Before I go any further, I’d like to share some news: I, Erin Simonitch, will be your new resident student blogger. Yes, summer’s over and I’m still around–there’s no getting rid of me! Actually, the fabulous Julie is off to save the world and has graciously passed the Repo Repro torch to me. I am honored and thrilled to contribute to the web presence of an organization to which I’m so strongly committed and I hope I can live up to Julie’s legacy of smart, timely commentary on reproductive justice issues.

On to the really exciting stuff, right? Prior to school hitting me with the force of a speeding steam roller, I was fortunate enough to attend the LSRJ Leadership Institute in Atlanta. What an inspiration it was to spend time with my fellow LSRJ leaders from law schools across the country! If anything gives me hope for the future, for a progressive nation in which people’s reproductive health, lives, and choices are valued, raised up, and tirelessly defended, it is the positive energy for the movement and sense of shared community I felt among these dynamic women and men. A heady brew, and I drank of it deeply.

I talked to quite a few folks at the Institute who were starting up chapters from scratch, many of them in staunchly conservative areas. Their determination and boldness impressed me–I’ve got it easy in a social justice-focused, ultra-progressive law school. They are heroic. But the beauty of LSRJ is that it is a truly non-partisan organization that has the capacity to reach past the false political boundaries of the “pro-life v. pro-choice” debate.

In fact, one of the things that struck me in my conversations throughout the weekend of the Leadership Institute was that while we all shared a mission, our perspectives, our backgrounds, and our personal entry points into the work varied widely. Although the workshops and presenters were all fascinating and extremely useful to a baby organizer like myself, my favorite episode of the weekend occurred after hours in the hotel bar. While many Institute attendees were drifting off to bed, a few of us remained awake, absorbed in an intense and passionate discussion of parental rights, education, and home birthing.

The viewpoints expressed varied as we debated whether science education should be mandatory for all children, and how that might conflict with the right to parent as we choose and with minority groups’ interests in preserving culture against assimilating pressures. This topic dovetailed with that of choosing midwives or home birth over hospital births and the potential liability for mothers making decisions that garner disapproval from a majority in our society. Despite some strong differences of opinion, everyone stayed respectful and listened to one another–and in my case at least, learned a great deal and had my eyes opened further to the issues facing mothers. The parental rights activist among us had actually moved to another state to have her child in the way she chose, without interference from industrialized medicine. It was this freedom that took precedence for her and motivated her commitment to reproductive justice, reminding me once again how important LSRJ’s expansive perspective is in energizing our movement. Lisa is one of the activists starting up a new chapter in the South, and I think that she and her fellow leaders–who represent a range of RJ perspectives–are going to accomplish great things.

Today, facilitating my first general meeting and sharing my understanding of the reproductive justice framework with incoming 1Ls, I remembered that conversation along with many others from the Institute and my summer at the National Office. Once again, I felt the fire of inspiration spark back at me from my peers as we talked about registering voters, volunteering as clinic escorts, protecting access to contraception, and raising money for safe birthing kits to go to refugee women. As the meeting wound down, one of the new members spoke up. “I think everyone at King Hall should be in this room right now,” she said, and (naturally!) I couldn’t agree more. In a community devoted to justice, everyone should be at the RJ table.

Right now, I’m just praying that as a student leader, I can fuel the fire I felt in that room today and pass on the energy, knowledge, and perspective I gained at the Leadership Institute two weeks ago. But I know that I have a fantastic board and some great future leaders in the Class of 2011; I’m not bearing the torch alone. And I think, in fact I’ve got this deep down feeling, that it’s going to be an amazing year for LSRJ–not just within my own chapter, but across the country.

Because I’ve met our movement, and we kick some major booty, y’all.

I arrived in Manila to intern with EnGendeRights, a women’s legal NGO, almost ten weeks ago. As I’m preparing to return to the U.S. next week, I’d like to offer my thoughts on reproductive health policy in the Philippines. My departure conveniently coincides with the CBCP’s recent vow to vehemently oppose the reproductive health bill pending in the House of Representatives as part of its “pro-life” stance on family planning, so this letter is all the more appropriate.

