Burke Bindbeutel, University of Missouri School of Law

My recent post discussed a theoretical link between sexual abuse and college sports. I criticized how fans and administrators have shrugged off athletes’ bad behavior because they were so valuable to the school in their capacity as players. The intervening scandals at Penn State and Syracuse partially confirmed my hunch, but they also showed how my analysis was lacking. Sex offenders are obviously subject to the full force of the law. It’s the culture that surrounds their deeds that we could most improve.

The serial abuse at Penn State implicates not just the perpetrator but everyone who kept it quiet. We don’t yet know who knew what and when, but it appears likely that a kind of “institutional liability” should apply to a football program that did not prevent Coach Sandusky’s behavior. Supporters of the university have argued for leniency, insisting that Coach Paterno was instrumental in transforming a backwater agricultural school into a deep-pocketed educational juggernaut.

And this is where those of us hanging around outside the stadium ought to speak up. It seems painfully evident that a university should not consider raped children to be collateral damage to its educational mission. But there remains a pervasive loyaty to football programs that even sordid headlines cannot disrupt.

This should not surprise reproductive justice advocates. College sports are an entertainment industry leviathan. Tales of corruption and unethical behavior don’t seem to bother the fans. Football teams act as a publicity tent-pole for the rest of the university, attracting alumni dollars and prospective students. The University of Missouri was recently criticized for spending a measly $58 million last year on its athletics department: it had better start investing seriously in sports if it wants to succeed in the Southeast Conference.

Institutions like these bounce back from boycotts, and they can easily ignore signs heaping shame on them, not that those efforts are meritless. Certainly events at Penn State deserve condemnation.

But campus RJ advocates should not expend all their rage on retired coaches at someone else’s university. The sensationalism of the Penn State scandal might distract from a problem that exists on every campus. Sexual assault is an all-too-typical part of our environment, often exacerbated by alcohol abuse and made possible by the winking, oblivious-to-consequences culture that Katy Perry has been glorifying.

A hideous scandal can help remind us of how people in high places have a strong incentive to keep their mouths shut. But let’s keep our eyes on the ball (so to speak), and ignore the relentless provocations of the 24-hour news cycle. The Green Dots is a campus program that empowers students to eliminate violence not by bemoaning past incidents, but by taking initiative. The “dots” represent moments of bystander intervention, with a goal of making an environment that’s thoroughly intolerant of violence. When it seems like the wrongdoers are protected by money and irrational sports fandom, it’s important to recall that we all share responsibility for our communities.

Mallory Carlberg, University of Oklahoma

For the most part, our Law Students for Reproductive Justice (LSRJ) chapter at University of Oklahoma received positive feedback this semester. One person even said they liked being part of a group with “balls.” I, of course, corrected him and said we were a group with balls and ovaries. However, not everyone has enthusiastically supported us. Some groups fear working with us will alienate their pro-life members. A leader of one of these groups recently approached me about co-hosting an abortion debate. From previous experience as a student organizer, I know that debates about abortion are usually not a good idea. The debate tends to focus on religion and when life begins. In the process of debating, I have seen “pro-choice” groups lose sight of their original goal of supporting people with unplanned pregnancies.

Engaging in a pro-life/pro-choice style debate strays too far from the reproductive justice movement’s focus on ending reproductive oppression for my comfort. Instead of agreeing to an abortion debate with this group, I offered to discuss goals we can both work toward, such as comprehensive sex education, improved access to birth control, and improved maternal and infant health outcomes. This person was a proponent of abstinence until marriage and even suggested that some common forms of birth control were abortifactants. It was hard to find common ground, but I know there are other students who can look past LSRJ’s stance on abortion rights.

Since we are a new group, we’ve mostly focused on finding students who we consider our natural allies in the reproductive justice movement: feminists, progressives, people of color and LGBTQ-identified students. Next semester we want to co-sponsor events with groups who we might not initially consider as our natural allies: religious groups and conservative groups. We have to be strategic about what events we bring to campus. Organizing for reproductive justice in a conservative state means we must be careful to stay true to our beliefs, while, at the same time, not reinforcing the beliefs of students who have preconceived ideas of us as man-hating, baby-killing feminists. Sometimes we do the stereotypical thing (we’re excited to be the group handing out condoms on campus!), but sometimes we must decline invitations to cosponsor events because it will hurt our objectives rather than promote them.

