This one is too good to be true.

It seems that a bunch of anti-abortion folks are suing an abortion rights group for posting online private, confidential contact information of anti-abortion advocates who protest or offer abortion alternatives at local abortion clinics.

Yep, I’m not making this up.  An attorney named Steven Tiedemann has filed three suits in Federal and State Court against “Voice of Choice,” its founder Todd Stave and its current director Wendy Robinson.   Attorney Tiedemann represents anti-abortion people who allegedly have been “injured” by VOC’s “Bully List,” which lists abortion clinic protestors, complete with their photo, their personal address, email address and phone numbers.

Can you believe this crap?  I mean, let’s go back in time for a second here. 

Remember in the 1990’s when a guy named Neal Horsley created something called the “Nuremberg Files,” which was a compilation of names, pictures, etc. of abortion doctors, clinic staff and other pro-choice leaders?   Some called it a “hit list” and, indeed, whenever a doctor on the list was murdered, Horsley put a red “x” through that doctor’s picture.  Nice, huh?    

Remember years ago when anti-abortion activists would stand outside the clinics and write down the license plates of the doctors, staff and even the patients and, armed with that information, went down to the local Department of Motor Vehicles and legally retrieved the home addresses of those parties?  Then, that information was put on flyers, copied a few thousand times and distributed throughout the anti-abortion network in that town.   A short while later, staff and patients received death threats at their very home or, worse, the protestors wound up on their front yard. 

And in the case of Todd Stave, one of the defendants in the suit, the antis actually picketed the school that his daughter attended and the office of Stave’s landlord.     

So, now Stave is fighting back and the antis are whining about it. 

The lawsuit alleges that “the clear purpose of VOC is to mount a harassing calling/email campaign against those listed as ‘Bullies.’”   The suits allege that VOC, Robinson and Stave encourage and provide instructions to their followers to call and email anti-abortion protesters repeatedly in order to halt the anti-abortion protests. 

Geez, I wonder where Todd learned how to do this? 

Go get ‘em, Todd.   

Slide1News stories about investigations into Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) misleading women through deceptive advertising, malevolent counseling and egregious misinformation are pretty common. But one CPC wolf in sheep’s clothing is Real Alternatives. It’s a Pennsylvania state-funded program that claims it “exists to provide life-affirming alternatives to abortion” to women who are financially qualified. Real Alternatives (henceforth abbreviated as RA) boasts that their program has been helping women since 1996 while also abiding by stringent accountability to the state. Even though Real Alternatives claims that they do not use deception to attract clients, in actuality, they use what  Heiss, Monge, & Fulk, (2012) call predatory practices that resemble legitimate reproductive health providers (RHPs).  In their attempts to appear as a legitimate RHP, Heiss, Monge & Fulk found that CPCs rely on ambiguity in their values and program offerings to elicit positive responses from potential clients and the public. Applying the concept of predatory practices, I argue that while RA’s textual and visual communication practices uses woman-centered advocacy language like “we’re here for you” and “your alternatives to abortion” and “forced abortion and your right to choose” and more, they promote, instead, distorted interpretations of the scientific literature and prescriptive counseling that can be misleading and even dangerous to a woman’s health if she makes a decision based on false information. To that end, I will turn to RAs home page where there is an array of text, images, and hypertext links to videos and where I will focus my attention on the video The Miracle of Life. But first, I want to tour the home page because it provides evidence that pregnancy and women’s sexuality are framed as problematic territory. The tabs in the uppermost section of the page attest to this problematic with labels such as Pregnant? Being Forced to Abort? Worried about STDs? Caring for Your Baby? In the center of the page, are images of young women in poses, arguably framed as pensive and frightened, with the eye-catching, continuous loop of flashing yellow text that underscores what RA frames as the problematic of women’s sexuality with the words: Pregnant? Scared? Concerned about STDs & Sexual Health? Below the flashing text, the offer of services reads:

Whatever the reason, we can help. Call us at 1-888-LIFE AID for free, caring and completely confidential pregnancy and parenting support services. We can educate you about reproductive health concerns, and we can assist you in finding appropriate medical help. You’ll speak to women who will be on your side every step of the way. We’re here for YOU.

Featured in the lower third of the web page are two videos that, again, use woman-centered language to invite viewers to click and watch. One video, View a Short Film about the Help We Provide, offers personal testimonials from counselors and tearful women who allegedly used RA’s services. As emotionally moving as the testimonials may seem, their authenticity is questionable. Particularly if you read the small print in RA’s terms of use which states “Unless otherwise stated, the persons shown in the photographs posted on this site are models and their photos were chosen based solely for aesthetic reasons. Other than that, the persons shown in these photographs have no connection to Real Alternatives or any of the topics addressed on this site.” In fact, dig a bit deeper to reveal how RA assumes no liability for decisions taken by persons based on information they provide on the site. The juxtaposition between the “we can help” mantra liberally advertised throughout the web site and the “we won’t assume any responsibility” suggests a deeper truth about the organization’s mission to promote an antiabortion agenda through the politicization of a woman’s private reproductive life that symbolically separates the ideal woman who dutifully embraces family and motherhood from the flawed woman who willfully chooses her own needs (and those of her existing children) above the need of a fetus.

