Check me out on a new blog.

Hey all - I'm also posting over at Dakota Women. Here's my first post.

The Handmaid's Tale in SD

An interesting take on the new abortion ban.

I *was* going to post about being discouraged.

But I am going to have to save that post for another time. Because I just found this doozy of a statement. All emphasis is mine:

ok, this [last year's abortion ban in SD - PF] is a nail in the coffin to all CF [childfree people] in america.

this chimp in charge [Roger Hunt, maybe?], he is a religous nutter quite frankly, but he listens to the feminists, it used to be women had to have the choice of aborting or not, thats their choice, but the new breed of feminists they want women to have kids, have a job, have everything, without thought of population or standards of living.

In case you missed it - yes, he is blaming feminists for the abortion ban. Not for not doing enough to prevent it, you understand, but for supporting it.

And I guess I should wait until you finish laughing (are you laughing more about that "he listens to the feminists" comment or about feminists supporting the abortion ban?).

Ready? OK.

this is going to make so many women take the extreme measures of coathangers, and suicides and by not regulation the clinics then, you get back to the backroom clinics where the mortality rate was very high. and we all know people dying isnt as bad as a few cells.

i feel sorry for the americans to have this kind of person in charge. there is no choice anymore, these feminists have said you can do it all.. all at once. so you will get more single parent families, more problem children, who have more kids, who are more problematical. and so on and it gets worse when the government bribes these single women, into having kids (as in australia) with tax breaks and so on.

the decline of civilisation (but then again bush's friend beleives in the rapture and has stated that they dont need to do ecology as when everyone gets the rapture it will all be fixed.) damned fundie, breeders, religious nutter.

OK, seriously, where do people come up with this stuff?! ~shakes head~

I think I may be in this movie.

This is sort of a post to the people who know me IRL. Please don't let it distract you from the much more substantive one below.

But.

I really hope I'm not.

And no, for those of you who are wondering, I didn't have an abortion in the film.

Abortion Ban II: Where'd all these chickens come from?

An excellent guest post - which I completely agree with, by the way - by Kelsey, about the state of abortion rights in South Dakota:

In reference to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Malcolm X once said it was a case of "chickens coming home to roost." He was severely criticized for intimating that Kennedy was a victim of the violence that he was complicit in. People don't like it when you criticize their heroes.

So some people who feel like we had some giant pro-choice victory on November 7 might not like my suggestion that this newest abortion ban is chickens coming home to roost. This week, I've had a number of people tell me that they cannot believe another abortion ban has been introduced. Honestly, I would've been pretty surprised if it hadn't. For months, all we talked about was exceptions. Lawns all over South Dakota screamed, "No Exceptions! No Exceptions!" We were told we couldn't go out on a corner with signs that said "Honk for Choice." No, hold this "Honk for No Exceptions" sign instead. And now we're surprised that the other side is claiming that the election was not a mandate on a woman's right to choose, but a mandate on exceptions. Gee whiz, who saw that coming? I'll tell you who: everyone. I can't even count how many conversations I had where someone was like, "I'm sort of worried that all this talk about exceptions is going to lead to the antis introducing a ban with exceptions next session." Good call, guys.

Now, I know it seems a little counter intuitive; a ban with exceptions kind of defeats a lot of the arguments the antis trotted out during the election (weren't they moaning that you could 'drive a truck through' a health exception?). But they feel like they've got something to prove now, so they're going to go through with it, regardless. It's going to have a helluva time getting through the Senate and if did pass through some miracle, I'm sure there would be a legal challenge and an injunction before you could say Jack Robinson, but let's not get too comfortable, okay? The disbelief I'm hearing right now makes me worry that people think the fight's over and believe me, it's not. A lot could happen in the months to come and we need to stay, dare I say, vigilant. And next time (no doubt, there will be a next time), can we come up with something a little more ballsy than "No Exceptions"?

Updates on abortion legislation 'round the country.

First, here's a link to a blog post about a terrifying story: the story of Amber Abreu, 18-year-old Massachusetts resident, who has been arrested and may be charged with manslaughter for using Misoprostol to cause an abortion. Read the whole thing and follow the link to the news story - it's preposterous. And check out the very very long list of links at the end.

