Cat Callin’ It Like I See It

Amanda Shapiro, Resident Blogger (’15, Brooklyn Law School)

Like any good law student, I broke down street harassment into its parts.  The where, and the when are devoid of pattern. You could be hunched over, wearing sweat pants and a backpack, or in a tasteful suit running late to a meeting.  (Both happened to me.)

The cat caller does pay attention to your companions, though.  Are you walking alone?  Obviously, you are doing this without the permission of your father or husband.  Are you walking with other women?  You must be a group of contrary daughters and/or wives.

If, however you are walking with a man, the cat caller is silent.  Another-man-with-you gets to the root of cat calling: possession.  The cat caller recognizes that the woman is that man’s property – his capitalist instinct kicks in, and he refrains from messing with another man’s stuff.

A possession theory especially helps when you hear the mansplanation, “what’s wrong with commenting on a woman’s beauty?”  If “beauty” were the extent of it (assume that the cat calls are limited to, “hey gorgeous”-es), then wouldn’t the cat caller remark on a woman’s beauty even if she were with a man?  This never happens.

I was delighted to see that Tatyana Fazlalizadeh created an empowering art project tackling this issue:  a series of portraits of women, with statements to discourage street harassment.  After reading the article, one male commenter remained resolute in his street harassing, and noted quixotically, “[i]magine walking through a garden and not being able to enjoy the flowers with your eyes.”  His comment reinforces possession: women are mere objects for a man’s viewing pleasure.  I hope Fazlalizadeh’s art will help him wake up and smell the roses.

Meet the LSRJ 2013 – 2014 Resident Bloggers

LSRJ is thrilled to introduce our eight 2013 – 2014 resident bloggers. Each will bring their voice and perspective to our blog on a variety of reproductive justice issues each month. Interested in becoming a resident blogger?  Please email us at communications@lsrj.org.

deodonne

Déodonné Bhattarai is the Second Year Reproductive Justice Fellow at the Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum (APIAHF), a national health policy organization dedicated to strengthening policies, programs, and research to improve the health and well-being of Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific Islanders.As a member of APIAHF’s policy team, Déodonné works on health equity issues at the Federal level.  She analyses issues of health care access and quality, HIV/AIDS, immigration, and ACA Implementation through a reproductive justice lens.

Chapman picSJ Chapman is a graduate of UNC Chapel Hill and Northwestern Law School.   She lives in Chicago, IL, and is starting work as an associate at Bielski Law Office, Ltd. in the fall of 2013.  She studies and writes in the field of critical familism and international adoption.  You can read more at her home blog adoptanewwayofthinking.com, or contact her directly at sjbchapman@gmail.com.

Dawson

Originally from the San Francisco Bay Area, Ruth Dawson is the Reproductive Justice Fellow at the ACLU of Southern California, where she uses legal, policy, and community advocacy to address a wide swath of reproductive justice issues.  Ruth studied International Development Studies and Spanish at UCLA, where she spent much of her time teaching sex ed and otherwise organizing around social justice issues.  Before graduate school, Ruth managed a small reproductive health clinic in Northern California.  She graduated in 2012 from Emory University with a JD/MPH joint degree, where she co-founded the Emory Law chapter of LSRJ.  Ruth is a member of the California Bar.

Candace Gibson is a Second Year Reproductive Justice Fellow at the National Latina CandaceInstitute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH).  Candace received her J.D. from the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law in May 2012. As a law student, Candace received the Frankel Public Interest Fellowship to assist Jane’s Due Process with their judicial bypass and community outreach work in Texas and received the Spurgeon Public Interest Fellowship to finance her summer internship at NLIRH.  During her summer at NLIRH, she researched, wrote, and blogged on immigrant women in detention centers and in deportation proceedings. Candace founded and served as the Utah Law Students for Reproductive Justice Chapter President and served as President of the Women’s Law Caucus. Prior to law school, she worked as a program coordinator at Comunidades Unidas, a nonprofit organization in Utah committed to eliminating health disparities in ethnic and refugee communities, managing the work of the Multicultural Health Network and the Democracy Schools Program.

