The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice

Jennifer C. Wang, Note & Comment Editor 2010-11 JGRJ Board

Crisis pregnancy centers (or CPCs) are organizations that purport to provide women with unwanted pregnancies with all of their choices. They are standing propaganda machines, styled to look and appear as if they exist to help women by providing diapers and infant clothing in order to convince women that if and when that if they decide against abortion, someone will be on their side. They often advertise in the phone book under “women’s clinic” or “abortion clinic,” and are staffed by volunteers with no medical training. CPC waiting rooms often have anti-choice videos and literature to convince women not only that abortion is wrong, but also that abortion causes breast cancer, depression, the inability to later conceive, and other blatant lies.

Film makers Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, the masterminds behind the documentary film “Jesus Camp,” have just released a documentary called “12th and Delaware,” which offers watchers the chance to step inside a crisis pregnancy center for themselves. Ewing and Grady employ the “fly on the wall” technique, giving viewers the ability to see the issue for themselves without narration. The crisis pregnancy center in “12th and Delaware” is called the Pregnancy Care Center, located in Fort Pierce, Florida, at the intersection of 12th and Delaware. Interestingly, the Pregnancy Care Center exists strategically across the street from a (real) comprehensive reproductive health clinic called A Woman’s World.

Throughout the film, viewers are offered first hand the chance to interpret and experience the lies, the hypocrisy, and ridiculous tactics stemming from the Pregnancy Care Center. At one point during the film, Anne, the director of the Pregnancy Care Center, attempts to coerce a young woman against having an abortion by telling her that if she has a baby, her abusive boyfriend might not be so abusive anymore. Anne also tells another woman that condoms are ineffective against preventing pregnancies, and that 95 percent of women who have had abortions regret their decisions. Both are utterly untrue, and Anne conveys these statistics with seemingly medical certainty. Anne later explains, “I’m not trying to talk to her out of it…there’s no deceit in this.”

The film ends on a somber note: one morning, a woman arrives for her appointment at A Woman’s World for a scheduled abortion. She speaks only Spanish, and uses her sweater to shield her head from the hoards of protestors from the Pregnancy Care Center. The protestors heckle the woman, saying that she’s making the wrong choice. The woman says that she has six children at home already, and has never received help from anyone. The protestors respond, saying that if she steps into the Pregnancy Care Center, they can pay her rent, write her checks, and purchase food, toys, and clothing for her children. After minutes of heckling, the woman decides to cross the street and enter the crisis pregnancy center. There, she is confronted by a priest, who tells her to choose some toys for her children, and that she made the right decision. Ultimately, women like the one dissuaded from exercising her 14th Amendment right by lies and deception walk away with perhaps one month’s rent, one or two toys, and in this case, a seventh child. It ends here; no one will be on her side after she gives birth.

-Jennifer Wang, JGRJ Student Writer 2009-10

Sunday, February 28, 2010

Recently, the Department of Defense decided to stock emergency contraception to dispense to members of the military in hospitals and health clinics around the world. This occurred during the aftermath of several Bush Administration attacks women’s health, including federal regulation that gave health care workers the ability to refuse to dispense medication or provide medical care in situations that they found to be morally objectionable. This included the ability to refuse to provide reproductive health services for family planning and to rape victims.

Women serving in the military have fought long and hard battles to be recognized as equals and treated with respect and dignity. Countless women are raped and sexually harassed and have had trouble seeking support and assistance from their military counterparts. Countless rapes and instances of sexual assault occur in the military that never get reported. Women serving in the military are at an elevated risk of experiencing discrimination, outright sexual assault, and sexual harassment while serving their country. This has included the problem with disciplining men who rape women in the military, as many ignore the pleas of women who are survivors of rape and sexual harassment.

Emergency contraception, also known as the “morning after pill,” or more commonly, “Plan B,” is effective at preventing pregnancy when taken within seventy-two hours of a sexual encounter. Most physicians and much of the medical community view emergency contraception as a safe and effective way to protect women’s autonomy, particularly in situations of rape. However, certain political communities are of the opinion that emergency contraception is abortion, which is a view that has never been proven or supported by the medical community. However, emergency contraception, like abortion and other reproductive health care measures like comprehensive sex education, are under constant attack.

It is exceptionally crucial that rape victims have access to emergency contraception to prevent an unplanned pregnancy. Further, since women make up a considerable amount of military personnel, and since they have historically experienced prejudice, increased levels of sexual violence, and discrimination, it is of the utmost importance that female survivors of rape and sexual assault have the critical medical treatment that emergency contraception can provide in times of crisis.

The recent decision to provide emergency contraception to women serving in the military will have a widespread effect on the status and autonomy of female troops. The policy has the potential to affect over 350,000 women, and it stands as a beneficial change to the multitude of barriers that women currently experience while serving their country. It is a policy that will undoubtedly contribute to ending gender discrimination and violence against women.

