Sara Taylor (’11, University of Michigan Law School)

*trigger warning for discussion of sexual assault

I managed to go to a bar the other weekend without being molested.  Pure luck, apparently.  I ran out to the grocery store late last night, too, and missed the unwanted groping.  I am having a great week!  Ooooh, maybe it’s because I was in loose-fitting pajamas, unwashed hair in a bun, glasses, slippers – on both occasions.  But what about the dozen or so years I, a woman, have been engaged in the risky behavior of going to bars and grocery stores?  What insight can I offer so other women can understand and possibly emulate my incredible assault-free hot streak?  Take it away, Judge Hatch!

Apparently, women who place themselves in vulnerable situations have a duty to be more vigilant to avoid becoming victims.

Several days ago, Arizona Superior Court Judge Hatch sentenced an ex-law enforcement officer who sexually assaulted a woman at a bar this past July.  After having a bit to drink, the then off-duty officer came up behind the woman, a friend of friends, put his hand up her skirt and fingered her.  He got tossed from the bar and the woman naturally participated in his subsequent prosecution (though let’s have a moment for her courage to do this, as it will become patently clear just how stacked the deck is against her).  Judge Hatch suspended jail time and sentenced him to probation, community service, treatment, and also decided this was the appropriate forum to admonish the victim for being a victim. Said Judge Hatch, “You learned a lesson about friendship and you learned a lesson about vulnerability” and “if you wouldn’t have been there that night, none of this would have happened to you.”

Well, I suppose that stands to reason, but how, exactly, does proximity become proximate cause?

Apparently, bad things can happen in bars. Even going to the grocery store after 10 p.m. can be dangerous for a woman.

Going forward, in furtherance of the common law, this is simply too vague.  I feel like I, too, must learn a lesson about friendship and vulnerability, even though I have narrowly escaped groping all these years.  If sexual assault survivors who venture out after dark and forget to leave their vaginas at home is a mitigating factor, what are the guidelines?  Any hemline limits?  Pants only?  What percentage of cleavage clears the threshold?  Can one be friends of friends of cops?  Have a drink?  Can a woman wield any sexual power at all, or would that be inciting dominance?  Let’s be clear, for heaven’s sake, this is a lesson.  What behavior needs to be demonstrated to believably point fingers at the fingerer?

Tell you what, I did learn something here.  The judge also provided some sage wisdom from her mother…when you blame others, you give up your power to change.

Well, your honor, mom was right.  When you blamed others, you gave up your power to change this tired, archaic, degrading narrative.   That duty of vigilance to avoid victimization was yours.

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.

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.

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.*

Many of my law school colleagues and I have dipped our toes in the immigration law pond.  In my experience, when people ask me what type of law I am most interested in, and I say, “immigration law,” it invites a conversation that I don’t want to have.  I’m hesitant to speak about immigration because I never know if the person on the other side will be an individual who has no idea that our immigration system is broken and will use language that is derogatory to me and the clients I’ve worked with.

With the start of Utah’s legislative session this week, I am not only feeling this hesitancy but anger.   Representative Herrod, who has announced that he will join the U.S. Senate race to upseat Senator Hatch, has decided to sponsor legislation that would gut the Utah Immigration Accountability and Enforcement Act passed last year.  The Utah Immigration Accountability and Enforcement Act would create a guest worker program for those who are undocumented in Utah but would like to legally work and live in the state.  In order to get a permit, individuals would have to get a background check, take English and civic classes, and their tax contributions would be tracked.   Aside from the constitutional issues at hand and the likely possibility that the federal government will not give a waiver so that the state can implement this legislation, many immigration advocates were excited because the bill was solution-oriented.  Herrod’s legislation would convert the Accountability and Enforcement Act to the Utah Illegal Alien Family Transition Pilot Program.  Don’t you love the name?  His legislation would only allow individuals who have either (1) overstayed their visas or (2) let their visas expire and have children of a certain age and that were born in specific countries apply. Individuals who came into the country without inspection or through non-legal means could not apply.  The bill would allow local enforcement agencies to detain individuals who they suspect of being in the country without any legal status and punish law enforcement agencies that do not comply with enforcement laws by withholding state funds from them.   Before any of this happens, the bill states that our congressional delegates must lobby for amending federal immigration statutes so that Utah may implement this program.  Herrod said this about his bill, “The forgotten person in all of this has been the legal immigrant. We’ve passed laws that are aiding those who come here illegally. That is wrong; we need to work on laws that aid the legal immigrant.”