The second video and the focus of this article, The Miracle of Life, is introduced with the text, View a Short Film about Your Baby’s Development. It provides an emotionally manipulative and factually deceptive video about fetal development. In the 3.33 minute long video, a Miracle of Life is visually appealing, yet problematic in that it symbolically annihilates the complexities of a woman’s private life while it visually and textually offers one solution. In general, the Caucasian-centric video uses a problem-solution format beginning with a series of questions and answers about a pregnancy and the fetus with the invocation at the end to choose life. Through the use of computer-generated graphics, soulful music and emotionally manipulative juxtapositions of imagery, the producers at Catholic Media House drive home the fact that the fetus is a living human entity. In what is arguably an artifact of Catholic propaganda, The Miracle of Life intentionally blurs the lines between fact and fiction about fetal development in an ethically compromised production. While it purports to be truthful, to hold claim to reality and to the authority of science, the video exists as a tool of the Catholic Church to support their religious power structure and their privileged forms of communication within their church and the state of Pennsylvania. While a deconstruction of the video could extend for pages, I’ll give a few highlights to illustrate how the lines between fact and fiction work.

The beginning of the video opens with a black screen and piano music that dissolves to an image of a gestationally-advanced abdomen of a pregnant woman with text floating on and off the screen What should I do? “Is this a fetus or a baby? “When does life really begin? Then the question to the audience “Do you know about the miracle of life?” with the word miracle in enlarged red text that flashes and expands, as if “breathing” in and out on the screen then transitions to an image of a zygote with text that reads “at the moment of conception, a unique human being’s DNA is created, then a flash of the DNA helix and the text “human DNA that never existed before and will never be repeated again.” Thus, the fetal-centric tone of the video is established.

As the video continues, gestational milestones are offered as scientific facts. For example, the video, using the female pronomial reference, claims that at six weeks, “she has fingers and toes” while sources such as the National Institute of Health (NIH) claim that at eight weeks the arms and legs have grown longer and that while the foot and hand areas may be distinguished, the digits are still webbed.

In an emotional framing, the video erroneously claims that at 11 weeks, she can smile and frown, wiggle her fingers and toes and even suck her thumb. And while it’s a charming thought to consider such animation and agency of the fetus, the science provides a more sober response. Piontelli (2010) found that an immature suck-swallow pattern is observed at 32-34 weeks while other sources (Mayo, NIH) note non-directed sucking motions at 26 weeks. It’s a far cry from the Hallmark card version of hegemonic parenting and the preferred reading of pregnancy and infancy.

At 16 weeks, the Miracle of Life video claims that she can open and close her eyes and that she has her own fingerprints while the NIH states that around 11-14 weeks the eyelids close and will not reopen until around 28 weeks. It further states that finger and foot prints do not begin to form until around week 30.

WolfSheep

While I’ve provided only a few examples of how the producers blurred the lines between fact and fiction, the overall pattern of enthusiastic support for the fetus in exuberant applications of artistry over reality can easily be discerned.  The concern I want to point out is how potentially  problematic the video can be for a distraught woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Regardless of circumstances, all women deserve honest and accurate information when faced with a pregnancy. Real Alternatives, is, instead, a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Posed to appear as a legitimate reproductive health care facility, RA, instead, disseminates misleading and false information. Like the thousands of CPCs across the United States, I find that RA’s predatory textual and visual communication practices, as illustrated in this very short video, clearly violate ethical guidelines about truthfulness and the admonition to do no harm. It’s a miracle that their work is considered legal.

References

Heiss, B. M., Monge, P. and Fulk, J. , 2012-05-24 “Predatory Mimicry in the Crisis Pregnancy Center Movement: Ambiguous Form Communication as an Evolutionary Strategy” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Sheraton Phoenix Downtown, Phoenix, AZ Online <APPLICATION/PDF>. 2013-08-16 from http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p552613_index.html

Piontelli, A. (2010). Development of Normal Fetal Movements: The First 25 Weeks of Gestation. Milan, Italy:Springer Verlag.

Our new friend?

Our new friend?

Something really interesting happened recently at the U.S. Supreme Court.

For those of you who failed high school social studies, let me remind you that for a case to reach the Supreme Court, four members of the Court must agree to grant a “writ of certiorari.”  This is otherwise known as the “Rule of Four.”    