Mangala

Mangala Kanayson is a 2L at Emory School of Law, where she is a Co-Chair of the Law Students for Reproductive Justice chapter.  She interned with the LSRJ national office in Oakland over the summer and hopes to work in the field of reproductive justice after law school.

 

 

Christine Poquiz linc

 

Christine Poquiz is a second year Law Students for Reproductive Justice Fellow at the National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF) in Washington DC. A proud Filipina-American and the daughter of immigrant parents, Christine is deeply committed to reproductive rights and justice, and works to ensure that the needs and voices of immigrant women and women of color are lifted. Originally from California, Christine holds a law degree from UC Davis School of Law and a bachelor’s degree from UC Irvine.

Amanda 2

Amanda Shapiro graduated from Harvard College in 2008 with a degree in sociology, where she focused on issues of economic justice and women’s rights.  Upon graduation, she joined Teach for America, and taught for four years at a public school in the South Bronx. That experience working with a high-needs population and a predominantly female workforce led her back to women’s rights advocacy and additionally, law school.  Amanda is a current law student at Brooklyn Law School, Vice President of the LSRJ chapter, and a Sparer Public Interest Fellow. She hopes to start up a pro-bono project with other LSRJ members to vacate prostitution convictions for child victims of sex trafficking.

melissa2cMelissa Torres Montoya just completed an LSRJ fellowship at the National Women’s Health Network.  She received her B.A. from the University of California, Davis and earned a J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley School of Law in 2011.  Before going to law school, she worked as a sex educator with Planned Parenthood in California, and while in law school, she served on the boards of LSRJ and La Raza Student Association.  Melissa also worked with the public benefits team at the East Bay Community Law Center and served as the outreach coordinator for Boalt Hall Women’s Association where she coordinated a women’s health fair for law students and faculty.  Melissa followed law school by pursuing a Masters in Public Health at John Hopkins and graduated with her degree in May 2012.

Abortionomics: Sex-selection

S J Chapman, Resident Blogger, (’12, Northwestern University Law School)

Worried that the job market for lawyers is decreasing?  Well thank the pro-life movement for keeping us in business.  North Dakota alone has allocated $400,000 for the second half of 2013 to defend its unconstitutional abortion ban.

Let me start from the beginning.

Sex-selective abortion is when a woman chooses to abort based on the sex of her fetus.  In regions of Asia and Eastern Europe where the practice is so pervasive that the at-birth ratio of males to females is as low as 100:86, selective-sex abortion contributes to gender inequality in addition to a host of other ugly societal problems.

Here in the United States, where “son preference” isn’t a deeply held conviction, sex-selective procreation doesn’t lead to the same results.  The at-birth ratio of males to females has been the standard 100:95 since 1940.  Furthermore, sex-selective abortion isn’t the only way to achieve sex-selective procreation.  Pre-implantation methods like sperm-sorting and PGD are less invasive alternatives.

In her reporepro entry “Is Banning Abortion the Answer to Sex-Selective Practices? (Hint: No.),” Christine Poquiz did a fantastic job addressing sex selection.  In short, if a woman wants to abort, for any reason, then restricting her autonomy to do so (at least pre-viability) violates Roe as amended by Casey.

Yet anti-choice activists get abortion laws on the books, couching them in terms of sex-selection bans.  How?  By plastering their lobbies with the social problems in Asia and Eastern Europe.  This doesn’t make sense.  If gender inequality were really their reason for ending sex-selection, then they would also be lobbying to eliminate sperm-sorting and PGD.

Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Arizona and North Dakota have sex-selective abortion restrictions on the books,[1] and 11 other states have bills pending[2]…  Bad news for reproductive justice.  These laws clearly violate Roe/Casey.

Now back to the whole job market thing.  See where I’m going with this?  Anti groups pay lawyers to help enact this legislation.  Reproductive justice watchdogs pay lawyers to challenge the laws.  The North Dakota law is currently being challenged in MKB Management, Inc. v. Burdick.  Lawyers attacking it, lawyers defending it.  Lawyers, lawyers, lawyers!

On a serious note, these laws are unconstitutional from the start.  Anti groups insidiously use propaganda totally out of context to get them on the books.  It’s an utter waste of lawyers’ time, judicial dockets, and millions of dollars, all of which could be better spent on actual legal issues.