What Herrod has forgotten or does not want to acknowledge is that in some places in the world there is no functioning way to legally migrate to the U.S.  If I have to wait at least ten years to migrate from Mexico through a family based visa or if my only other option is to be sponsored through an employer, that is not a functioning immigration system.   I am all for state legislation that pushes the federal government to reform our broken immigration system, but legislation that guts another bill that may be unconstitutional is a waste of time and only foments a heated debate.

Reproductive justice isn’t just about abortion and contraceptives, but about improving the lived realities that impact people’s ability to decide when, how, and if they want to parent.  Because many immigrant women have no legal status, they are more subject to intimate partner violence, lack insurance coverage, and are vilified through the media as mindless, breeding machines whose sole purposes are to birth “anchor babies” and “terrorists.” Immigrant women are clearly part of this struggle. In Utah alone, immigrant women already have been targets of gender-specific threats.  In 2010, Concerned Citizens of the United States compiled a list of 1300 individuals who they thought were in Utah without legal status, asking them to be deported, and sent the list to media outlets.  The list included names, social security numbers, and even pregnant women and their expected due dates.    Herrod’s bill isn’t going to help most immigrant women and it definitely isn’t adding anything new to our country’s immigration debate. 

Mallory Carlberg, University of Oklahoma Law School

Anyone who follows reproductive justice news knows that Oklahoma is often the testing ground for new anti-abortion legislation. State legislators pass bills through the House and Senate with ease. Even when a Governor vetoes a bill, both bodies often have the two-thirds majority needed to override the veto. Since the 2010 midterm election, the situation has only worsened. Our new Governor will not veto any anti-abortion measures, and our new Attorney General endorses redefining “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment to include fetuses. Oklahoma politicians also routinely undermine other reproductive justice concerns, such as access to comprehensive sex education, family planning services, and social programs assisting struggling families.

The University of Oklahoma (OU) law school produces an excellent class of lawyers every year, most of whom will work in Oklahoma and Texas. A sizable amount will be the next generation of legislatures and judges. In classes, constitutionally protected rights are often discussed in a vacuum as if race, class, gender, sexuality and ability do not affect a person’s experience of their rights. One major goal in starting OU Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ) is to engage future Oklahoma lawmakers with reproductive rights in a deeper way. The RJ movement’s refusal to be a single-issue movement makes it ideal for building coalitions in a red state. Even if a student’s personal views are against abortion, we can often find common ground on other RJ issues like domestic violence, maternal health, and sex education.

At meetings we want to educate law students on issues they may not have considered and re-complicate the already complicated issue of abortion. This process will start with our upcoming event RJ 101. OU LSRJ members are also helping with “Take Root: Red State Perspectives on Reproductive Justice.” OU, RJ non-profits and RJ community groups have come together to bring a conference to OU next semester, which will focus on red-state specific issues. The conference will showcase national and local leaders and provide young, RJ activists with a space to meet and exchange ideas.

Though our state may have further to go than others to achieve RJ for all, the willingness of OU law students to discuss these issues and the support OU LSRJ has received from faculty inspires me. There is a small, but growing group of Oklahomans who are dedicated to bringing these issues to light. I am excited for OU LSRJ members to bring that conversation to the law school.

When I first heard about Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ), the strong ties between the national office and its campus chapters struck me. LSRJ is not just resume filler. The Easy-Events-in-an-Envelope and travel stipends for students to attend conferences are just two examples of dedication to cultivating active campus chapters. The annual Leadership Institute (LI) is another. Before the conference, I felt ill equipped to handle the challenges unique to doing reproductive justice work in the South. However, I now feel prepared and excited to help bring an LSRJ chapter to a conservative state.

The conference featured workshops on how to start a new chapter, how to talk to people about reproductive justice, how to diversify membership and how to leave a legacy through cultivating new leadership and institutional memory. With nearly one hundred attendees, the campuses represented were diverse. The schedule accounted for that with events ranging from how to address “social justice burn out” to how to organize on conservative campuses.