Now, several years ago the state of Oklahoma, in all of its wisdom, enacted the cleverly titled “Oklahoma Ultrasound Act” that required a physician or certified technician to perform an obstetric ultrasound on the pregnant woman, using either a vaginal transducer or an abdominal transducer, whichever would display the embryo or fetus more clearly for a woman that desired an abortion.  The technician would also have had to provide a simultaneous explanation of what the ultrasound is depicting, display the ultrasound images so that the pregnant woman may view them and describe the presence of organs if viewable.

A state trial court struck down the statute and later the Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld that decision.  Then, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, a Republican, decided to appeal that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The one thing that most people do not understand is that when a state appeals any cases, it actually costs the taxpayers a bunch of money because of the expensive legal process.   Don’t get me started on that issue.

So, at some point this case was considered by the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.  They all meet in a private room and there is absolutely no record of the proceedings.  The Chief Justice simply asks the justices to vote on whether or not to grant cert in the thousands of cases before them. 

Truth be told – I was not in that room.  But I will bet the ranch that the Court’s extreme right wing – Scalia, Alito and Thomas – voted to grant cert.   But the next day, the Court announced that it was not granting cert to this abortion-related case, no doubt shocking a lot of people and ticking off the anti-abortion movement.   The decision to not review the case upheld the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision striking down the statute. 

So, what happened?

No doubt that the liberal wing of the Court – Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg and Breyer – voted to not grant cert.  And Justice Kennedy, who is always a swing vote on the issue, probably just decided he’d had enough of abortion cases for the time being so he joined the liberals.

That leaves Justice Roberts, an anti-abortion conservative who could have been the fourth vote.

Thank you, Justice Roberts???    

Abortion Care Network

Abortion Care Network

I recently received an email from a woman named Peg Johnston, an old friend up in Binghamton, New York who has been running an abortion facility for many years.  She has seen it all:  the murders, the bombings, the protests with hundreds of people at her front door.  And, like so many of her colleagues, she has persevered.

For many years, she was one of my closest confidants when I was the Executive Director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers.  We went through a lot together and, yes, I was a pain in the ass to her at times (or maybe a lot of times).   After I left NCAP, she helped transform the organization into what is now called the Abortion Care Network.

In the early years, NCAP was a Capitol Hill lobbying effort that represented independent abortion providers.  To this day, I take pride knowing that we actually got three laws passed that provided protection to the doctors, staff and patients who use these facilities.  Later, NCAP started focusing on the business side of the industry, putting together group purchasing plans, business conferences, etc.  What really got my juices flowing, however, was NCAP’s effort to de-stigmatize abortion.  And I was pleased when I received Peg’s email to see that the Network continues to fight to make abortion more acceptable in this country.

Abortion Care Network

Abortion Care Network

It’s hard to believe that after 40 years of legal abortion, the procedure is still shrouded in mystery, spoken only in whispers.  Millions and millions and millions of women have availed themselves of this procedure but so many of them still sit by in silence.  And that has allowed the anti-abortion movement to fill in the blanks, to demonize abortion and to make women feel ashamed for having them.

But Peg and her group continue to press the envelope.  She and her colleagues have seen women come into their facilities, leave and move on with their lives.  They continue to insist that “good women have abortions” and that abortion is “okay.”  They also believe – and they taught me – that the pro-choice movement needs to speak more honestly about the abortion procedure.  They argue that women are not stupid, that they know exactly what goes on during an abortion and it is an insult to obfuscate.  “We Trust Women,” is their catch-phrase.

Whether or not the Abortion Care Network or, for that matter, NCAP has had an impact is hard to tell.  But I can tell you personally that it sure felt good not having to worry about trying to avoid the “A” word and just putting it out there.  Sure, our candor pissed off our pro-choice colleagues at times, but we slept well at night knowing we were telling the simple truth and that, by doing so, we were lifting the veil of secrecy about abortion.

And now Peg and the Abortion Care Network are on to their next project in their never-ending battle to make abortion more acceptable in this country.  Below is a link that announces a new video contest they are sponsoring, which speaks for itself.   I encourage everyone to submit their videos, to speak out if you’ve had an abortion and, yes, to send money to the Abortion Care Network:

  http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07e880uqfe81765aa0&llr=rrbrm5cab

A while back, a friend of mine claimed that every increase in fetal rights is necessarily accompanied by an accompanying loss in women’s rights. I agreed with the principle, but the word “autonomy” has been so often repeated, and so often debased, that it now holds little power without a stark example to illustrate its meaning. Such a stark and powerful example is now available, and the subject of massive media attention, a federal lawsuit, and national outrage, as reported recently by the New York Times.

