Jennifer Rosenbaum, Guest Blogger (’15, Boston University School of Medicine, Co-President, Medical Students for Choice)

This post is part of Blog for Choice 2013, launched by Boston Students for Sexual and Reproductive Justice (BSSRJ).

Also found at bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com

Evelyn Atkinson, Guest Blogger (’12, Harvard Law School,  Law Students for Reproductive Justice alum) 

This post is part of Blog for Choice 2013, launched by Boston Students for Sexual and Reproductive Justice (BSSRJ).

Also found at bostonreprojustice.blogspot.com

by Sabrina Andrus, LSRJ Executive Director and Mariko Miki, LSRJ Director of Academic & Professional Programs

Here we go again. In a recent interview with Salon, out-going NARAL President Nancy Keenan discusses her concern for the future of abortion rights, calling out the Millennial generation’s seeming inability to “connect the personal to the political” on the issue. These critiques pop up again and again:  we all remember the Newsweek piece from 2010 that pitted Boomers against Millennials. While recognizing that many Millennials have made advocating for reproductive rights and justice their career, much hand-wringing ensues over the remainder of the generation. Of the 76 million people born post-1980, we’re told, “They are pro-choice, but they don’t put the issue of protecting this decision at the top of their list.” But does refusing to put abortion rights at the top of some mythical list truly mean that abortion rights aren’t important (or even paramount) to a generation? To state as much fails to account for the complexity that confronts young people coming of age in a time of social media saturation and diminishing rewards for higher education.  Moreover, it is shortsighted and dangerous; such rhetoric shackles an entire generation to a way of thinking that may not even be accurate.

At Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ), we work with Millennials everyday – they are our law student members and recently graduated alumni across the country making their way as legal advocates. What we see is that the Millennial generation experiences, engages with, and views reproductive health, rights, and justice issues in a completely different way than previous generations: abortion rights and the lack of access to said rights are but one piece in a much larger puzzle that Millennials are grappling with on a daily basis. Some may argue that when you can’t pay back your student loans, afford health insurance, get to your second job on a public transportation system that doesn’t service your geographic area, cobble together adequate childcare, and on and on, deciding to place abortion rights at THE TOP of your priority list is an unrealistic luxury.  In fact, it could be said that Millennials are more aware of and attuned to the plethora of social ills that need to be addressed, from environmental concerns to economic oppression to racism, than the generations before them. These are good traits, to be celebrated. Rather than lambasting them, it’s time to move forward, as our colleagues at Advocates for Youth say.

The biggest gripe with the Milliennial generation is that they “don’t vote pro-choice.” But to frame the issue that way is a mistake. In our experience, the Millennial generation (of which nearly all members of LSRJ are a part of) has a much broader and more nuanced view of the issues. To them, it doesn’t make sense to vote on reproductive rights without considering the economy, healthcare, immigration, LGBTQ issues, the environment, violence, the prison system, and a host of other equally critical social justice issues. We work every day with future attorneys, judges, and policymakers who understand that abortion rights cannot be divorced from the fight for greater social equality.

With all this talk about what Millennials feel and how they vote, we encourage you to see what they’re actually saying for themselves. Check back here in the coming weeks to hear from our members, and bookmark the insightful musings of allied organizations who work with the Millennial generation.

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

As the year comes to a close, and law school finals draw close, my already questionable domestic skills really go by the wayside.  I have no real groceries besides frozen tater tots and a jar of capers, my desk is in disarray, and my laundry is perilously close to what can only be described as a underwear crisis. It’s times like these that I can’t help wondering, how do people who work and have kids and other obligations keep up with their housework if even I can’t? How do actual lawyers do this? The answer to this question turns out to be a complicated one, involving gender roles in parenting, housekeeping, and work.