And second, here's a guest post by Keepaskingwhy on...

North Dakota's State Legislation on Reproductive Rights

ND still has 2 abortion related bills pending. Our legislature meets every other year and typically runs through April. Here's the info on the pending bills:

HB 1466: Passed the House 61-26. This bill is being called the "trigger bill" because it only goes into effect upon the overturning of Roe v. Wade. This was the only bill with this requirement. The bill makes abortion illegal except to save the life of the mother. No exemptions for rape or incest. Felony for anyone who assists in an abortion but during testimony it was indicated that woman was not included (bill is a little vague in that area). This bill had some democratic support in sponsorship and passage on the House side.

SB 2400: This bill has not had a hearing yet. Gives rights of citizenship to born and preborn as identifed in the ND state policy on abortion and child birth.

Three previously filed bills were defeated last Friday. I won't go into a lot of detail on them except to note them:

HB 1464: Failed on House floor 49-39. Bill was vague and there was a lot of confusion as far as its effect. Added in multi-fetal abortions as being restricted. Lots and lots in bill about materials, videos, etc. to be shown to a woman seeking an abortion.

HB 1489: Failed on House floor 69-20. Strongest worded bill filed. Outlawed abortion, period. No exemptions. Although there was some dispute in the hearing, appears to provide for prosecution of woman as well as anyone else who assisted. Also appeared to make birth control illegal. Sponsors stated it was designed to be a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade by addressing the items noted by Blackmun in Roe v. Wade. This hearing was particularly offensive. I'm paraphrasing but one of the sponsors essentially said that we need to make abortion illegal no matter what because women are too easily influenced by others. In other words, we need big, all-knowing men like him to protect us from making our own decisions about what's best for us. Bleh.

HB 1494: Failed on House floor 60-29. This bill restricted use of public funds for genetic testing. Bill was very vague and confusing. During testimony it came out that focus of the bill was to prohibit genetic testing where there is no cure. Ex., down's syndrome. Since there's no cure, there's no need to do testing because knowing would then influence the woman into possibly having an abortion. While testing in which there is a cure (ex. spinal bifida), should be allowed so could be fixed in utero. The big insurance company here was against this bill because it would be impossible to implement with changes in medical testing, etc. (ND Leg Session only meets every other year). Plus, there has been no issue regarding any insurance company forcing an abortion as a result of genetic testing results.

There was also SB 2312 which we wondered if meant as a way to restrict abortions but was found to not be abortion related at all.

On all these bills, it was the usual cast of characters as far as who was for and against.

The State of South Dakota came up a lot in these hearings and all the press SD got last year really helped in the defeat of HB 1489 in my opinion. The ND Legislature didn't seem to want the national attention of publicly challenging Roe v. Wade (although they have no problems with the national attention and ridicule we get from having a cohabitation ban which makes it illegal for the opposite sex to live together).

That's the report from your northern neighbor...now keep that other stuff in your state. We've got our hands full as it is up here!

Thanks, Keepaskingwhy! Feel free to post updates at any time - and I'm still open to guest bloggers for news on SD's new proposed ban (and for news on abortion legislation across the nation. God, that sounds like a slogan, doesn't it? "Plain(s) Feminist: News on Abortion Legislation Across the Nation." Sheesh.)

Another abortion ban.

I'm still sick.

I will refer you all here for updates re. the new ban.

And - I am looking for a couple of guest bloggers on this issue. Keepaskingwhy, let me know if you'd like to do a post on what's happening in ND. Anyone else who is up on SD happenings (*cough* Kelsey *cough* Anna), let me know if you'd be willing to write an update, analysis, parodic play, ironic poem, etc.

Pro-choice v. pro-choice.

First, here are links to the most recent blog blow-up. Go read them.

All set? OK, then.

I'm going to leave aside the questions of who behaved badly and how and all that. What I thought was interesting about all of this was the different pro-choice positions that were displayed.