The basic facts of the case: early into her second trimester, Wisconsin native Alicia Beltran disclosed a former pill addiction at a prenatal checkup, an addiction she had overcome on her own prior to becoming pregnant. Her doctor did not believe her, despite a urine sample negative for the drug taken the same day, and two weeks later a social worker arrived at her home and insisted she voluntarily restart Suboxone treatment to wean herself from the drug or face court-ordered treatment. (She admits she shut the door in the social worker’s face after saying “Maybe I should just get an abortion.”) Two days after that encounter, sheriffs arrived and escorted Ms. Beltran to a hearing where her fetus had been appointed a lawyer, but she had not. On the written advice of Dr. Angela Breckenridge, obstetrician at a subsidiary clinic of St. Joseph’s Hospital, in which she noted “[The patient] exhibits lack of self-control and refuses …. treatment” and recommended “mandatory inpatient drug treatment …. or incarceration,” Beltran was given the choice between imprisonment and a treatment program. She chose the latter, and was held there for 78 days, during which time she lost her job.

Image

Unfortunately, while this case reaches national attention and is now the subject of a federal suit asserting the unconstitutionality of the law, it is not an isolated incident. Rather, a growing number of cases reflect the results of similar laws that grant fetuses rights as individuals, which for women has meant hundreds of cases of forced treatment (including surgery), detainment, and criminal charges during pregnancy or following birth.

National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW) published “Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States, 1973-2005,” a comprehensive review of cases in which pregnant women were deprived of their physical liberties in some manner in the name of fetal rights or health. It reported 413 cases, which the authors considered to be a strong underestimation of the true number, as searching public databases for certain kinds of cases (eg unpublished Native American tribal court decisions or hospital detentions that did not merit media coverage) was virtually impossible. If you take away nothing else from this article, I suggest you give that paper (below) a read. It is harrowing.

Pro-life groups have rallied behind such laws, as they represent a small precedent in the legal war to recognize the fetus as a full person. As is somewhat common for such groups, they paint it as a step towards improving the health of both mother and fetus. The legislative director of Wisconsin Right to Life described the intent of the law that detained Beltran for over two months as “help [for] both the woman and her baby.”

Image

That is not the case.

To view these kinds of cases in their proper context, we must look to both medical ethics and the scientific literature. As far as medical ethics quandaries go, cases like Beltran’s bring up two principles: 1) patient privacy, and when physician disclosure of patient information is warranted, and 2) right to refuse treatment.

First, patient privacy is a very central tenet of medical practice, holding not only ethical weight but legal weight as well. Typically, the only exceptions that justify disclosure of private patient information are reasonable suspicion of imminent harm to others (normally this applies only to psychiatrists with disclosures of intent to commit violence), health defects that render potential harm to others (such as epilepsy in the case of professional drivers), certain reportable sexually transmitted diseases, abuse, and gunshot or knife wounds. Laws vary slightly from place to place.

However, the vast majority of states do not hold potential harm to a fetus to be a concern strong enough to override patient privacy, for very good reasons. The logic is supported not only by legal reasons (with very few exceptions, legal precedent holds that a fetus is not entitled to the legal rights of a full person on par with the mother), but practical ones as well.  The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologist’s Committee Opinion report “Substance Abuse Reporting and Pregnancy” states that “Incarceration and the threat of incarceration have proved to be ineffective in reducing the incidence of alcohol or drug abuse … [in part because] Substance abuse reporting during pregnancy may dissuade women from seeking prenatal care.” For the tiny minority of states that enforce such laws, the report recommends that physicians “work with state legislators to retract [such] legislation.”

The report also notes that punitive treatment of substance abuse inappropriately treats addiction or suicide attempts as moral failings rather than addressing underlying issues or attempting to treat them appropriately. Lastly, it assumes that women have not already sought treatment (drug treatment programs specifically tailored for or preferential for pregnant patients are uncommon in the US).

In an amicus brief opposing the South Carolina Supreme Court’s decision (Whitner v South Carolina) to extend child abuse and neglect laws to viable fetuses, the South Carolina Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors (SCAADAC) noted that enrollment by pregnant women in drug and alcohol treatment programs in the state dropped by 80% in the year following Whitner’s highly publicized prosecution and leading up to the court’s decision to uphold it. This suggests that pregnant addicts are not only deterred from seeking prenatal care out of fear that their physicians would report their drug abuse (as physicians would legally be required to do following the ruling) but also from seeking drug addiction therapy independently.

Image

 Moreover, the punitive treatment of pregnant women may be even more counterproductive than as a deterrent to care, if its stated goal is the protection of the fetus. NAPW’s review describes the arrest of Martina Greywind 12 weeks into her pregnancy for “reckless endangerment” following the inhalation of paint fumes; after two weeks in the County Jail, she received a release for a medical appointment, at which time she received an abortion so that the charges could be dropped (which they were). When a law passed ostensibly to protect fetuses coerces women into obtaining an abortion to avoid criminal charges, “counterproductive” may be an understatement.