-Connie Valenzuela Lickstein, JGRJ Contributing Member 2009-10

Friday, February 12, 2010

Many people have come together to support the people of Haiti during the incredibly difficult aftermath of the January 12th earthquake. Former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have put their differences aside to advise the Haitian government. Famous singers, actors, and celebrities have combined their talent and popularity to raise funds for the ailing country. But, in the Dominican Republic, one woman has given what is possibly the most valuable of gifts to Haitian children.

Sonia Marmolejos has been breastfeeding Haitian babies whose mothers have either been seriously injured or have passed away as a result of the earthquake. She has fed at least 20 babies in two hospitals in the Dominican Republic—the Dario Contreras hospital in Santo Domingo and the local hospital in Jimani, a town that is located five miles from the Haitian/Dominican border. When Marmolejos heard that there were babies who needed breast milk both in Santo Domingo and by the border, she immediately visited both hospitals. She has since been feeding babies, who are often severely injured themselves. A recent mother herself, Marmolejos has said that she just wants to help in any way she can.

Sonia Marmolejos’ story carries great meaning to the members and readers of the Journal because it shows how a woman can make her own unique contribution to the global effort to help those in need. She symbolizes the fearlessness that we value and the need to immediately address injustice that we all feel. Hers has truly been an act of love towards the Haitian community. Unfortunately, the actions of others have raised concerns about the possibility of child trafficking from Haiti to the Dominican Republic. We can only hope that, for every ill-intentioned person that may try to harm the children of Haiti, there will also be a brave, generous mother who is willing to give life and comfort to those who need it most.

-Sarah Brandt, JGRJ Student Writer 2009-10

Friday, October 23, 2009

Earlier this month, the Oklahoma state legislature passed a law which mandates publishing information about every abortion performed within the state on a public website. The law was intended to take effect on November 1, 2009. Under the law, a woman seeking to obtain an abortion in the state will have to reveal the following information: (1) date of the abortion; (2) county where abortion was performed; (3) age; (4) marital status; (5) race; (6) highest year of completed education; (7) state or foreign country of residence; and (8) total number of previous pregnancies including live births, miscarriages, and abortions. Doctors who fail to comply with reporting requirements face potential revocation of their medical license and criminal penalization. The law will cost almost $300,000 of taxpayer money to implement in the first year and an additional $250,000 for each subsequent year.

Opponents of the law argue that it is a blatant violation of women’s privacy rights. Though women are not required to reveal identifying information, such as their addresses or names, opponents of the law fear that the required information will be sufficient to reveal the identities of women seeking abortions in smaller communities. Keri Parks, Directors of External Affairs at Planned Parenthood of Central Oklahoma, stated, “They’re really just trying to frighten women out of having abortions.” Oklahoma resident Joyce Davis, who filed a lawsuit with Representative Wanda Jo Stapleton over the law, argued that the state should not be able to reveal such personal information about a woman in such a tragic predicament.

Dan Sullivan, the Oklahoma State Representative who wrote the law, stated that the data will help identify the demographic characteristics of the women in Oklahoma who are most at risk for unwanted pregnancies. Sullivan explained, “If there’s something that we can do to positively impact that segment of that population — and have a lowering effect on those rates — then we want to be able to look at what policy decisions we can make.” Because abortion services are available in only three of the seventy-seven counties in Oklahoma, Sullivan argues that it will not be possible to determine a woman’s identity from the solicited information.

Following weeks of heated debate, Twyla Mason Gray, an Oklahoma County District Court Judge, placed a temporary restraining order on the law this week. The temporary ban comes just a year after the Center for Reproductive Rights successfully challenged an Oklahoma law requiring women to view an ultrasound prior to undergoing an abortion. Because the ban of the current law just occurred, it is unclear when or if the current form of the law will ever take effect.

The irony of the law in its current form is that, in each instance for which the state intends to collect information, the abortion will have already taken place. Thus, prevention is no longer possible in each specific instance. Collecting this information after the fact to obtain general statistics about women obtaining abortions in Oklahoma is virtually useless, given that the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention already collects similar statistical information on a state by state basis. With these potential purposes eliminated, it seems the only other possible justifications for the law relate to making it more burdensome and stressful for women to obtain abortions in Oklahoma.

For more information, check out this article and this article about the law, and this article and this article about the law’s temporary restraint.

- Judith Faucette, JGRJ Student Writer 2008-09

Friday, January 30, 2009

On January 23rd, one day after the thirty-sixth anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the case that legalized abortion in the United States, President Obama rescinded the “global gag rule.” Also known as the Mexico City policy, this regulation put a restriction on U.S. government funding to international organizations and American NGOs working abroad based on their abortion-related policies. Organizations that provided abortion-related services or lobbied foreign governments in hopes of easing restrictive abortion policies were ineligible for funding under the rule.