What does "pro-choice" mean? The most general definition that pretty much everyone who calls herself "pro-choice" would agree on is the belief that women should make their own reproductive decisions, specifically regarding abortion and birth control. In more recent years, the movement has begun to address larger issues of reproductive rights, including forced sterilization, forced abortion, access to good prenatal care, etc. However, the basic focus has remained on abortion rights.

When a woman says that she is pro-life but then declares that she believes that abortion should be safe and legal for all women and that it is a personal decision, I read her as saying that she finds abortion morally repugnant but that, at the end of the day, she is pro-choice. Because, in essence, she supports leaving the choice up to the individual woman.

This is no small thing. In fact, many women I've met share these feelings. What they feel is a serious concern about abortion, an uneasiness, a conviction that abortion is a tragedy. Some point out that they themselves would never have an abortion. And yet, at the same time, they still believe that women need to be able to make these decisions independently.

Some of these women may call themselves pro-choice and simultaneously express these misgivings. Some may not even call themselves pro-choice but may take the exact same position as the pro-choicers. The end result is the same: women who support women's rights to make personal decisions about our bodies.

What I got from Rootie's post was that she was, essentially, pro-choice, though she didn't want to use that label. But as long as she supports a woman's right to have an abortion, she's supporting choice.

But for Jane Awake, this was not enough. Jane felt that this need to qualify was part of the problem; it gave credence to the notion of abortion as murder and as necessarily a horrible (though sometimes necessary) decision. To Jane, using "pro-life" language, even while supporting pro-choice positions, is not pro-choice.

And to an extent, I can see Jane's point. When we talk about abortion in SD, we generally add a disclaimer along the lines of, of course, having an abortion would be a terribly difficult decision. Of course it would be a sad thing, but sometimes it's for the best.

The reality, of course, is that different people have different reactions, and for the record, none of my close friends who've talked to me about their abortions have ever regretted them. And none thought twice about having them in the first place, either. I'm not saying that no one has regrets or second thoughts - just that these things aren't part of everybody's abortion experience.

But see, this is scary. The "pro-life" side paints women as reckless, having abortions for fun and using them as birth control (which implies regular abortions and careless use of actual birth control). So if we say, "abortion does not have to be a big deal," we're playing right into their hands and being loose women with no morals (after all, we don't think killing our babies is a big deal!).

But if we get all moralistic and look down at the ground and talk about how sad it is that this is sometimes an option...well, that plays into their hands, too. And I can understand Jane's frustration.

Of course, many in the pro-choice movement do find abortion problematic and disturbing, as well. These women should not be forced to repeat rhetoric. They, too, are entitled to their feelings.

Some women say, "I would never have an abortion." I've felt that way. And, in fact, a couple of years after writing it publically, I was able to think up scenarios in which I am pretty sure that I *would* have an abortion. But perhaps more to the point, as Jane reminds us, many, many women say they'd never have abortions and then have abortions. The truth is, you don't know until you get there what you might do in a theoretical situation. Meanwhile, the "I'd never have an abortion" statement can act to divide women, and it infuses the whole thing with a sense of "I am morally correct and good, and I would never do such a horrible thing, but I guess I support your right to do it." Conversely, though, it can also allow someone who is empathetic toward other women but, for religious reasons, convinced that abortion is murder, to find a middle ground where she can be at peace between the opposing sides.

For many, saying "I'd never have an abortion but" is simply speaking the truth as they know it to be.

And then, of course, there are the women who have had an abortion (or three) and who have since become "pro-life," which means that when the chips were down, they got to make a choice, and now they are damn sure going to try to prevent anyone else from having that option. But I will say this: those women who say they've been hurt by abortion? I think we in the pro-choice movement ought to listen to them. Because, as one prominent abortion researcher (who has never found a link between abortion and the myriad ills the pro-life movement tries to link it to, and who spends her time debunking crappy pro-life "studies") said to me, if reputable studies ever *do* show that there are women who are suffering as a result of their abortions, then we need to research this so that we can treat them.

Not so that we can criminalize abortion.

Isn't that delightfully sane?

The bottom line for me is that my morals are not dictated by the "pro-life" movement, and I don't have to please them. I think we need room in the pro-choice movement for anyone who supports our goals, regardless of what they call themselves and of what language they use to talk about abortion.