The second medical ethics principle at stake in this discussion is right to refuse treatment. This right is basic to patient autonomy, basic to respect for patient decision-making, and typically upheld for all patients with mental capacity even when the decision will inevitably result in their death. (The main, and in most places, only exception is the life-saving treatment of patients following suicide attempts, even over their objections.) In most states, the right of a pregnant woman to refuse treatment indicated for the fetus has been strongly affirmed, even at later time-points in the pregnancy.

While it is harrowing to imagine that a refusal to undergo a Caesarian section to save a viable fetus would result in the infant’s death, the alternative of court-ordered forced surgery in an emergent situation deprives a woman of her due process rights as well as her physical liberty. Moreover, court orders to force treatments on pregnant women who have refused them are often made based on dubious evidence and/or for risks that do not materialize.

NAPW’s review describes the case of a woman in Florida, who was in labor at her home when her doctors sought a court order to force her to undergo a C-section, as they felt a vaginal birth might pose a risk to the fetus (due to a prior C-section). A sheriff arrived at Pemberton’s home, strapped her legs together, took her into custody, and forcibly transported her to the hospital, where lawyers argued on behalf of the fetus in an emergency hearing. Pemberton and her husband were not appointed a lawyer or represented in the hearing, violating her due process rights in an example even more extreme than Beltran’s case. The state forced her to undergo the procedure, and when she sued afterwards, a federal district court ruled that her 1st, 4th, and 14th amendment rights were all outweighed by the state’s interest in the preservation of the fetus’ life. It should be noted that she successfully gave birth vaginally to three more healthy children following the surgery ostensibly so necessary to saving the fetus due to the dangers of a vaginal birth.

Lastly, criminal action against pregnant women or new mothers is often based on faulty or non-existent evidence of a causal link between the woman’s action (or inaction) and the supposed harm it is claimed to have caused. Two thirds of the cases reported on in NAPW’s review did not even result in an adverse pregnancy outcome. (In fact, it’s worth noting that the South Carolina Supreme Court’s Whitman ruling does not even require evidence of actual harm to prosecute, but can be applied to the mother of even a healthy newborn if it tests positive for drugs, since she “risked” a poor pregnancy outcome with drug use.) The majority of the cases studied in the review reflected criminal prosecution of women who had purportedly used cocaine during their pregnancies, and indeed the legislation in Wisconsin is popularly known as the “cocaine mom” law.

However, despite studies showing that cocaine is linked to short term negative effects such as low birth-weight and preterm birth, longer-term studies have actually indicated little to no significant evidence of more permanent effects on children (contrary to popular belief). A review of 32 articles concerning long-term effects of prenatal cocaine exposure revealed that it is not significantly correlated with defects in “physical growth, developmental test scores, or language outcomes.” Ironically, prenatal care—which criminal liability laws act as a deterrent for pregnant women to seek—has been shown to minimize the impact of drug use on perinatal outcomes.

So how are so many women being affected by prosecution in such cases, when little evidence actually supports the claims made against them? It is best explained by the fact that poor women are disproportionately affected by such laws. 71% of the women in NAPW’s review “qualified for indigent defense,” and a 2010 article published by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers indicates that arrests of pregnant women are too often supported by “medical misinformation,” and that the public defenders of such women are guilty of ineffective counsel when they fail to counter scientific misinformation or allow trials to proceed without any expert testimony whatsoever.

And that’s if the mother is appointed a lawyer at all. Cases of emergent forced medical interventions like Pemberton’s, in which the fetus is appointed counsel and the mother is not, are harrowing in their implications. The federal court’s decision not to uphold Pemberton’s claim that her constitutional rights had been violated because they had been superseded by those of her fetus affirm—frighteningly—that pregnant women are not party to the same constitutional rights as virtually everyone else in the US population.

In sum, it is starkly clear that laws used to prosecute pregnant women or new mothers for substance abuse or to detain or force treatments on women who refuse advised medical treatments have very disturbing implications for the constitutional and medical rights of pregnant women. Cases such as these illustrate very clearly why fetal personhood measures not only harm women, but are counter-productive in that they may encourage poor fetal outcomes when women avoid prenatal care or drug treatment, or even seek abortions, for fear of criminal prosecution.

