice America president Nancy Keenan, Stolberg promotes this political/personal dichotomy without actually explaining how this supposed shift to the personal manifests itself—other than the fact that the post-Roe generations seem less responsive to single-issue pro-choice calls to action.  Provocative accompanying artwork, which consists of a black rectangle with brightly colored letters spelling “WE” floating above “ME,” implies that younger women are selfish in neglecting abortion politics.  Yet Stolberg acknowledges that “a clear majority of Americans support the right to abortion, and there’s little evidence of a difference between those over 30 and under 30.”  In fact, she herself points to several examples of young people organizing right now to stop the Stupak amendment (including LSRJ’s recent webinar on abortion and health care reform legislation).  So what’s the issue?

Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg concludes that young people don’t respond to email alerts about contacting their legislators because they know abortion is legal and believe “if you really need one you can probably figure out how to get one.”  Which means not only are we selfish, but we’re also foolishly complacent.  But what about the millions of poor women, immigrant women, and young women who can’t ever “figure out how to get one” because the barriers we’ve erected to accessing legal abortion are simply too high?  Such women may be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term or to induce an abortion through other means, with serious consequences for the health and security of themselves and their families.  And what about those of us who aren’t poor, immigrant, or under 18 but believe deeply that how our society treats those women reflects on all of us, individually and collectively? (more…)

Because most participants in the insurance exchange would receive some federal subsidy (the New York Times reports that “anyone earning less than $88,000 for a family of four — four times the poverty level — would be eligible for a subsidy under the House bill”), insurers in the exchange are strongly incentivized to cut abortion coverage from their offerings. The result?  A de facto ban on abortion coverage within the insurance exchange – a ban which would affect even those who don’t receive federal health subsidies.

There are many stories to be told here, but I’ll limit myself to just a few. First, even if we’re not losing the culture war, Democrats apparently think we are. Disturbingly, 20 Dems with pro-choice track records voted in favor of the Stupak Amendment; at least 11 of them are in vulnerable positions for 2010, and they presumably believe that a vote for reproductive health is more dangerous than a vote for health reform. (Nate Silver points out that voter polls indicate the contrary.) The Left collectively needs to grapple with some large questions around the future of RJ and the Democratic Party.

Our second story: Congress hasn’t simply sold out women’s health; they’ve specifically sold out the health of low-income women. As RJ activists, we should be particularly attuned to intersections of economic justice and reproductive health, and to the ways in which the Stupak Amendment furthers the economic stratification of abortion access. (more…)

A Congressional staffer recently reprimanded me for suggesting that Democrats might be in the business of compromise despite their solid majority in the House. “Show me,” she demanded, “how have we compromised?” Well, for starters, Democrats have continuously turned their back on their largest voting block—women—by repeatedly holding out access to abortion as a sacrificial lamb. Case in point: the Stupak Amendment Dems offered last night to pave the way for passage of the House’s health care reform bill.

The Amendment, which passed 240-194, not only bars a public option plan from providing abortions, but prohibits individuals from using government subsidies to purchase a plan that provides abortions. Those familiar with current restrictions on federal funding for abortion might think this amendment just preserves the status quo. They’re wrong. Most available healthcare plans currently provide coverage for abortions. The Amendment has the potential to push such plans out of the market—or at least to unaffordable levels—by prohibiting their purchase with federal subsidies.

It seems paradoxical that a reform effort aimed at increasing access to affordable, quality health services could exclude access to comprehensive reproductive health care. It’s more than a little bittersweet that clearing the first hurdle in the race toward national healthcare reform has come at the expense of women’s health. It’s even harder to stomach that our nation’s pro-choice champions manufactured the deal.

Lauren R. S. Mendonsa

In my undergraduate years I lived in Las Vegas, and I often guest spoke to classes and groups about transgender issues.  One of the things I would often discuss was hate crimes.  I had statistics on other affected groups, and the rate at which they were victims of hate crimes.  But the number of people who fell victim to hate crimes based on gender identity always surprised people, zero.  There was no such thing as a hate crime against someone for their gender identity. 

On Wednesday October 29, 2009 President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.  After 10 years of disagreements over the bill, this new federal hate crimes act affords protections based on someone’s actual or perceived sexual orientation and/or gender identity. 

Over the last 10 years there have been various barriers to the final passage.  The bill made it through the House of Representatives in April.  However, to get it through the Senate, Democrats attached this bill to the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act, a $680 billion defense bill.  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/28/AR2009102804909.html) (more…)

The beginning of my second year of law school also marks the beginning of my search for a job for the summer after my second year of law school. Because of the uncertainty of the economy, job searching isn’t exactly the happiest prospect. But, in some respects, I am very fortunate – if I manage to find a job I am protected from employment discrimination based on my gender.

Members of the LGBT community aren’t so lucky. Did you know that in 29 states it is still legal to fire someone based on his or her sexual orientation, and in 38 states, it is still legal to fire someone for being transgender? As an RJ advocate and as a human being, I find that appalling.

That’s why I support the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Passing ENDA would be a huge step toward providing equal protection to all American citizens – a core guarantee of the Constitution. It would also ensure that, in this uncertain economic climate, American’s wouldn’t have to worry about losing their jobs just because of who they are.

-Megan Mullett