I have a staunchly Catholic friend in the U.S. with whom I shared all the recent news articles articulating the CBCP’s position and vow to oppose the RH bill, and his response was that Filipino Catholics need to “wake up.” Spain, Belgium and other Catholic countries have woken up and changed their laws on contraception, and even abortion, so why is the Philippines still sleeping?
In response to the Church’s so-called “pro-life” position, I have this to say: Life is more than the possibility of a fertilized egg. Life is children living in pushcarts on the sidewalk, wearing no pants. Life is women who risk death every time they get pregnant, but continue to do so because their husbands beat them when they refuse sex in the name of “natural family planning.” Life is sitting on your front step waiting to die, because you’re that miserable, and have nothing else to do.

If the Church is pro-life, then I ask this of the bishops: How do you justify the suffering you cause? This is not a matter of the Church or the government sitting idly by and allowing people to suffer, but an active promotion of misery, and it is wrong.
I recognize the American imperialism that has preceded me in the Philippines, and how that might influence your opinion of my views. But before you dismiss me as another American trying to impose my heathenous, western views on a country that’s seen enough outsiders meddling in its business, let me clarify my position: It is one of choice. If you want to practice natural family planning with your partner, that is your prerogative. If you want to capitalize on the benefits of scientific progress to control your own reproductive health, that is your prerogative as well.

It is not, however, the prerogative of the government to impose its own archaic, paternalistic religious views on the suffering people of a nation, (in violation of both the Philippine Constitution and international law, I might add) such that they are stripped of their power of autonomous decision-making.

My internship project paired me with Generations Ahead, a brand new organization that focuses on assisted reproductive technology and its implications for reproductive justice. I learned a lot about policy work and about some cutting-edge issues and got to know the GA staff. Today when I stopped by to say goodbye I learned that GA is guest blogging at RaceWire right now, so I’m going to use this space to do a little cross-pollination: Truc Thanh Nguyen, Project Director of Racial Justice and Human Rights, writes about the relevance of reproductive technologies to social justice movements.

And while you’re exploring the web beyond Repo Repro, check out the Generations Ahead website to find out more on what they’re about. This org is gearing up to do some great and necessary work in a relatively unexplored area of reproductive justice. I certainly hadn’t fully considered the impact of reproductive technologies before I started my work with them. My perceptions have definitely been widened on these issues.

I should also note that it’s International Blog Against Racism Week. As it happens, I did that here. But don’t let the fact that IBARW only officially lasts until tomorrow stop you if you haven’t had time to post on your own blog this week. Every week should be a week to speak out against racism and injustice.

It’s been fun! Thanks to everyone who read and everyone who commented on my posts. Blogging here has been an unexpected bonus in a summer of exciting RJ work.

–Erin Simonitch

The sheriff’s deputy takes away the breast pump the sympathetic nurse has given Juana. Unable to pump, Juana’s breasts become painfully engorged and infected. Her child, denied her milk, quickly develops jaundice. The sheriff’s office ignores the damage done to both mother and child while Juana waits over the long 4th of July weekend for her day in court, in pain and unable to sleep.

All of this occurred pursuant to Nashville’s 287g deportation law, permitting immigration status checks at traffic stops. If Juana had been white, she would have received a citation and sent on her way by the sheriff. Because she is Latina, she was instead treated, in her own words, “like a criminal person.” (Story broken by local Latino blogger Tim A. Chávez at Political Salsa and covered there in great depth; picked up by Daily Kos, the New York Times and RH Reality Check.)

Biologist Susan Shane discovers her 7-year-old adopted daughter has begun to enter puberty. Alarmed, she makes a doctor’s appointment and searches the internet for clues on what has caused her little girl to prematurely develop breasts. What she finds is startling: scientists have linked chemicals in polycarbonate plastics (used in food packaging, water bottles, and baby bottles) and in phthalates (in food packages, time-release capsules, shampoos, lotions, and deodorants, among other things) to early puberty in girls.