 

For more:

1) NAPW’s review, “Arrests of and Forced Interventions on Pregnant Women in the United States, 1973-2005: Implications for Women’s Legal Status and Public Health” http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/content/38/2/299.full.pdf+html?sid=b0811f36-d4e4-4b51-a830-e175e6eee40c 

2) The NY Times article on Alicia Beltran: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/24/us/case-explores-rights-of-fetus-versus-mother.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

3) Another NY Times article on the trend of criminalizing pregnant women or new mothers for drug abuse: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/the-criminalization-of-bad-mothers.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0

4) ACOG’s Committee Opinion, “Substance Abuse Reporting and Pregnancy: The Role of the Obstetriction-Gynecologist” http://www.acog.org/Resources_And_Publications/Committee_Opinions/Committee_on_Health_Care_for_Underserved_Women/Substance_Abuse_Reporting_and_Pregnancy_The_Role_of_the_Obstetrician_Gynecologist

5) The National Association of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse Counselors’ Amici Curiae brief on the Whitner v South Carolina case: http://www.drugpolicy.org/docUploads/Whitner_NAADAC_Amicus.pdf

6) An article on perinatal effects of gestational cocaine use: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21257143

7) A review of long-term effects of prenatal cocaine exposure: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/3/554.full.pdf

8) An article on the effects of prenatal care for drug-abusing women on perinatal outcomes:  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12847528

9) An article on poor representation and legal prosecution of pregnant women: http://www.hivlawandpolicy.org/sites/www.hivlawandpolicy.org/files/Pregnant%20women%20junk%20science%20and%20zealous%20defense.pdf

 

 

Slide1Let’s face it. Most of us are here on this earth because our parents had sex. As honest as this statement is, it likely makes people squirm. Who wants to think about their parents naked, sweaty and humping one on top of the other or grinding side-by-side on the dining room table or in the back seat of the car or in the tent next to you in Yosemite National Park? Certainly, not me. I’d rather scratch my eyes out. Our squirminess and discomfort points to a huge problem in our nation. While the common hegemonic sentiment of America is one of superiority, in reality, we Americans have failed miserably to accept and fully embrace our human sexuality. More specifically, we have failed to apply scientifically-sound and medically-accepted knowledge in public health and public education to benefit those who engage in sexual activity safely and responsibly. And who is responsible for this failure? I’d argue that those responsible are a misguided minority with their knickers in a knot over human sexuality. They go by many names but together they’re really the self-appointed morality police who run for political offices mostly on a conservative ticket, who prey on women outside abortion clinics, and who work for or are members of organizations like the Heritage Foundation, the Catholic Church or Operation Rescue. These morality cops are all about promoting abstinence only sex education in schools, sustaining propaganda campaigns about the evils of masturbation, telling bald-faced absurdities about a raped woman’s body shutting down a potential rape-related pregnancy, denying the spectrum of sexual expression, and ignoring the scientific data about the safety and efficacy of contraception and abortion. Sexual behavior for these folks certainly seems, well, icky on so many levels. And we as a nation pay a stiff (no pun intended) penalty.

In addition to their narrowly informed heteronormative perspective on sexuality, this minority further constrains natural human sexuality with their religiously informed myths about intercourse being only for procreation. Doesn’t that just take the fun out of an afternoon romp in the sack for post-menopausal Auntie Joyce and Viagra-defunct Uncle Tony? Such a heterosexist view clearly ignores the sexuality of our LGBT brothers and sisters.  It also ignores the perfectly natural practice of going it alone because, in their worldview, the two concepts—pleasure and masturbation—are the work of Lucifer. And such a view surely ignores those lovely, lively priests with predilections for little boys. But I digress.

Let me say a bit more about some of the religious conservatives’ bias in favor of opposite-sex relationships of a sexual nature, and against same-sex relationships of a sexual nature—aka, what is called heteronormativity. The problem here is that they take their sexual bias to an extreme in educational settings. In many states, their bias has rewarded with state funding to discriminate against LGBT children. Specifically, their homophobia is rewarded with adopted state laws – sometimes referred to as “neovouchers” – to transform state money into private Christian school scholarships used at religious-based schools that prohibit gay, lesbian or bisexual students from attending. These schools are essentially given a license to emotionally and physically bully and expel children who fail to be straight.

Abstinence only = Unwanted pregnancy

Abstinence only = Unwanted pregnancy

Listen, I have no argument with being sexually conservative, heterosexual and/or abstinent. It’s a right that should be respected just as individuals who are not hetero should be respected. But, I do have a big argument when their penchant for prudery and balderdash leads to serious health consequences for real children. I’m talking about their misguided drive to demand abstinence-only sex education in public schools and as the price to play for charter school funding (at the cost of decreasing public education funding). Abstinence-only sex education is a well-documented financial waste as well as an epic education disaster that has resulted in the United States having one of the highest rates of teen pregnancy and the highest rates of sexually transmitted infection rates in the industrialized world. Thanks, in part, to abstinence programs, female teens are more vulnerable to sexual violence because abstinence isn’t a realistic response to peer pressure. Among the general teen population, one out of four has a sexually transmitted infection. The STI rate for African American teens averages 50%. And for all teens, if left untreated some of their STIs can cause permanent damage, such as infertility and even death.  Of course, the response of the Panties-in-a-Wad crowd, this bastion of heteronormative bias, is to point a judgmental finger at the individual teen and wag their tongue about the evils of having sex. But my response to the Panties-in-a-Wad crowd is to illustrates the impact of states with predominantly conservative and religious views and the teen birth belt.TeenBirthRateStates

A further response to this uber conservative minority is say that their work is disingenuous. Teens are sexual beings. Not providing comprehensive, age-appropriate sex education is the moral failure of conservative, religious thinking.