For example, did you know that 84% of married women who are lawyers have a spouse who is employed full time compared to only 44% of married men who are lawyers?  Thus, lawyers who are men are more likely to have a partner shoulder the majority of housework and childcare. This phenomenon isn’t unique to lawyers however, as 55.1% of men compared to 72.1% of women spent time on childcare on the average day. Perhaps even more worryingly, the class divide between women is growing so that even if more educated, more well off women have increased their access to paid maternity leave over time (27% in the early 1970s to 66% in 2006-2008), women who do not have their high school degree’s access has stagnated at 18% through the same time period. All of this matters for reproductive justice because there is a gender-based imbalance in career consequences related to getting married, starting a family, and having children.

Wrapped up in this imbalance is also the debate on the division of domestic labor and it’s impact on marriage.  One study reports that the equal division of housework is correlated with higher rates of divorce (in Norwegian married couples). On the other side,  it doesn’t seem unimaginable to me that communities where the norm is for women take on all the household responsibilities would also stigmatize divorce more, pressuring couples to stay together despite unhappiness or incompatibility.

Stress rates, measured by levels of cortisol, were measured in married women and men, and declined in married women when their husbands shared the housework.  Stress rates for men, on the other hand, did not  decline in married men unless men had more time to relax, at the expense of their wives’ leisure time. Alternately, a different study promisingly shows that men have higher levels of well-being and lower levels of work-family conflict when making an equal contribution to the household work. How can these be reconciled? The former study was conducted on 30 dual earner couples in Los Angeles, and the latter over 7 European countries. Maybe the difference lies in the sample. By changing innate attitudes in our country towards work as gendered, perhaps we can change stress levels and happiness levels for the better across the board.

This article was published by The National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.  

Candace Gibson is a Law Students for Reproductive Justice law fellow at the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health.

This past election cycle, we saw the power a government-issued ID can give an individual.   In states where voter ID laws were being enforced, individuals who did not have government IDs could not exercise their right to vote.  Several communities were impacted: transgender people, Latinos, African Americans, students, the elderly, people with disabilities – in short, many, many people. These ID laws harken to Jim Crow-era poll taxes and “literacy tests,”  and at the same time increased the impact of fear tactics used to intimidate voters from going to the polls, exacerbating the historic and current inequities that many communities of color face.

Voting ID laws, and voter suppression in general, also have a unique impact on women of color.  Recently, the Center for American Progress issued a report that shows how voter suppression denies justice for women of color.  The report finds that many people who are eligible to vote don’t have the appropriate identification they would need to do so,  and that this disproportionately impacts people of color — and particularly women of color.  While  only 8 percent of white voters lack proper identification, 25 percent of African American and 16 percent of Latino voters do not possess the needed identification to vote according to these laws.  What’s more troubling, some states have required proof of citizenship before individuals vote.  According to the CAP report, 7 percent of all eligible American voters lack quick access to documents needed to show citizenship, and though 34 percent of women have documents showing citizenship, these documents do not reflect their current legal names.  Once you see these numbers, it’s no wonder that women of color are disproportionately impacted by voter suppression efforts.  In fact, the CAP report estimates that between 596,000 and 959,000 women of color may have been disenfranchised this past Election Day.

Transgender people, too are uniquely impacted by voter ID legislation. Transgender and gender non-conforming people face a complex web of barriers to gaining  documents that accurately reflect their gender and name. In fact, a report from the Williams Institute found that 41 percent of transgender citizens do not have documents that reflect their transitions, and 74 percent did not have an updated passport, and 27 percent did not have identification documents that reflected their current gender at all. The report also found that transgender and gender non-conforming people of color, students, those with low incomes, and those with disabilities were disproportionately impacted. Moreover, presenting an identification document that does not match one’s gender presentation can not only present a barrier to vote, but may also expose transgender people to harassment or violence.