Susan’s daughter is Black and has probably been exposed to these damaging environmental toxins since birth. In part because U.S. government’s WIC program discourages breastfeeding by dispensing free formula, 95% of Black women bottle-feed their children–and four times as many Black girls as White girls begin puberty around age 8. And early puberty puts them at heightened risk for breast cancer, type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease and polycystic ovarian syndrome. Susan stops using plastic water bottles and lunch containers, and her daughter’s pubertal symptoms disappear. “But I cringe as I watch her classmates line up for school lunches heated in plastic, and eat and drink food carried from home in plastic containers,” Susan says. “Some of the girls have already grown prominent breasts and with all that I have learned, I am worried about their futures.”

These two stories illustrate intersecting oppressions beyond those of gender, injustices that can’t be entirely linked to that old, familiar villain “patriarchy.” What we’re talking about here is the operation of kyriarchy perpetuating reproductive injustice for immigrant women, poor women, and women of color. We cannot blame patriarchy alone for these injustices.

So what is kyriarchy?

(more…)

Atlanta, Georgia

Georgia is not an easy place to be a reproductive justice advocate. Abortion rights are constantly threatened at the state level, and every legislative session in Georgia provides new laws that undermine a woman’s decision to have an abortion or bills that serve as an attempt to challenge to the constitutional right to abortion. Anti-choice groups continue to disproportionately target the South and rural areas where they think- with some reason- that they will be more successful.

The week of July 14-20 served as a harsh reminder to the South’s reproductive justice community that our rights continue to be threatened. The anti-choice group “Operation Save America” came to Atlanta last week. The group, formerly known as Operation Rescue, has a history of blocking access to abortion and family planning clinics and some members have advocated violence against abortion providers. Their threatening activities of the week included throwing a brick through an abortion provider’s window, but luckily no one was injured.

Apparently even anti-choice conservative Christian churches aren’t acceptable enough for OSA. The group even protested at a church in the Sugar Hill suburb because the pastor had the audacity to indicate that women who have abortions shouldn’t be demonized. They also targeted moderate churches who support abortion rights and welcome gay parishioners.

OSA targeted Atlanta in an attempt to pervert our city’s history in the civil rights movement, twisting civil rights language with the goal of restricting women’s power to control their bodies and lives. This majority white, majority male group have gone so far as to accuse Black women and their families as “perpetrators of black genocide.”

The RJ community in Atlanta responded with strength and intelligence. SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective, SPARK Reproductive Justice Now , and Planned Parenthood of Georgia led the way, organizing a press conference, counter-protests, and informative workshops. I have never been prouder to be a part of the RJ movement then when I read Spark and SisterSong’s joint statement. Spark also beautifully co-opted the group’s “sidewalk counseling” practice outside a OSA rally.

OSA’s presence is a reminder to all of us of the importance of standing up for reproductive justice, both as citizens and as future lawyers.

• Politico “discovers” the pro-choice spiritual left. It’s actually a pretty savvy article. I think that it’s long past time the religious/spiritual left got some recognition as a political force–from everyone, including the spiritual left itself. Learning to approach reproductive justice from a faith-positive perspective can only help our movement. Some of us may have a hard time getting our head around this, in the context of so many decades/centuries of religiously-motivated attacks on women, sexual freedom, and reproductive rights. (I myself split from Christianity years ago, citing irreconcilable differences.) But as this article points out, the religious Right has done a very good job of hijacking God and spirituality for their own oppressive purposes, and as in many other areas of politics, the left has long allowed them to frame the discourse. Hopefully we’re now seeing the beginning of a push to reclaim it. Combined with the momentum towards framing reproductive rights as human rights, there’s a lot of space in that direction to movement-build.