Have you successfully organized with conservative groups on your campus? Please send your advice my way!

Joanne Caceres, Harvard Law School

Things are busy as ever as the members of HLSRJ finally dive into our long planned Speak Out Week, which aims to engage the HLS student body in honest exchanges about reproductive health, listen to and share personal stories about reproductive choices, and explore the ways in which access to abortion and other reproductive services intersect with larger social movements. Kicking off our week, our first event was “Bro-Choice,” an event geared towards men and their role in the movement. I am happy to report that we had exceptional attendance and that several men signed up for our weekly email list. We are excited for further exploration into engaging men on campus!

Other events this week include two intersectional panels, one featuring women of color and the pro-choice movement, with Gretchen Sisson, Reverend Penny Willis, Jasmine Burnett and Kaitlyn Soligan; and one featuring different religious perspectives on reproductive justice, with Reverend Marvin Ellison, Rabbi Peter Stein, Reverend Matthew Westfox, and Prof. Daniel Dombrowski. As with all of our events, cross promotion and co-sponsorships greatly contribute to our success. Thanks to our partnership with students from the Harvard Kennedy School, we will be screening of 12th and Delaware followed by a conversation with NARAL Pro-Choice MA.

We are also speaking out using Facebook, our LSRJ website, posters, and word of mouth. We have asked HLS and other greater Boston students share their own reproductive health stories, in the hope that doing so will open up a more honest and nuanced conversation regarding the choices women make throughout their lives. To contextualize these stories more effectively, Julia Reticker-Flynn from Advocates for Youth will join us for a strategy discussion regarding how and why to share abortion stories. We encourage all students reading this to also contribute to our survey or tell us what pro-choice means to them in our new tumblr! We hope our events will inspire other groups on other campuses to Speak Out as well!

Shandanette Molnar, George Washington University Law School

As a labor and birth doula and pro-choice advocate, there are many times where the rhetoric used to advocate for the right to terminate a pregnancy safely can also be used to advocate for the right to choose healthy and safe birthing options. Both birth options and pro-choice movements center on the idea that it is important to trust individuals to make decisions for themselves and their reproductive health. Particularly, when a pregnant person decides to choose a more natural approach to childbirth or wishes to avoid a Cesarean birth, there may be obstacles to achieving those goals. Unfortunately, many times these obstacles are institutional or placed by care providers. As an advocate, my goal is to assist clients to empower themselves and make informed choices, whether it be an choice related to birthing or terminating a pregnancy.

Of particular interest to me is the high rate of Cesarean births in the United States – 33%. This figure, double-to-triple the rate recommended by the World Health Organization, is complex and likely attributable to many causes. However, in many cases, a pregnant person’s wishes are not honored due to policies that are in place, such as bans on vaginal births after Cesareans (VBACs) and/or mandatory Cesarean births. When a pregnant person is unable to make decisions related to their reproductive health – or is unable to have their decisions honored – this issue oftentimes fits into a larger RJ framework.

Birth is a tremendous power that female-bodied persons possess. Unfortunately, much of this power remains unrealized due to the culture of fear around birth. Media depictions of birth often portray an angry woman, begging for drugs, and at the mercy of her care providers. For many, these images serve as the only reference to labor and childbirth, and therefore, many individuals remain unaware of how normal pregnancy and childbirth can be. With increased access to information and body-positive education and more “woman-centered care” allowing individuals to make informed choices, birth stories could be transformed into empowering experiences.

As I mentioned in my first blog post, I chose to go to law school in order to become a legal advocate for midwifery care, better birth and breastfeeding practices, and the rights of individuals to make decisions related to their reproductive health. For the 2011-2012 school year, I am working on a note for a government contracts publication, in which I will argue that if the government were to set aside certain contracts for midwives opening birth centers, healthcare costs and the national rate of Cesarean births would lower. In undertaking this project, I have been presented with fantastic opportunities to discuss the issue with professors and classmates. Additionally, if the note is deemed worthy of publication, it will be a great opportunity to draw attention from government procurement professionals to reproductive health issues and the right to exercise birth options.