SJ Chapman is a graduate of UNC Chapel Hill and Northwestern Law School.  She studies and writes in the field of critical familism.  You can read more at her home blog adoptanewwayofthinking.com



[1] Illinois (720 ILCS 510), Pennsylvania (8 Pa C.S.A. Section 3204), Oklahoma (O.S. §63-1-731.2), Arizona (A.R.S. §13-3603.02), North Dakota (HB 1305, § 14-02.1).

[2] Colorado (Non-discrimination Act), Florida (CS/HB 845 and SB 1072), Indiana (HB 1430), Missouri (HB 386 “Abortion Ban for Sex Selection and Genetic Abnormalities Act of 2013), New Jersey (A2157), New York (A02553/S02286, North Carolina (H716), Texas (HB 309), Utah (Abortion Prohibition), Virginia (HB 1316), and Wisconsin.

Shifting the Shaming Framing around Young Parents

Andrea Frey, LSRJ Summer Intern (’15, University of Washington School of Law)

Currently the Candie’s Foundation is running a campaign to prevent teen pregnancy. Their slogan? “You should be changing the world… not changing diapers.” This is both outrageous and hurtful to young parents in America. While educating teens about sex and pregnancy is important, addressing teen parenting by portraying young parents in an extremely negative light forces them to defend themselves and their children against judgment. Why can’t young parents change diapers while changing the world?

It’s high time to shift the shaming framing surrounding young parenting. Instead of fighting for teen pregnancy prevention, why not just fight for better access to comprehensive sexual education? Use messaging that encourages and allows all young people to make the best decisions for themselves, not messaging that stigmatizes others.

Young Women United (YWU) is a nationally recognized organization fighting for better messaging in conjunction with better, more comprehensive sexuality education in New Mexico. YWU was created by young women of color and allies with young parents to advocate and build policies in the state toward educational equality for pregnant and parenting teens. Last year, YWU fought hard to pass a bill declaring August 25th “New Mexico Day in Recognition of Young Parents,” which will affirm the value of young families in communities around the state. The bill passed and this year will be the second annual day of recognition.  “All families deserve respect, trust and recognition,” said Micaela Cadena, Campaign Coordinator, YWU. “But too often young parents are cast in a negative light and pushed to the margins of society.” This August 25th be sure to stand up for young parents in your state! And sign this petition to stop the Candies Foundation from shaming young parents!

Miles upon miles of momentum

Andrea Frey, LSRJ Summer Intern (’15, University of Washington School of Law)

I am lucky. I bike one mile to pick up my free birth control pills. I can be at a women’s clinic in under ten minutes if I needed it. Other women in the U.S. (and definitely around the world) are nowhere near as lucky when it comes to accessing reproductive health services. In many states, access to abortion is eroding. 87% of all U.S counties do not have an identifiable abortion provider, with this figure rising to 97% in rural areas. There are at least four states that have only one abortion clinic, including North Dakota, South Dakota, Arkansas and Mississippi. Women in these states and elsewhere often travel miles upon miles, taking time off from work and possibly families, in order to access providers.

“We hear stories every day,” said rockstar Tammi Kromenaker, director of Red River Women’s Clinic (the only clinic) in North Dakota, on the Rachel Maddow show after a federal judge blocked North Dakota’s law banning abortion after six weeks.  “We had a woman last week who slept in her car the night before because she couldn’t afford a hotel room but she lives all the way across the state on the western part of the state.” The Red River Women’s Clinic is one of many across the US under siege as state legislators do all they can with TRAP laws, fetal heartbeat laws, etc. to close these clinics down. Luckily we have organizations like the ACLU and Center for Reproductive Rights taking on the legal battle to bring these laws down, but defeating the plethora of unconstitutional laws is not cheap.

Drawing national attention to these legal battles and one-clinic states like North Dakota is essential to mobilizing the fight for reproductive freedom. After Texas passed a sweeping measure banning abortion after 20 weeks, pro-choice groups were galvanized across the state and the US. We must now continue and use this momentum so that women don’t have to travel hundreds of miles, sleep in cars, and face harassment in order to access vital reproductive services. Stand with women and spread the word!

The Fight for Salud, Dignidad, y Justicia!