• Most of the readers here have probably already seen this, but President Bush has proposed new regulations for the Department of Health and Human Services that, among other things, redefine abortion to include some forms of contraception. Under the regulations, health providers, researchers, and medical schools would only receive federal funding if they sign “written certifications” promising that they won’t discriminate against employees who would rather not perform essential reproductive health services. (Rep. Nita Lowey and family planning activists respond.) Looks like Bush is hard at work on his legacy, intent on leaving the country in as much of a mess as possible come January.

• Queen Emily, guest blogger at Questioning Transphobia, has begun a really great series on transphobic tropes. Her second post, Patriarchal Privilege, addresses transphobia in feminism. To some extent, this comes from a lack of understanding; women feel transwomen are “really” men trespassing in women’s spaces. Emily deconstructs this idea, outlining the discrimination and violence faced by trans people. As she says, “Trans people are systematically disempowered, on macro and micro levels. Why on earth does any of this sound like we’re getting monthly muffin baskets from the Patriarchy?” No kidding. The exclusionary “feminism” she calls out looks a lot to me like the operation of unexamined privilege. And like bisexual people facing monosexism, trans people fall into that interstitial space between hard and fast categories that makes them targets of prejudice from all sides–even within the LGBTQIQ community. Why is it that even among those claiming to fight for equality, there’s so often some group considered less equal than others?

–Erin Simonitch

I myself am not a mother, nor do I particularly want to be. I am not motherly. I have always put other priorities above reproduction–education, career, activism–and besides, babies terrify me with their helplessness and fragility. Handed an infant, I hold it gingerly as I might an oddly shaped, wriggly Ming vase until it bursts into tears, at which point I relinquish it with a deep sense of relief. Nevertheless, I am assured by older female relatives that the maternal instinct will manifest, like some latent superpower, “when you have your own, of course.” I find this unlikely, and I’m suspicious of the implication that all women must have this aptitude. That if I do not have it or want to have it, there is something not quite right about me, even in this day and age. That all women want to be mothers. “Of course they do…”

But in talking to women who are mothers–feminist women, women of all generations, not just my “Gen Y”–and particularly to those who have chosen motherhood over a career, I hear, over and over, a sentiment that, at first, surprised me. That motherhood is devalued in our society–that other people, other women, look down on mothers for abandoning their career, implying that a woman cannot be a mother and a feminist. That they must work to gain respect and social status, when in fact motherhood is “the most important thing a woman can do with her life.” Even Rebecca Walker, the prominent third-wave feminist, recently had some harsh words to say about feminist devaluation of motherhood by her own mother, Alice Walker.

Knowing what I know about the abortion debate in the U.S., the ongoing erosion of Roe v. Wade, and the constant pressure brought to bear on women’s autonomy in the law, at first I couldn’t understand where these women were coming from. My experience, of course, is quite different. I see the message of exalted, sacred motherhood at every turn, at every level of public discourse. I see motherhood placed at the center of what it means to be a “real” woman, “natural” motherhood raised above all, my own choices dismissed as just a stage, an anomaly. “You’ll change your mind, you’ll see.” (And I do catch myself wondering, sometimes, what is wrong with me that I don’t want that.)

But then I took a step back, and I realized something stunning (to me.) They were right.

(more…)

Lisi Owen is a rising 2L at the University of Denver (DU). She wants to pursue a career in public international law and hopes to some day be able to work for the U.N. At DU she is involved with Amnesty International, LSRJ, the Denver Journal for International Law and Policy, and the DU Law Civil Rights Clinic. Outside DU she volunteers with the Colorado Lawyers Committee, the African Community Center, and Dress for Success Denver.

—

Hello from the Philippines! As Emily told everyone last week, this summer LSRJ has placed interns in Thailand, the Philippines and Nepal. I am the intern in Manila, Philippines, and am working with EnGendeRights, Inc., a women’s rights legal NGO.

Our biggest project for the summer is working to repeal an executive order of former Manila Mayor Jose “Lito” Atienza that effectively bans modern family planning services (pills, IUDs, ligation, injectables, vasectomies, etc.) in Manila City. Executive Order No. 003 was instituted in 2000 shortly after Atienza took office, and although a new administration has now taken over, the EO has yet to be repealed.