The use of a government issued ID to suppress the rights of  “undesirable” communities is not just limited to voting rights, however, but is also a barrier for access to over-the-counter emergency contraception.  As it stands now, over-the-counter emergency contraception is only available to people over the age of 17, and they must provide government-issued identification.  Those under the age of 17 and those who have no government-issued ID must get a prescription. Because having updated and valid government-issued identification is difficult for women and transgender people of color, obtaining emergency contraception over the counter can be difficult or impossible. Additionally, women, transgender, and gender non-conforming Latin@s have disproportionate rates of uninsurance, making the prospect of getting a prescription for emergency contraception – a time-sensitive drug – that much more costly and burdensome. Moreover, for Latin@s, including undocumented Latin@s, many other obstacles may factor into their ability to access the care they need in a timely fashion: financial costs, lack of linguistically and culturally competent providers, stigma, and lack of transportation.

Critics may say that individuals who cannot access over the counter EC should just use other forms of over the counter contraception on a regular basis, such as condoms and spermicide, but let’s face it: not all individuals are in healthy relationships, cost may be a barrier for these methods as well, but most importantly, sometimes birth control methods fail. The bottom line is that all individuals should have real access to a wide range of birth control options so that they can truly exercise and enjoy their bodily autonomy.

The recent focus on presenting government-issued IDs is having a tragic impact on women and transgender people of color.  These laws deny people not only their civic voice but truly deny their right to bodily autonomy and self-determination.  In the coming week, tell Secretary Sebelius to revisit the evidence on EC and remove its restrictions so that all people can make the healthy choice for themselves and their families.

Elisabeth Smith, Resident Blogger (’14, University of Washington School of Law)

On Saturday, Fox News published a delightful article titled “The War on Men.”  I don’t need to tell you much about it that you can’t figure out—women want to get married, but in their misguided quest for equality, women have destroyed men and now have to live with the consequences. All we women have to do to right our wrongs is to “surrender” to our natures, to our femininity, and poof! Eligible men interested in matrimony will suddenly appear. Eek.

My obvious questions: What exactly are we supposed to surrender? And to whom? And how will these men, once they appear, reestablish the balance all we women need? And what about women who want to marry women? Or the women who don’t want to get married?

But, the real question is age-old: what are the essential differences between men and women? Thankfully the Guardian and the Telegraph are here to help elucidate.

On Tuesday, the Guardian released the short list of authors nominated for its literary “Bad Sex Awards 2012.” According to the newspaper, each of the excerpts listed is an example of “the crude and often perfunctory use of redundant passages of sexual description in the modern novel” and the list is meant to “discourage” the authors from writing about sex.  Each of the excerpts clearly describes heterosexual sex and I would guess vaginal sex (with a focus on the penetrating penis) although maybe I’m wrong about the meaning of “her chrysanthemum.”

In June 2012, the Telegraph published “And the good sex award goes to…  - Is it true that male writers aren’t capable of literary eroticism?”, which included remarks Martin Amos made at the Telegraph Hay Festival that women are better at writing about sex.

Interestingly, only two female authors have won a “Bad Sex Award” in the 20 years the prize has been awarded.  Amos thinks women are better because they don’t care about sexual “potency,” which stymies men from creating accurate portrayals of sex.  The article’s author then contrasts E.L. James’s Fifty Shades of Gray with Amos’s work (which is clearly not as good), but hey it sells so women must find it stimulating!

Can we all just stop with the stereotypes for a second?

First, sex. Not all sex is vaginal. People don’t always have sex with someone of the opposite gender or with just one other person. While men and women may experience sex differently from a biological standpoint, we’re all individuals and we all experience things differently.  But, but! Martin Amos’s backhanded compliment that women are better at writing about sex is the same as the Fox news article bemoaning the angry women who are driving men away from marriage.

“Women” aren’t doing anything. People who happen to be female have made decisions about their education, their careers, and their personal, sexual relationships. Some authors who happen to be female and successful enough that the Guardian reviewers look at their work happen to have chosen not to use “chrysanthemum” as a euphemism for vagina.