Joanne Caceres, Harvard Law School

Amidst the utter chaos that is the first week back at Harvard Law School, I feel a certain calm returning to the classroom where HLSRJ has taken to holding its board meetings. By calm, I partially mean the happiness of seeing familiar faces, but it goes beyond that. It’s the feeling I get being in a room of capable, passionate, and brilliant women and men who are committed to engaging in the same issues as I am. It is moments like these that I reflect on my personal mantra: dripping water carves a stone.

High on our list this year is increasing our visibility on campus in order to create a campus wide conversation on Reproductive Justice. Our first focus is recruiting new 1Ls and building relationships with other progressive campus groups. We are hitting it off next week with the ever-important Reproductive Justice 101 event. I fondly remember the first time I learned about Ms. T, a case study that illustrated the intersectional nature of reproductive justice. It was during that presentation that I knew that RJ would become a major part of my law school career. If we are lucky, we will meet some of our new rising stars at this year’s event!

As we seek to build our core, however, we also are considering opportunities for engaging the entire campus. Through our relationships with other organization leaders, we became aware of a point/counterpoint event that will be looking at the recent anti-abortion bills that have been spreading out throughout many state legislatures, including South Dakota. Many of these bills are slated as being pro-women, because they require providing women with “more information” and more time to make a decision through mandatory wait periods. In reality, these laws are little more than attempts to further limit and prevent abortions, often making what is already a difficult process more difficult. Although we are not officially involved as an organization at this event, our members will be attending and we hope to use this as an opportunity to bring people together to reflect on the conversation. We want to do more this year than talk at people, we want to engage people and allow them to process what is an all too often not openly and intellectually discussed on our law school campus. And hopefully, if we can’t change some minds, at least have our views listened to and understood. It’s shaping up to be quite an active year, drip drip drip.

Shandanette Molnar, George Washington University Law School

Before considering law school, I contemplated becoming a traditional midwife. After learning of the legal challenges that families and midwives face when attempting a more empowered birth experience, I decided that there was important legal work to be done and part of that work was my responsibility. In the meantime, I resolved to become a birth & postpartum doula and lactation educator and counselor so as to maintain my sense of self during law school.

As a maternal care, birth, and breastfeeding advocate, there are certainly times when I feel a disconnect between law school and the birth and reproductive justice movements. This is where LSRJ comes into the picture and precisely why campus-based reproductive justice work is so important. LSRJ bridges the gap between my outside and law school lives and repairs that schism I feel. With an LSRJ framework, I oftentimes engage with fellow classmates and raise awareness of reproductive justice issues. Through these conversations, our chapter highlights that reproductive justice is about much more than abortion. It is about the shackling of incarcerated pregnant women, mandatory Cesarean births, bans on vaginal births after Cesareans (VBACs), domestic violence, and access to information and quality healthcare across the full spectrum of a person’s reproductive life. When possible, I highlight the metarights because they are just so powerful – the right to have children, the right not to have children, and the right to parent the children we have with dignity.

Next week, our chapter will be co-hosting a feminist networking event for students. In an effort to give back to the law school community, I am hoping that I will be able to connect with a new chapter member or schoolmate – perhaps a 1L – and assure them that if they are interested in the work, reproductive justice and LSRJ provide many intersections to pursue meaningful work, both on and off campus.

Though I have often doubted my decision to attend law school, I feel confident in the decision I made now that I have 1L year behind me. Additionally, I think it will be easier to be a lawyer in midwifery school than it would have been to be a midwife in law school. Sure, I still desire to become midwife, but that’s how I’ll spend my fifties+ life. In the meantime, I am going to dedicate myself to combining my legal advocacy skills with a commitment to better birth, breastfeeding, and maternal care practices, as well as birth and reproductive justice. I hope a few of my amazingly talented law school comrades will join me as well.

Early Sunday morning, Nancy begins to have excruciating abdominal pain. Immediately, she begins to worry about the health of her fetus. She wakes her husband and he rushes her to the town hospital thirty minutes away. Upon her arrival, it is determined that Nancy is miscarrying and there is no chance her fetus will survive. However, the town hospital (the only hospital within 180 miles), is a Catholic hospital governed by the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services (Directives), a document developed and enforced by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Directives provide guidance on reproductive health services including surgical sterilization, family planning, emergency contraception, infertility treatment, and abortion. Though the doctors are certain Nancy’s fetus will not survive, they would not treat Nancy. They withhold this information from Nancy and continue to run painful and expensive test on her until hours later they determine there is no longer a fetal heartbeat. Under the Directives, abortions are not allowed even in cases of emergencies or when the mother’s life is at risk. In Nancy’s case, because there was still a fetal heartbeat, even though the doctors knew the fetus would not survive, termination of her pregnancy would be considered an abortion.