***

Since I began working on this post, a discussion started up in the comments of one of my earlier posts, and I'd like to address it in this thread, as well. One person repeatedly made comments that suggested that the pro-choice movement is, and feminists are - and this is not her terminology, so if I have misunderstood, I hope she will clarify - essentially anti-reproduction.

With regard to the pro-choice movement, it is common for "pro-lifers" to understand "pro-choice" to mean "always choose abortion." This is because it is politically expedient for their movement to portray us this way. But it is also because it is difficult for some people to grasp that they can be both in favor of women making their own choices AND ALSO not need to want to abort their own - or all - pregnancies.

It seems a simple enough point that it should not need to be stated at all, much less clarified. But I have run into this again and again, in the form of slogans such as "your mother was pro-life" (which, in fact, she isn't); the implication here seems to be that, because she didn't abort *me*, she must be pro-life. This of course makes no sense. If the pro-choice motto were "always abort," there'd be no choice involved.

I also encountered it last fall when I met a pregnant woman - who was pro-choice - who did not want to sign the petition to put the abortion ban on the SD ballot. She gestured at her belly as a reason, yet in her other discussions, she seemed to support abortion rights for women. But for some reason, she felt a contradiction between supporting them publically and being pregnant.

And, I have run into this misperception many times from students, who often call pro-choice "pro-abortion" and have no inkling that very many of the women I've met in the movement have not had abortions, believe they never will have abortions, and think of abortions as a horrible thing (and now I'm back, nearly, where I started).

What I always notice, by the way, whether at marches in Washington, D.C. or at the clinic or on the picket line, is that, unfailingly, there are always mothers there with me, some with big maternity "choice" (with an arrow pointing to their bellies) t-shirts, and some who want their daughters to have better options than they did.

And I also wanted to point out, again for the record, that while there are some schools of feminism that have argued against "breeding" (particularly in the 1970s, but less so thereafter), there are also schools of feminism that are centered in the notion of motherhood as integral to the female experience. Further, women of color feminist theories have, for the most part, focused on woman as mother and in relation to family and community. Indigenous concerns about women's status are, in part, closely tied to the roles of those women as mothers of the next generation. Environmental feminism explores things like environmental racism (for example, the storing of depleted uranium on Native American reservations) and the effects of toxins on mothers and children. I can think of a couple of radical feminist blogs that are all about women as natural nurturers and mothers. And feminists who worship the Goddess and/or Gaia also celebrate women bearing life.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who supports reproductive rights (which includes the right to reproduce) is part of my movement - no matter what she calls herself or how she talks about it.

Blog for Choice

Driving home today, I was thinking, "geez, I should really blog for choice and be part of the whole thing, but I've written so much about this issue over the last year that I'm kind of out of ideas."

And so I picked up Bean from daycare and took him with me to a Roe v. Wade celebratory dinner presentation - a get-together that we had to leave shortly thereafter because Bean wouldn't stop crawling under the table and through the folding chairs, kneeling a couple of times on the edge of the tablecloth, nearly pulling the whole thing off along with the fancy goblets of ice water.

So...yeah. I took my child, whom I chose to have, to a pro-Choice celebration, and then we didn't have the option of staying because 5-year-olds have trouble sitting still at these things. When Choices Collide.

But I'm so very glad and grateful that having him was a choice - that I got to choose to have a baby, and that I got support to have him, and that I had access to medical care when things looked dicey. And that it was not a pregnancy that I was forced into, or one that I didn't really want, or one that was unduly threatened by environmental toxins (as are those of so many women of color due to environmental racism), and that I didn't spend my pregnancy dodging gunfire and landmines (as do so many women around the world) and that, after the miscarriage and all the scary stuff, Bean made it safely into the world.

Here's to real options for all women. ~clink~

Leslee Unruh wrote the ban?!

I don't know how I missed this news, but apparently Leslee has copped to drafting the first version of the ban. Read all about it, including all the weird incestuous conflicts of interest that followed (husband on the Task Force to Study Abortion, son-in-law in the Vote Yes commercial, etc.), here.