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

“Reproductive justice is not just about choice,” is a phrase that I’ve found myself repeating again and again. The right to choose though, is a staple in the vocabulary of those who fight for reproductive rights –and understandably so with its associations of free will and self-determination. What happens though when someone is deemed to be incapable of choosing due to mental incapacitation?

Earlier this month, a district court in Nevada ruled that the adopted parents of a woman with fetal alcohol syndrome, epilepsy, and the mental capacity of a six-year old could decide  to have her continue a medically risky pregnancy. Residing in a group home, the woman wandered away and was raped (News outlets report on the uncertainty of whether the sex was consensual.  I’d like to ask how someone with the mental capacity of a six year old can consent?). The Associated Press news article on this story, was reprinted everywhere from ABC to CBS, and even showed up in Daily Women’s Health Policy Report email I receive from the National Partnership for Women and Families. This article is provocatively titled “Nev. judge won’t order abortion for impaired woman.” Further digging, however, showed that all that had been proposed were evidentiary hearings to determine what was best for the health of the pregnant woman.  The misleading AP article highlights the fact that anti-choice groups view this as a victory “that the court recognized that childbirth is a natural process and is the generally accepted course of treatment for pregnancy,” and frames the story as an unwanted intrusion of the state into a personal family decision. This narrative is warped in such a way that it characterizes the choice aspect as overzealously choosing abortion for everyone, rather than looking at people’s individual circumstances and seeking to protect the most vulnerable members of society. That protection requires an examination of whether it is in her best interest for her adopted parents to choose for her, based on their beliefs, to continue a pregnancy that put her health and the health of the fetus at risk.

In fact, reproductive justice is highly conscious of and abhor a history of forced sterilization on the basis of mental ability, sexual orientation, race, and drug use. Considering that the threat of this type of sterilization is still very real for women with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, advocates of reproductive rights must speak as loudly or more loudly than the opposition to explain the complexities of a movement not just about choice.

This article was published by The Center for American Progress.  

Elizabeth Chen is a Policy Analyst for the Women’s Health and Rights Program at the Center for American Progress and a Law Students for Reproductive Justice law fellow.

A slew of recent voter identification laws are increasingly threatening the voting rights of people of color. This erosion of our most basic civil right comes alongside historic levels of attacks on reproductive health services. The two are not unrelated. Women of color stand at the crossroads of what is in essence a double disenfranchisement. When they are denied the opportunity to participate in civic life, they also lose the ability to voice their opinions and hold lawmakers accountable on the reproductive health issues that directly affect them.

In the 2011 general election, Mississippi voters rejected an extreme ballot initiative that would have granted personhood status to embryos and fetuses, which could have outlawed a number of common medical services for women, including popular forms of birth control, treatments for miscarriage and infertility, and abortion. In the same election, voters approved an initiative restricting the ability of Mississippi residents to vote by requiring unnecessary photo identification. As a result of this completely unwarranted voter identification initiative, nearly 75,000 women of color may be prevented from voting in Mississippi. Such a large number can have a significant impact on electoral outcomes: for instance, it takes only 89,285 signatures to place an initiative on the ballot in Mississippi, not to mention that the margin of defeat for the state’s personhood initiative was a mere 130,000 votes.

Mississippi’s voter identification law is just one example of the record number of voting restrictions that have been introduced and adopted throughout the country in advance of the 2012 election. But what Mississippi’s 2011 election also teaches us is that the fundamental right to vote is only the first of many rights at stake. Women of color, by losing the ability to express themselves on the issues that directly impact them, will lose their ability to protect a range of constitutional rights, including the right to decide whether, when, and with whom to have children.