Erin Panichkul, LSRJ Summer Intern (’15, Thomas Jefferson School of Law)

The 4th annual Latina Week of Action for Reproductive Justice has officially commenced! This week symbolizes empowerment, pride, and mobilization of the Latina population for justice and equality in reproductive health care.

 “As the nation moves forward on immigration reform to create a path to citizenship for the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants, the health care needs of immigrant women and children have been left behind. This is unfair, unwise, and un-American, and we can’t let this happen.”

-         The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health

Affordable, accessible, and quality health care is a basic human right regardless of citizenship status. The S. 744 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013 has recently passed the Senate and is said to the biggest move forward for immigration reform. Hooray! But what about access to basic and reproductive health care? What about immigrant families, women, and children? Under the new immigration bill, immigrant women and children could face a waiting period up to 15 years or longer to see a doctor. This is an absurd amount of time – can you imagine telling a patient that the next available appointment they qualified for was on August 5, 2028?

Despite this bad news, there is good news this week for reproductive health access – Plan B One Step, an emergency contraceptive, is now available over the counter without age or identification restrictions.  What does this mean?  You no longer have to wait until the pharmacy is open and show your ID to access emergency contraception (this is only for One-Step, generic brands still require ID  and for those under 17 a prescription too).  This is an important advancement in access, particularly for immigrant women since they are less likely to have government-issued identification.

Go check out if your local drug store is complying with the law and offering Plan B without restrictions!  We did at the LSRJ national office and submitted our pictures to the #ECinourhands tumblr.

Fotor0801110553

This week we join the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and many other allies in celebrating the Latina Week of Action to build and demonstrate our power in support of reproductive justice, health, and dignity for all!

Trayvon Martin’s victimization proves “the system” is not designed equally.

Erin Panichkul, LSRJ Summer Intern (’15, Thomas Jefferson School of Law)

Although acquitted and legally justified, the loss of a young life cannot be socially justified because of the serious implications behind our victim’s underrepresented identities. Clearly, the system has failed Trayvon Martin and his family. Zimmerman’s “not-guilty” verdict sent a shock wave through our nation, reiterating the construct of how race, class, and socioeconomic status play a role in our legal system, in our sense of sympathy, and moral alignment.

Our broken system values certain identities over others through the assignment of privilege and worth, and accordingly it affects how we experience American justice. Our identities overlap. Our identities matter. Our identities empower us, yet our differences are often used to exclude us, silence us, or have decisions made for us. Reproductive justice recognizes that race, class, sex, age, sexual orientation, agency, and autonomy shape our experiences, identities, and our ability to parent, not to parent, and to parent our children with dignity free from violence and coercion.Sadly, ours is a backwards system that often prioritizes, excludes, and limits based on certain identities and intersections of identities.

Who does the system truly aim to protect? We want to believe it protects good, law abiding citizens. We want to believe it is inclusive of people who look, act, think, and talk like us, those who live in our neighborhood, our friends, our children, and our families. At any given moment, would our child or sibling be seen as an innocent unarmed teenager or a suspicious thug? Who is allowed to make these stereotypical assumptions, and what are they based on?

We must recognize that it is oppression, classism, disenfranchisement, degradation, profiling, power and authority, silence as well as fear that perpetuates the complex cycle of privilege and inequality in our society.

The Zimmerman verdict reminds us that we access the systems created to protect and serve our best interests with the identities and conditions foisted upon us and that our rights are at stake because our legal system is not always designed to protect and serve our best interests.

More Abortion ACCESS, Not Just More Abortions!

Erin Panichkul, LSRJ Summer Intern (’15, Thomas Jefferson School of Law)

Pro-life advocates seem to think anyone who is pro-choice loves to have abortions. This misconception is wildly absurd. We want more abortion ACCESS. We have the right to demand more access to safe, reliable, and affordable abortion care in the event that we decide we need one because it is OUR bodies, lives, futures, and well being that hangs in the balance. It is an injustice to women, women of color, poor people, and poor women of color that the nearest abortion clinic is not within a reasonable distance. This affects certain racial and class demographics more than others and can be viewed as a systematic form of inequality. It forces us into a corner and the lack of options directly affects our reproductive choices. Today, there are large regions in California, particularly the far northern parts of California and central California that have few or no abortion clinics. Fear not, there is a bill addressing this exact access issue.