Social justice conversations on the coasts are sometimes dismissive of conservative states especially when people refer to residents as backward or beyond hope. But from Sabrina Andrus’ opening speech on moving past an “us versus them” mentality, it was clear that this would not happen at the LI. She asked us to be mindful of ways the word “crazy” can be alienating to both people with mental illnesses and to conference attendees who have family members with so-called “crazy” beliefs. Although it can be difficult to do this work in the South, there are amazing, dedicated law students working here, and I felt the LI took into account the needs of chapters from conservative states beautifully.

Some of the most helpful discussions occurred between the formal workshops as attendees shared experiences over pizza or coffee. Through these conversations, I learned that flexibility is key to effective organizing. Decisions about leadership structure and which issues to discuss need to differ with each law school, depending on the make up of the student body.  The friendships formed at the conference will continue online throughout the year and at regional LSRJ conferences. I am grateful for the opportunity the LI provided to learn, grow, and plan for the academic year with such inspiring attendees and speakers.

Mallory Carlberg

While in office, former president Clinton declared that “Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.” Last week, the Boston Globe reported that support for legalized abortion among Democratic White men has declined nine percent in the last year, and that 41% of Americans now favor increased restrictions on access to abortion. I can’t help but wonder how categorizing a constitutional right as something that should be prevented has influenced this shift.

When he spoke those words, President Clinton likely did not anticipate that 41% of Americans might support the latest law out of Oklahoma. The state’s new law requires physicians to report personal information about abortion patients to the state, which will post the information online. 

The new requirement looks like many state laws that require healthcare providers to report the date of birth, sex, race, and residence of people who test positive for infectious diseases like tuberculosis. Ostensibly, infectious disease reporting helps officials protect the public against outbreaks, and in most instances, patients’ personal information is strictly confidential.

With this law, Oklahoma not only tests the strength of our nation’s medical confidentiality laws, it places abortion in the category of diseases from which the public needs to be protected.

(more…)

The other day, Iowa became the 17th state to reject federal abstinence-only dollars. The state will continue to refuse funding until and unless the federal government makes significant changes to the program. The other 16 states include New York, Ohio, New Jersey, Wisconsin, Montana and Connecticut, among others. New York had previously received the second largest amount of any state of federal abstinence only dollars.

As it currently stands, recipients of federal Title V abstinence-only funding are required to adhere to strict guidelines. The program requires states receiving the funding to adhere to the following requirements:

In case it’s not apparent, there are significant problems with this definition. As SIECUS explains, “This definition ensures that young people who have already engaged in sexual activity, those have been sexually abused, or those living in nontraditional households are not only denied critical health information but are presented with shame- and fear-based messages. Other groups of young people, such as gay and lesbian youth, are ignored completely.”

Yup. And the rejection of these ideas was really needed in Iowa, where some of the federal (and state matching) funding had been used to pay for a huge roadside billboard featuring a picture of a pregnant woman who was not wearing a wedding ring. The billboard read: “Wait for the bling.”

Certainly there’s nothing wrong with encouraging teens to wait to have sex until they are ready. But using federal dollars to pay for misogynist, patriarchal, patronizing ads like this one goes way beyond simply encouraging kids to wait until they are ready. Especially ironic is that, while abstinence only programs encourage waiting until marriage (for just about everything), they don’t provide people with the education necessary to prevent pregnancy should they decide to become sexually active. Abstinence-only programs are not just anti-woman, anti-gay, and anti-abortion. They’re also anti-sexuality, full stop. They suggest that sexuality is a failing. But what’s failing are these programs, which have not been proven to reduce rates of teenage sex. And they’re far out of step with public opinion, which heavily supports comprehensive sex ed (which includes abstinence).

Given the weight of public opinion, and the fact that more than 1/3 of states have now rejected the federal funding, I’ve got to wonder at what point the scales will tip. The Democratic congress has not yet had the political will to reduce or end Title V and the other abstinence-only funding streams. But the point at which Congress will have no choice but to do so — the tipping point to borrow from Gladwell – now seems closer than ever.