Going JANE on Their Asses.

So Plan B (also known as Emergency Contraception) is now over the counter in South Dakota. Of course, a woman wanting to get it still has to run the obstacle course. If she's under 18, she can't buy it over the counter and has to find a doctor willing to prescribe it.

Both of the hospitals in my city - major, regional medical centers that draw people in from neighboring states - have despicable policies when it comes to EC.

The Catholic hospital's policies are, not surprisingly, dictated by religious doctrine. So let's imagine a woman, Jane, who wants to get EC and goes to this hospital. First, to get EC, Jane must first have been raped. If she was having consensual sex, then no EC for Jane. But if she has been raped, then just-raped Jane must undergo a protein test to see if she has ovulated. If she has ovulated, she will not be given EC, because the Catholic Church believes, in defiance of the medical definition, that preventing a fertilized egg from implanting constitutes abortion (medical science states that pregnancy begins at implantation; thus, abortion can only take place after that). So if just-raped Jane is found to have ovulated, she would then be sent off to to try her luck elsewhere. (One hopes that she would also be given counseling and that representatives from Rape Crisis would at this point begin whacking the hospital staff with their own clipboards.)

At our teaching hospital, decisions about whether or not to prescribe EC are left up to the doctors. That means that Jane may very well find that the doctor on call that weekend is one who will not prescribe EC. (And even if she finds one who will, don't kid yourself that these doctors don't have their own list of qualifications - including that one be married - for EC recipients.)

Well, thank God it's over the counter for women over 18, then, right? It's simply a matter of finding a pharmacy that will carry EC. But one of our major drugstore chains has already said they won't carry it. Another will, but our friend Jane still has to find a pharmacist who will provide it, because pharmacists are allowed to refuse to provide it if they feel self-righteous and judgmental. And while we've all heard about the 72-hour window within which the drug should be taken, the reality is that it should ideally be taken within 24 hours, when it is most effective. So now Jane has a dilemma on her hands.

One local news station quoted an OB/GYN making an interesting suggestion:
"...because the drug must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex in order to be effective, some women may want to consider giving Plan B a regular place in the medicine cabinet alongside the Band-Aids. Dr. Nelson says, 'We know that Plan B works better if it's taken sooner, so having it right at your fingertips when you're in need can make such a big difference.'"
This may not sound newsworthy in civilized areas, but for someone to suggest that women keep EC on hand for emergencies is, in South Dakota, tantamount to calling for abortion on demand through the third trimester.

But it's a damn good idea, isn't it? Do you know what the policies for EC distribution are in your town? Do you want to find out at midnight on a Friday night when the Planned Parenthood clinic is closed until Monday morning?

Back in the '70s, the Jane Collective provided abortions to women who needed them. They collaborated with doctors, but eventually learned to perform them on their own, and with excellent results. More recently, women have worked in groups to perform menstrual extractions as another method of pregnancy prevention (or abortion, depending on whether or implantation has occurred).

So why not an EC Collective? Why not distribute EC across the country, from urban to rural communities, from forward-thinking states to the Victorian ones?

Looks like someone beat me to it.

And meanwhile, if that's a little too bold for your blood, then gather your girlfriends and make an afternoon of demanding EC at one or more of your local drugstores. Go in groups. Alert the media. Make the point that pharmacists don't have the right to determine our future pregnancies.

Catholicism and Abortion: A History

I was fortunate to receive a copy of the following essay via email from Judith Arcana. I immediately contacted Judith to ask if I could post it here and she was gracious enough to allow me to do so.

I wanted to post this piece because we are sorely in need of a history and theology lesson. I'm tired of the Right co-opting God and morality, I'm tired of people shouting at me that they know what God wants, I'm tired of being told that faithful people who are pro-choice are "false prophets," and I'm tired, frankly, of crappy research and theorizing that depends more hegemonic beliefs than it does on fact.

When the man said "the truth will set you free," he meant exactly this kind of truth and the way that it sets us free to think for ourselves and to think about the repercussions of simply believing what others tell us is true.