And speaking of moral failure, consider all the bickering over the Affordable Care Act and contraception. Church-going entities like Hobby Lobby, the Catholic Church, and Chik-Fil-A went ballistic over their obligations to provide contraceptive insurance for their employees. Let’s be honest here. We’re talking about white men making a fuss about paying for health care for the women in their organizations because it goes against their beliefs while making no religiously-informed complaints about paying for Viagra or Cialis for men.  Let’s also be clear that statistical studies illustrate the majority of women (Catholics, Christian Evangelicals alike) who are married to these men use contraception. Hypocritical much?

Access to contraception, while clearly a smart response to reducing unplanned pregnancies and abortions, is seriously problematic for many who protest outside abortion clinics and for those who legislate morality in the state and federal government. They believe that contraception causes abortion, is dangerous, and is immoral if outside heterosexual marriage. The bigger issue with those who don’t believe in abortion or contraception is their attempt to impose their beliefs on others. A comparison of the United States to countries where abortion is legal reveals that other countries have much lower rates of abortion, have healthier perspectives on human sexuality, have better health care systems and have normalized sexual education for children and teens.  What we have here in the United States is staggering puritanism informed by a peculiarly aberrant form of Christian ethos that is seriously harming our children with the abysmal failure of abstinence education. So much for the claim to be pro life, to uphold family values.

Those with their eyes wide open have witnessed the stunning waste of taxpayer dollars over legal battles about DOMA, about the Affordable Care Act and contraception, and about targeted regulations against abortion providers based on nothing more than willful ignorance of science and, no doubt, their god-deluded sense of moral righteousness. Like the epic failure of prohibition on alcohol during the early 20th century, this ongoing battle against our God-given sexual nature has failed our nation. Attempting to prohibit or constrain sexual behavior according to the mythically-constructed boundaries of the sexually thwarted and perverted minority, is dishonest, unhealthy, disingenuous, and immoral.

Abortion

Abortion

Imagine what it is like to be 14 and pregnant. Not now, but in 1976. No adult to confide in or ask for advice because to confide in someone would mean admitting that you had had sex. Whatever culture of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n roll was underway, as the daughter of a military officer, you were supposed to be chaste. The concern about what people would think was greater than the concern about being pregnant. The fear of informing your parents was even greater. Your mother was a depressed alcoholic who you did not want to give another reason to drink. Your father once left welts up and down your legs and back because you cut a class. Your 19-year-old boyfriend offered to marry you and, what seemed to be spoken at the same time, asked if you thought about abortion. You knew that your family would be moving more than an ocean away within three weeks. There was little time to sort things out.

Few of us can know what we would do in many situations until we have been there. And, once there, we are challenged to be strong and thoughtful as we also challenge our moral views of whatever the situation. Almost 40 years later, I can vividly recall each emotional moment of what I just asked you to imagine. It was challenging and heartbreaking to be so young and alone.

Abortion Rights

Abortion Rights

Abortion had been legal for three years but legal did not mean accessible, especially for minors. None of the family planning places I called could provide an abortion nor could they even see me because of my age. A friend I finally confided in told me about a woman who could perform an abortion on me for $500. Her house – where she performed the abortions – was filthy.  I was smart enough to know that the abortion option was not safe and marriage was not the right response to the pregnancy. The only thing I knew for sure was that I was going to have a baby.

As the “new girl” at a middle school, I stood out in no small part because I looked at least potentially pregnant. I denied my pregnancy to a guidance counselor who questioned me.  I successfully feigned fatness to my parents and siblings, thanks to the full and flowing smock tops girls wore then. Halfway into my third trimester, my parents confronted me. I still denied I was pregnant. After insisting that I visit an obstetrician, we were all informed that I would deliver a baby within a couple of months. In less than a week, an adoption agency caseworker met with me at school. She treated me to lunch or dinner on a weekly basis, always trying to convince me to “stop being selfish” and give my baby up. I refused. By then I had in fact bonded with the child I was carrying.  I was following recommendations for in-utero nurturing that I read about in the Boston Women’s Health Collective Our Bodies Ourselves. I was religiously taking the prenatal vitamins the OB gave me and I even attended two childbirth classes before I gave birth.