Here is a brief rundown of the facts:

• Women of color compose 18 percent of the U.S. population
• Women of color have been voting at steadily increasing rates over the last 12 years
• In the last year, 34 new laws requiring photo identification to vote have been proposed; four will be in effect on Election Day 2012
• In the last year, 17 new laws requiring proof of citizenship have been proposed; two will be in effect on Election Day 2012
• On Election Day 2012, between 596,000 and 959,000 women of color may be disenfranchised by voter identification laws
• Beyond November 2012, between 1.05 million and 1.86 million women of color stand to be disenfranchised by voter identification laws
• Twenty-two states passed 61 new measures restricting women’s reproductive health in the first nine months of 2012
• The House of Representatives voted 55 times on anti-woman measures in the 112th Congress

Voter suppression is not just a civil rights issue—it is a matter of reproductive justice. Reproductive justice stands at the intersection of traditional reproductive rights concerns and social justice issues and centers the reproductive health needs of the most marginalized populations, including women of color, low-income individuals, and individuals with disabilities, among others. It has been defined as “the complete physical, mental, spiritual, political, economic, and social wellbeing of women and girls, and will be achieved when women and girls have the economic, social and political power and resources to make healthy decisions about our bodies, sexuality and reproduction for ourselves, our families and our communities in all areas of our lives.”

This report will situate women of color in the United States today, their current electoral impact, and the methods being used to disenfranchise people of color throughout the country. Next, we determine how many women of color stand to be disenfranchised by these new methods. Lastly, we explore some of the histori-cal regulation of women of color’s reproduction along with present day attacks on reproductive health services to explain why it is crucial for women of color’s voices to be heard on these issues.

Despite these voter suppression efforts that attempt to silence the voices of women of color, it remains imperative that they vote on Election Day to ensure that their interests are represented.

You can read the full report here.

Josie Sustaire, Resident Blogger (’14, University of Oregon School of Law)

Ladies and Gentlemen, we did it.  We spoke up and spoke out.  We debated, made phone calls, sent emails, posted endlessly on Facebook, tweeted, laughed and cried, then laughed again.  We followed our hearts and we stood up for the rights of others.  We voted.  On behalf of my vagina and the millions of vaginas across these United States, I say thank you.

As I watched the news over the past week, I was overwhelmed with a sense of relief and accomplishment.  This is what I saw (thanks to Planned Parenthood for the headlines):

Oregon congressional candidate Art Robinson said the government should force a rape survivor to continue an unwanted pregnancy, by compensating her “very generously…for this burden.”  He LOST to women’s health champion Peter DeFazio!

Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh said there should be no abortion exception for the life of the mother, because “with modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance” in which a woman would actually die.  He was FIRED!

Florida Congressman Allen West said, “Planned Parenthood women…have been neutering American men.”  He just got FIRED in his bid for re-election!

Washington congressional candidate John Koster said “the rape thing” does not excuse abortions, because “crime has consequences.”  He just LOST.

Richard Mourdock said pregnancy from rape is “something God intended.”  He just LOST his bid for an Indiana Senate seat.

Missouri Congressman Todd Akin said women can’t get pregnant from “legitimate rape.” He just got FIRED in his bid for a Senate seat!

This election became something this year that past elections have never been for me:  personal.  I cannot recall an election year that meant more to me.  Perhaps it was the fact that I am in my second year of law school in an environment conducive towards political awareness and, at least in Oregon, progressive legislation and politicians.

Or perhaps it was the fact that I am now the Co-Director of the University of Oregon’s LSRJ chapter, a title that I feel is a testament to my unwavering support of the pursuit of reproductive justice.  It was these reasons that motivated me to share my views with my family, friends, classmates, and even strangers at an airport (true story).  But one reason above all these inspired me the most.  This year my kids asked me, “Who are you voting for?”  I don’t recall ever asking my parents whom they voted for (it usually wasn’t a mystery) and so I was a bit shocked to hear it from my kids’ mouths.  I wasn’t sure whether they would understand and I considered changing the subject…and then thought better.  “I’m voting for President Obama,” I said assuredly, “and this is why…”  I proceeded to tell my ten-year-old daughter and eight-year-old son exactly why I was voting for President Obama.  It was an engaging discussion, full of questions and comments.  It made me hopeful for the future and to many more meaningful discussions to come.