This regulation has been tossed back and forth between presidents since Regan created it in 1984. Bill Clinton rescinded the rule on the twentieth anniversary of Roe v. Wade in 1993, and George W. Bush reinstated it immediately after taking office exactly eight years later. Obama promised to rescind the rule during the campaign, and made many women’s rights activists nervous when he did not do so on January 22nd. However, the decision to rescind the rule a day later was not without reason – Obama explained that his intention was to respect pro-lifers who see the 22nd as a “day of grief,” and while issuing a strong statement on his intention to protect a woman’s right to choose and his commitment to women’s rights in general, he did not want to mix a change in family planning policy up in the emotions of the day.

So far, Obama’s record on women’s rights as President is something of a mixed bag. In addition to rescinding the global gag rule, he also signaled his intent to restore funding to the U.N. Population Fund. President Bush has not spent any of the money authorized for the fund over the past eight years, due to his belief that the fund indirectly supports Chinese coercive abortion policies. However, Congress continues to authorize spending for the fund, which operates in 140 countries around the world and provides reproductive health services, education, and other services. In addition to trying to prevent sexually transmitted diseases including HIV and reduce poverty through family planning, the fund has programs aimed at reducing maternal mortality and closing the gender gap in education.

Obama also signed the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which takes away the 180-day time limit on women’s differential pay claims. McCain notoriously referred to the act as a “trial lawyer’s dream” in justifying his opposition during the campaign, but those in support of the act have pointed out that it can be very difficult to pull together a case in 180 days. The clock starts ticking when the employer makes the decision to pay a woman less than her male counterpart, and women may not be aware of the discrimination right away or be able to get information quickly.

On the other hand, once again showing his desire to keep the Christian right in the political picture and not alienate those across the aisle, Obama convinced House Democrats to drop a provision in the stimulus package that would provide $200 million for education and contraception. This was a politically hot topic, with conservatives decrying the inclusion of “condoms” in a stimulus package and liberals pointing out the financial benefits to the country in the long run in preventing unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Despite resistance from his base, Obama chose to advocate dropping the provision to avoid ruffling political feathers.

Only time will tell whether President Obama can support women in the long run despite his political goals of maintaining bipartisan support, including the support of those opposed to family planning, sex education, and abortion. Some other policies that he may choose to rescind include a last-minute Health and Human Services “conscience” rule that allows health care providers at every stage to refuse to provide services including birth control for religious or moral reasons and a bevy of funding policies that require abstinence-only education, objection to sex work (even in countries where it is legal), and other moral tangents in order for domestic and international organizations to receive funds. Often, these provisions apply to funding that has a broad reach, extending to poverty reduction and increasing opportunities for women in developing nations. There is also a lack of logical correlation in many cases between the funding restrictions and their goal, for example in the case of AIDS in Africa where many infections are transmitted within marriage, making abstinence-only education pointless. Another action Obama might support is repeal of the Hyde Amendment, a law that bars federal Medicaid funding for abortion except in cases where the woman’s life is in danger or she is a victim of rape or incest.

In my experience working for nine months on policies related to financial access to abortion, I learned that lack of access to abortion, and to other family planning services, can be dangerous to the woman and expensive for the state. Women on Medicaid, for example, may induce abortion in an unsafe environment because they do not qualify for coverage under the Hyde Amendment and cannot afford to support another child. This can lead to permanent damage or death, as well as costing the state much more than the cost of an abortion. Pregnancy is also very expensive for the state, as is the cost of supporting a woman who has more children than she can afford.
These are also not always “elective” abortions. Women can be faced with a very difficult choice when the fetus has an abnormality that will make it unlikely to survive or ever be a healthy child. Women whose health is endangered by the pregnancy also may not have access to a safe abortion if their state does not choose to provide Medicaid funding.

The same issues come up in the context of the global gag rule – women in developing countries, especially, may turn to unsafe abortions if their state does not allow or fund abortion. By taking away funding from organizations that help these women, the policy not only made it more likely that women would turn to unsafe funding because underfunded clinics could not help them, but also made unwanted pregnancies more likely because organizations could not afford to provide contraceptives and other reproductive health care services. In areas where AIDS runs rampant, contraception and education programs are absolutely crucial, and have nothing to do with abortion, but funding could be cut off from these programs if the same organization was involved with abortion services.

These issues are not only moral – they concern the health, safety, and lives of women. Family planning services can reduce poverty and the gender gap. They can also decrease maternal mortality rates, increase female education, and make pregnancies safer. For these reasons, I hope that Obama will continue to support reconsideration of these policies and a legal framework that empowers women in the U.S. and around the world.