AB 154, introduced by Assemblymember Toni Atkins aims to expand abortion access for California women and families. “AB 154 will authorize Nurse Practitioners (NPs), Physician Assistants (PAs), and Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs) to provide first trimester abortion care, which is within the scope of their licenses.” The current law only allows licensed physicians and surgeons to perform abortion services without penalties of imprisonment or a$10,000.00 maximum fine. By lifting this restrictive section, we will dramatically expand and increase the number of abortion care providers across the state which will provide increased access to services for California women and their families. Those seeking abortion care will no longer be forced to travel long distances in search of the closest, safe, and reliable location, or be subjected to resort to other alternatives. It is our right to decide whether an abortion is right for us and if the circumstances arise, finding a local care provider should not be an additional obstacle to overcome.

Scalia, Semiotics, and Same-Sex Marriage

Courtney Fraser, LSRJ Summer Intern (’15, University of California, Berkeley Law School)

The whole internet was an envelope this morning, and I did NOT want to open it. Like seeing the letter from your top-choice college come in with the mail and knowing it is either an acceptance or a rejection, I stared at my laptop in a state of quantum uncertainty. Google Chrome was Schrodinger’s SCOTUS ruling. After stress-drinking two cups of coffee, I braced myself. I double-clicked, scrolled through the headlines, and cried.

The explosion on Facebook was unbelievable. Since I’m my college mates’ resident “law student friend,” I found my name tagged in myriad status updates asking for clarification. Is DOMA dead? What is “standing”? Do we rejoice? I answered to the best of my ability (despite my admittedly tenuous grasp of civil procedure, but, really, whose head doesn’t Article III hurt?) and beamed. Yes. We do rejoice.

While I was hoping for a broader ruling in Hollingsworth, the fact is that today Californians can get married, while yesterday, many of them couldn’t. (Well, according to this guy, they could.) Plus, given that we got Kennedy on our side after all (this is the face I made when I saw that he wrote the Windsor opinion), I feel like the Supreme Court has typed some winking emoticons between the lines of Hollingsworth. Next time everyone has standing, I would be surprised if SCOTUS skirts the seven-state solution. And the victory re: DOMA is spectacular. As activists are quick to remind us, the war is far from over, but this is a battle we’ve won – and the spoils are many. I don’t need to talk about tax benefits for surviving spouses like Edie Windsor, or immigration protections for bi-national couples in queer-friendly states. These things are accepted as real, tangible rights that were being withheld from same-sex couples, and that state of affairs was accepted – five to four – as unacceptable. What I want to draw attention to is the semiotic victory we won in Windsor – because that seems to be what Scalia just can’t get over.

Sorry. I was a Linguistics major in college. “Semiotics” is how we make meaning out of symbols – it’s systems of communication, including language, that teach us to associate a thing with a message. Let’s say the “thing” is marriage – the word, the institution, and every iteration thereof being lived out by lawfully wedded couples. The “message” – until today – was that as far as the federal government was concerned, all of the pomp and circumstance our culture attaches to marriage (not to even mention the bundle of substantive rights) was only for straight people. The message was that queer couples were different, lesser, and excluded. We all knew that there were 1,138 actual rights that non-straight couples did not have – but the differences that were being encoded ceremonially, symbolically, and culturally were far more insidious. Semiotically, bias creeps in without us realizing it. Even people who hold no actively derogatory beliefs about LGBQ people would probably show some implicit discriminatory attitudes on this test (proceed to Sexuality IAT) because we were all inundated with messages of queer inferiority, bombarded by all sorts of things that hinted, stated, or screamed that we are not equal, and that’s just what happens. DOMA was one of those things. With its ruling today, the Supreme Court stopped the transmission of that cultural signal. Oh, there are others, still coming through loud and clear, but with the Constitution on our side, I at least feel vindicated.