Though this story is fictitious, it is the reality of millions of Americans today.  One in six patients in the United States is cared for in a Catholic hospital.  Catholic institutions control 622 hospitals nationwide, the largest single group of nonprofit hospitals in the United States. Five of the ten largest healthcare systems, which operate hospitals and medical centers throughout the United States, are Catholic. A large number of these hospitals are in rural communities where these hospitals are the only health care options for the sick. The Catholic Bishops promote “natural family planning,” which means that no drugs, devices, or surgical procedures can be used to avoid pregnancy. Instead, families monitor the woman’s menstrual cycle and abstain from sex during her fertile phase.  The Directives prohibit almost all reproductive health services: contraceptives that do not promote “natural family planning” are prohibited, most treatments for infertility are not allowed, sterilizations for men and women are banned, and abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, or to save a pregnant woman’s life, is impossible to obtain. Special government exemptions, known as “refusal clauses,” permit hospitals to use religious doctrines as patient care guides while remaining eligible to receive public funding. Almost every state has some sort of refusal clause allowing individual health providers to refuse to provide abortion services. However, some states have religious-based refusal clauses for reproductive services such as birth control and sterilization.

Like Nancy, many women have no idea their local hospitals will not provide certain services to them even if their life is on the line. Further, many women do not know that these hospitals are not being held liable for the consequences of refusing to provide these services or for not making women aware of other alternatives at non religious hospitals. This is an issue that affects women all over the country and needs the attention of women universally. The more people who are aware of these lack of services, the larger an impact we can have on our country to stop merging public and religious hospitals. Reproductive justice will be achieved when women have access to the resources to have children, not have children, or parent the children they have with dignity. This is not achievable when women are being denied specific services because of practitioner’s moral beliefs. This cannot be achieved when women are not being given the information to make responsible decisions over their reproductive health with dignity and good faith in their doctors. Make yourself aware of your local hospital’s policies and your state refusal clauses.

Click here for a state directory of laws regarding reproductive health.

Erika Willis

This is the third in a series of posts by our resident bloggers as they look back on the past school year and their involvement with LSRJ. Lucy Panza, graduating 3L at Georgetown University Law Center, will not be leaving the LSRJ family, as she was recently named one of our 2011-2012 Reproductive Justice Fellows. Learn more about this program and read bios of all eight Fellows at our RJFP Website.

Next weekend, I’ll be graduating from law school. Even as I write this post, I can hardly believe it!

Ever the LSRJ member, I couldn’t bid adieu to this chapter of my life without reflecting on how this time awakened my passion for reproductive justice. Unlike many LSRJ members, I came to law school with very little experience in the movement – although I had tons of passion to make up for it. I cared about abortion rights and gender equity in the workplace, and what I had read of Kimberlé Crenshaw’s work and seen in Hillary Clinton’s appearances touched me deeply. But I had no outlet for it yet, and I did not know whether or where I fit into a broader movement. LSRJ helped me find that fit.

I barely identified as Latina when I entered law school – much less as a Latina advocate for reproductive justice. But LSRJ sent me a persistent message: you have a contribution to make. Your identity is unique, and once you find it, you can use it to affect change. Even if you don’t feel oppressed, look around you – justice is underserved. That’s when I woke up to two major reproductive injustices: the contraception ban in the student insurance at Georgetown, and oppression confronting Latinas in the U.S. These are the two injustices that have defined by RJ legal education, and that I will never stop fighting against.

Through countless LSRJ events, internships, and conversations with enthusiastic advocates, I found my Latina RJ identity and a movement that welcomed me. Our movement is not perfect – it is often plagued by pettiness and even institutionalized sexism – but that is a reason to join it, not to shy away from it, because our generation is its lifeblood.

In August, I will be embarking upon my legal career as a Reproductive Justice Fellow at the Center for American Progress. I can’t wait! I cannot know what the future holds, but with such a great start, it will be hard to go wrong. I thank LSRJ for the guidance it’s provided me in the past, and the support it will provide for years to come. The intersectionality of reproductive freedom and self-determination in a broader sense is clear to me now, thanks to LSRJ.