So, here’s to the voters, to the ladies and gents, and kids too!  We can rest easy tonight knowing that our lady parts or the lady parts of ladies we love are much safer.

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

A week or so ago, my classmates and I were arguing one of the most pressing questions of our nostalgia-obsessed generation: What is ultimate high school movie – Clueless or Mean Girls? (Answer: Neither, it’s obviously Heathers.) Amid the heady discussion and subsequent teen movie marathon planning, I started thinking about how high school movies have portrayed teen sexuality, contraception, and pregnancy over the years. In so many of the teen movies I grew up watching, sex was something that characters are obsessed with and defined by, and pregnancy is the ultimate horror. But is this moralizing cast on teen movies a modern thing? Maybe so.

One of my favorite teen movies is the cult classic, Fast Times at Ridgemont High (FTaRH). For a film that came out in 1982 – smack dab between two landslide election wins for Reagan – it’s shockingly open-minded. One of the main characters, Stacy, is a 15 year old freshman. She has sex for the first time with a 26 year old man and then initiates an encounter with a classmate, Mike Damone, from which she gets pregnant. She decides to get an abortion and tells Damone that he owes her half of the fee and a ride to the clinic. When Damone turns out to be a flake, Stacy’s brother deduces what has happened. He picks her up from the clinic, agrees to keep it a secret from their parents, and takes her out for lunch. Her best friend get revenge by vandalizing Damone’s car and locker in a classic act of high school public humiliation. Stacy, rather than being ostracized or shamed, is shown as being supported by her social circle and loved ones. It is Damone who is ridiculed for shirking his responsibilities, not Stacy for being sexually active. Stacy shows no signs of trauma and the abortion is never brought up again. Instead her narrative becomes one of her blossoming romance with Rat, a boy who has long harbored a crush on her. Rat angrily brushes aside Damone’s veiled insult that Stacy is “a very aggressive girl” (undertones of slut-shaming fully in force). Stacy continues to be assertive by giving Rat a picture of herself with her phone number on it and kissing him. Her reputation, as well as her confidence in herself and her sexuality is unshaken and unpunished.

I can only imagine the outcry such a story line would cause now. It’s a testament to how much we’ve gone backwards to imagine the complaints that would hound FTaRH for giving teens license to have wild, unprotected sex because the movies told them there’d be no penalties! The climate we live in today even mistakenly accused Juno, a movie in which the young woman chooses adoption rather than abortion, of glamorizing teen sex without consequences. In reality, teen pregnancy and teen moms face a great deal of stigma that is racially charged and makes it difficult to continue their education.

Turning to a classic of the aughts, Mean Girls is a film that has people endlessly quoting and referencing it eight years later. It was written by Tina Fey who promisingly said last week, “If I have to listen to one more gray-faced man with a two-dollar haircut explain to me what rape is, I’m going lose my mind.” And Mean Girls does have some golden reproductive justice moments. For example, it makes fun of a health curriculum that tells students that they’ll die if they have sex (taught by a teacher later revealed to be in a relationship with an underage student no less). And yet it leaves some things to be desired. When arch-Mean Girl Regina is in her bedroom with her boyfriend, her mother pops in and asks, “You guys need anything? Some snacks? A condom? Let me know!” It’s part of a larger characterization of Regina’s cold personality resulting from a dysfunctional family in which her mother sets no boundaries because she wants to be a “cool mom.” But is it really being a bad mother to make sure your daughter is equipped to deal with her sexual decisions rather than trying to control her sexuality? Not according to the way many families treat teen sexuality in the Netherlands. Apparently acknowledging that teens have sex, having open communication about contraceptives, and allowing sleepovers actually encourages trust and responsibility rather than the opposite.

Even if Hollywood is unlikely to portray teen sexuality in this way anytime soon (because of both conservative backlash and the lack of narrative drama), hopefully the actual experiences of American teenagers can begin to approach it.