Scalia doesn’t want us to have this satisfaction. First, in a fit of denial, he maintains that although the legislation’s purpose to defend traditional marriage is plain from its name, ” to defend traditional marriage is not to condemn, demean, or humiliate those who would prefer other arrangements, any more than to defend the Constitution of the United States is to condemn, demean, or humiliate other constitutions.” From his analogy, it’s clear that Scalia at once views same-sex marriage as fundamentally separate (“other constitutions”) from opposite-sex marriage, and holds this view so entrenchedly that he doesn’t even see the problem with his framing. It’s not for want of an education in semiotics, though. He sharply perceives that

 “[b]y formally declaring anyone opposed to same-sex marriage an enemy of human decency, the majority arms well every challenger to a state law restricting marriage to its traditional definition. Henceforth those challengers will lead with this Court’s declaration that there is ‘no legitimate purpose’ served by such a law, and will claim that the traditional definition has ‘the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure’ the ‘personhood and dignity’ of same-sex couples [citations omitted]. The majority’s limiting assurance will be meaningless in the face of language like that, as the majority well knows. That is why the language is there. The result will be a judicial distortion of our society’s debate over marriage—a debate that can seem in need of our clumsy ‘help’ only to a member of this institution.”

So, he sees that Kennedy’s opinion provides a robust toolkit for re-framing the discussion in a way that will make it possible for us to talk about how laws privileging opposite-sex marriage are semiotic instruments of stigma and oppression – he just doesn’t like it.

According to Scalia, it’s not even the Court’s job “to say what the law is.” I – pardon my sass – dissent. By interpreting the law, a court precisely tells us what that law is, or what it isn’t. In that sense, jurisprudence is perhaps the premier tool for promoting social change through semiotics. A law is passed; a  law is interpreted. While these are not “magic” guarantees that behavior will follow, there is something magical about performative language. A declaration that queer marriages stand equal to straight ones in federal eyes – or that a woman can get an abortion – or that a boss cannot grab an employee’s a** and get away with it – tells us that we’re right. That we don’t have to take the harassment, the stigmatization, the denial of rights anymore. Of course, it rarely works out so neatly in practice, but at least we know that we can stand up to our bullies, and Uncle Sam will stand behind us. So, tell me, Scalia  – what part of Windsor is any different than what we were “owed”?

Amid other cheap shots in his scathing dissent, Scalia opines: “It is hard to admit that one’s political opponents are not monsters, especially in a struggle like this one, and the challenge in the end proves more than today’s Court can handle. Too bad.” After decades under the predominant cultural signaling that us queer folks are monsters, it’s frankly nice to see the tides change, and I have just one more thing to say. Scalia, shove it up your argle-bargle.

Where is the science behind fetal pain? Oh, actually there is none.

Andrea Frey, LSRJ Summer Intern (’15, University of Washington School of Law)

Last Tuesday the House passed HR1797, aka the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The bill would ban abortions 20 weeks after fertilization. During the debate, Rep. Michael Burgess (R-Tex) argued for the ban to start even earlier, around 15 or 16 weeks. His reasoning? Male fetuses fondling themselves in utero. “If they feel pleasure, why is it so hard to believe that they could feel pain?” he asked. Prior to 18-22 weeks, one may not even be able to confirm sex of the fetus, so how is the anti-choice agenda backing up these fallacious allegations?

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn), who managed the debate, also stated , “[w]e know that at eight weeks, babies feel pain.” She offered evidence of tactile sensation to back up her claim. Eight weeks?

The rational behind the commentary above and HR 1797 turns on misleading science suggesting that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks post-fertilization. The science is questionable for two reasons. Firstly, evidence on fetal pain indicates that perception of pain is not possible until the third trimester when the nervous system develops. Secondly, using post-fertilization age relies on misleading evidence about fetal viability which falsely implies high survival rates among neonates. Most medical professionals and scientists use the last menstrual period or LMP aging system, which is around two weeks greater than post fertilization aging.  The mainstream medical view is that fetal viability occurs near 24 weeks of gestation.

I get little comfort in knowing this bill is going nowhere (it won’t make it past the Democratic-controlled Senate). First you draw the line at viability, then its pain sensation, then it’s fetal ability to touch itself. What’s next?  Across the US we are seeing a tidal wave of state legislation eroding away at our constitutional right to safe and legal abortions that Roe v. Wade gave us. And it’s no secret that such legislation, alongside HR 1797, is all part of a larger scheme to control women’s reproductive choices. Parroting erroneous science is an added insult.