This is the second in a series of posts by our resident bloggers as they look back on the past school year and their involvement with LSRJ. Lara Shkordoff, 2L at Northeastern University Law School (NULS), recently helped to coordinate one of her chapter’s most successful, city-wide events.

“We’ve got some real enemies and some problematic allies. We need to recognize the difference between the two.” -Loretta Ross, SisterSong

That was one of my favorite quotes from Loretta Ross, who spoke on an AMAZING panel that Northeastern LSRJ hosted recently titled Race, Rhetoric, and Reproductive Justice: How Current and Proposed Legislation will Affect Communities of Color.

The panel featured Loretta Ross, Reverend Madison Shockley of the Pilgrim United Church of Christ and the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Tiloma Jayasinghe of Sakhi for South Asian Women, Elizabeth Barajas–Roman of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health, and Priscilla Huang of the Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum.

It was cosponsored by an incredible cross-section of student organizations from several law schools, including Northeastern LSRJ, Harvard LSRJ, BU LSRJ, NUSL Asian Pacific American Law Students Association (APALSA), South Asian Law Students Association (SALSA), Latina American Law Students Association (LALSA), Black Law Students Association (BLSA), Women’s Law Caucus, Human Right’s Caucus, Northeastern Feminist Student Organization, and the Women and Gender Studies Department.

I mention the speakers and the co-sponsors because I think they represent how LSRJ principles and ideals were embedded in this event. The event was directed and organized by the NUSL affinity groups and LSRJ. Together we decided on the panel speakers, theme, and topics. The panel focused on issues that affect communities of color, and it focused on various types of RJ issues (religion, violence against women, and immigration).

The panel touched on everything from systemic violence and racism, to the language barriers that prevent women from accessing reproductive health services, to HR3, to religious text that supports a women’s right to chose to have an abortion, to the racist billboard campaigns and the incredible organizing that black women and women of color communities have done in response to it.

The panel also discussed the divisions that exist within the reproductive justice community. On this point Loretta Ross discussed how people within the RJ movement have to stop being afraid of sharing power. Ms. Ross then spoke about how we need to recognize the difference between enemies and confused allies: “we have some real enemies and some problematic allies.”

Judging by the feedback, the panel was amazing! I had many students tell me and other LSRJers that it was the best panel they had ever been to. It also generated huge interest in LSRJ!

The panel also topped off an amazing year at NUSL for LSRJ. This year, NUSL LSRJ hosted a Reproductive Justice 101 event; co-hosted an “Embedded Bodies” conference with Harvard LSRJ; screened the documentary Made In India; co-sponsored an event on sex workers and the United Nations; started a reading group with med and law students in the Boston community, and co-sponsored several other LALSA, BLSA, and SALSA organized events! As Co-Chair I was honored to have a role in these events. What made our chapter and year so successful, however, was our strong & close relationships with the Northeastern affinity groups. LALSA, BLSA, SALSA, and APALSA members drove the direction of NUSL LSRJ and were integral in the planning and organizing of all our events. I am so excited for next year and can’t wait to see what the 2011-2012 NUSL LSRJ E-Board accomplish!

I want to give a shout out to Evelyn (at HLS), Adrian and Celeste (at BU), and my NUSL crew Tiffany, Janaya, Priya, Heather, Natalie, and Laura for making this panel and year so successful.

Reproductive justice is often defined as the right to have children, the right to not have children, and the right to parent the children we have in a safe and healthy environment. Flipping through channels a couple weeks ago, I found myself watching “Private Practice” (aired 2/10/11) and proceeded to see this definition play out in front of me. This episode addressed more than one storyline focused on reproductive justice issues, but one in particular triggered me. This was the story of a young female Veteran who shortly after learning she was pregnant lost her fiance and most of her vision when an roadside bomb exploded somewhere in Afghanistan. In the episode enough time has passed that the woman has given birth to her child and is hopeful something can be done to restore some of her vision. In the scene where potential medical intervention is being discussed among the patient, her primary physician, and a neurosurgeon, the baby almost suffocates while breast feeding.

What initially triggered me was the neurosurgeon’s reaction to this event: (more…)