Those who would have encouraged me to give birth, because abortion was wrong, would never have considered that my son was placed in a foster home because my parents refused to let me bring him home. They would not have prepared me for my parents deceptively adopting the son I fought so hard to keep and had lovingly mothered – the son they so vehemently objected to my keeping. Once the social workers convinced my parents that foster home was not a good long term alternative, my son came home and they fell in love with him. So much so that when my father knew he was going to be relieved from military service, and they would move to another state, they told me that they had to adopt my son in order for him to have medical care. I signed the papers without separate counsel or knowledge of the pending move. Not long after that, my father informed me that they were moving, my son was now their responsibility, and that they knew I wanted to stay put (even though, at 16, I only had a car).  To a powerless 16-year-old who lived in fear of her father, the message was clear: you are on your own and without your child.

No anti-abortion person could have prepared me for living in a car in Ft. Lauderdale, or in Central Park in New York City, or what it was like to survive without a family or support system and, most of all, without the child I deeply loved and cared for. I could not have been prepared for what it felt like to show up at my parents’ place several years later to see my beloved child living in a house without indoor plumbing and the same parents with the same problems that marred my childhood. I only mention those things here because all too often when people learn I had a child so young, I am complimented for how well I turned out…or some comment like, “See? It can be done…the pro-choice people always make the choice of life seem so doomed…”

What I really what to share here is that it is 2013 and yet, in terms of abortion rights for young women, it feels like it is 1976 all over again. Don’t read into this that I absolutely would have chosen abortion had it been accessible. Consider instead that I had the option to illegal abortion – and so will young women throughout the country as states further erode abortion rights. Consider that no matter how much more acceptable sexual activity or teen pregnancies are in our culture, we provide minimal education and support for either. Most striking in that regard is that the very people striving to criminalize abortion are at the same time thwarting educational and support services for young people and their tiny offspring.

No choice is an easy choice when a pregnancy is unplanned. Abortion is not a viable or appropriate choice for all women. Adoption has a seedy side that some of us know all too well. Motherhood is best when both the mom and the child are adequately supported by society. If you oppose abortion, think hard before you judge one more woman for thinking abortion is the more moral choice. We really don’t know what we’d do in a given situation until we are there.

GOP Insanity

GOP Insanity

Our government is in turmoil.  The national parks are closed, veterans may not get their well deserved benefits and if you’re a tourist who just arrived in our capital, well, you can still go to a movie.  The entire D.C. government is closed, which actually might not be a bad thing.  It’s a mess and there’s no relief in sight.

As we all know by now, the government shutdown is a result of a group of obnoxious, I-don’t-care-about-governing, right wing Republicans who are still whining about the Affordable Health Care Act which, for PR purposes, they have dubbed “Obamacare.”   Personally, I don’t think that is such a terrible name because I choose to read it as saying that “Obama cares.’  But that’s beside the point.

The Republican Party and, specifically the Tea Partyers, are now upset because they say the AHCA was shoved down their throat, that they had no say in the matter, that they were “bulldozed” by that legislative powerhouse, Nancy Pelosi.  Of course, these charges totally discount the fact that in the House and Senate subcommittee, the House and Senate full committee and the floor of both houses, the Republicans were able to offer dozens upon dozens of amendments to the bill.  One count says they offered at least 500 amendments to the bill.  They offered them, they were debated they generally lost.  And now they want a do-over, government be damned.

GOP Insanity

GOP Insanity

They also say that Obama never listened to them.  (If I were clever enough, I would insert right here a picture of a screaming infant).  Obama never listened, huh?  How soon we forget.

Hey, what about that big brouhaha over the abortion issue?  Remember when anti-abortion groups and legislators started screaming that under Obamacare the federal government would be able to pay for abortions, thus running counter to the long-standing “Hyde Amendment,” which prohibits federal funding of abortions in most cases?   Remember Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak, who wanted to support the healthcare bill but was anti-abortion and shared the same concerns about the use of federal funds.  He offered an amendment that was adopted by the House of Representatives that made clear that no federal dollars could be used for abortion but a similar provision was defeated in the Senate.  Stupak then announced that he and several other Democratic representatives who supported health reform legislation but opposed abortion would not vote for the final version of the legislation unless clarifying language was put forward.  The ensuing controversy made Stupak “perhaps the single most important rank-and-file House member in passing the bill.”

Then the poop hit the fan with the abortion rights group.  They held rallied all over the country.    They were outraged that the President would even think about compromising.  But what did President Obama do?  I guess he could have threatened to shut down the government if he did not get his way but instead he and Stupak reached an understanding and the President ultimately signed an Executive Order barring federal funding of abortion through the AHCA.  Stupak and several of his allies then supported the bill.  Anti abortion groups subsequently accused Stupak of betraying the pro-life movement and ran $150,000 worth of radio advertisements against him. In April 2010, Stupak announced his intention to retire from Congress.

The bottom line is that this is one stark example where the President LISTENED and compromised, acceding to the wishes of the anti-abortion movement (although it did not assuage them).  It’s very convenient that the Republican Party has now forgotten about Bart Stupak.