The effect of the contraception ban has been felt most heavily by poor women who are unable to afford contraceptives and other family planning services from private hospitals or who are unable to spend the time and money to travel to other cities where such services are available. For detailed accounts of the burden the ban has placed on these women, you can check out a report compiled by local Philippine NGOs and the Center for Reproductive Rights, in New York, entitled Imposing Misery: The Impact of Manila’s Contraception Ban on Women and Families, available on CRR’s website under publications.

While we are working hard to pressure the current Mayor, Alfredo Lim, to repeal the executive order, and to pressure the national government to maintain a more pro-family planning stance, we have already made some progress in terms of actually addressing the family planning needs of women in Manila. Through a partnership with Marie Stopes we were able to provide free ligation services for women in Tondo, Manila, which is one of the poorest areas in the entire Metro Manila area. Additionally, last Friday in honor of World Population Day the Reproductive Health Advocacy Network held a reproductive health fair, also in Tondo, at which hundreds of women availed of family planning services. Such an event is unprecedented in Manila, and was a huge achievement given the difficulty NGOs and other healthcare providers have faced in the past in providing family planning services in Manila.

I must reiterate Emily’s point about how amazing it is to actually see the accumulation of my academic knowledge “filled in by the color of experience.” Reading about international law and its implementation and actually seeing it on the ground, so to speak, are two entirely different things. It certainly is inspirational and exhilarating to be a part of the latter!

In Thailand, where I am one of two LSRJers placed, we are working on a project through the New York based Global Justice Center. Specifically, we are asking two major questions of international human rights law: 1) are women (and their partners) protected from government pressure and interference in making their family planning choices?; and 2) if maternal birth rates are abnormally high, at what point can a government be blamed? These questions, perhaps seemingly uncomplicated, have not been asked in quite this way and represent uncharted territory in the reproductive justice world. In seeking these answer, we are scouring the net (thank you Westlaw and Lexis Nexis!) and the countryside (interviewing Burmese refugees in western Thailand).

As with all summer law jobs, it is amazing to see the outlines of classroom conversations and mountains of text filled in by the color of experience. Last fall, I took a course about the UN and human rights, related treaties, and the processes by which these treaties are actualized. Reading CEDAW for class last November, while fantastic, cannot compare to reading it now as we try to apply it to the project before us.

Struggling with language barriers, gauging foreign cultural norms, and mining through the vast universe that is international human rights law has been humbling. At the same time, studying the law and (perhaps) finding new avenues to help women attain the international human rights to which they are entitled is emboldening.

–Erin Simonitch

Small changes can make a big difference.

It’s a principle that helps sustain and hearten those of us committed to social justice. Without it, the magnitude of the work would overwhelm us. But it’s a double-edged sword, because the principle operates whether the change is for better or for worse. So it’s also why law schools drill “baby lawyers” to obsess over details and precise wording. Use the wrong language in a contract agreement, leave out an important detail, fail to thoroughly define your terms, and sooner or later the consequences will explode into thousands of dollars of unnecessary expenses, while you’re stuck in court debating the meaning of the word “chicken.” (As my property professor likes to point out, litigators exist to clean up other lawyers’ messes.)

Members of Congress demonstrated their failure to understand this concept when they passed the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act, making a small change in federal Medicaid law that has a big impact on young women’s access to contraceptives. Before the Act’s passage, pharmaceutical companies could and did offer hormonal contraceptives at significant discounts. But in drafting the new rules for calculating Medicaid rebates, lawmakers left out a provision that would have preserved those discounts for campus health centers. Now, pharm companies must sell contraceptives to clinics at higher prices or suffer a financial penalty–a “business decision” that’s all too easily made by corporations for whom the bottom line is, well, the bottom line.

The result, of course, is that students pay the price. Contraceptive costs have risen dramatically on college and university campuses, sometimes as much as 500%.

(more…)