A Short Essay About A Long History
by Judith Arcana, November 2006

Recently I learned that my work was being discussed on some anti-abortion websites because I’d been invited to do three events in early October at Loyola University of Chicago.

There was one guy who wrote that he was moved to reach for his baseball bat and shotgun when he thought about my being a guest at Loyola. There was one woman who argued for the value of diverse opinions. Everybody else expressed anger and sadness. The general outrage was focused on the fact that I, a writer and activist for reproductive justice, had been invited to visit a Catholic school, a Jesuit university (of which, by the way, I am a graduate).

The anti-abortion people’s responses reminded me how ignorant almost everybody is about the history of the Church in relation to abortion, how crucial that history is for Catholic women and girls, and how damaging that ignorance can be in the lives of millions, both Catholic and not. Fact is, Church thinking and policy on abortion have been various, to say the least, over many hundreds of years.

I learned this while studying at the Rockefeller Archives in New York in 1999. I was reading texts about abortion, contraception and related issues, including the founding of Planned Parenthood, an enterprise of importance to some members of the Rockefeller family. I read a pamphlet prepared in the nineteen-seventies by Catholics for a Free Choice; I read hundreds of pages of minutes from meetings, a variety of reports, and lots of correspondence. My goal was simply to take in as much as I could and maybe riff on what I’d found, writing poems for a book manuscript (What if your mother*). I was flat-out amazed at what I learned, and I want to tell everybody all about it.

You might ask: Why? What’s the big deal? And if you did, I’d answer: The Catholic Church is a source of huge amounts of money and influence in the international politics of reproductive justice, and fights fiercely to prevent access to authentic sex education and effective family planning services all over the world.

So. First of all, I see it’s useful to include Aristotle, that ever-present precursor to, and influence upon, Christianity: he theorized that a fetus becomes human (is “ensouled”) 40 days after conception if male, 80 if female. Since there was no way for him or anybody else in those days to know the sex of a fetus at any time during pregnancy, his theory is intriguing, to say the least. Aristotle was born in 384 BCE and died in 322 BCE; clever as he was, he did a certain amount of damage in his 62 years.

Now, on to the Church he influenced, for a selection of useful, interesting bits:
St. Jerome (b.347, d.420), was beatified in 1747 and canonized in 1767. He wrote to a woman named Algasis (probably his student) that “seeds are gradually formed in the uterus, and it [abortion] is not reputed homicide until the scattered elements receive their appearances and members.” Why he embraced that idea we cannot say, but we can say that such thinking scarcely supports an absolute anti-abortion position.

Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) held that abortion was “not irregular” if the fetus was not yet “vivified” or “animated.” This distinction evokes the concept of “quickening,” which was until recently a notable marker in fetal development but now is often displaced by “viability” as a result of new medical technology and legal considerations.

Innocent’s principles were adopted into the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX, who was pope in his very old age (1227-1241). Gregory was a complicated guy, by no means a champ on every front. His record is a fine reminder of how important it is for us to recognize complexity. Born in 1145, he lived almost a hundred years and is sometimes said to have been a hero to St. Francis (who died the year before Gregory became pope), but he preached in favor of the Crusades and burned heretics.

Thomas Aquinas (b.1225, d.1274), of all people, turns out to have been one of those who thought that abortion of only an “animated” fetus should be considered murder, a thoughtful position even now, despite the complications of “viability.”

One of my personal favorites is Tomás Sanchez (b.1550, d.1610), a Jesuit scholar. He said that abortion was lawful when the fetus was not yet “ensouled” and also when the mother would die from carrying it to term. I thought of him instantly when the anti-abortion people complained about my being invited to a Jesuit university. (I have to tell you that my copy of the Fall issue of Loyola’s magazine arrived this week, and its cover says: “Welcome home to Loyola.”)

It’s useful to know that the catechism of the Council of Trent in 1566 held that “in the natural order, no body can be informed by a human soul except after the prescribed space of time.” Though the “prescribed space of time” is unclear, council discussion was about the business of ensuring that Jesus was understood to be different from everyone else in human form because his soul was joined to his body at the time of conception, unlike all (other) human beings. This seems a useful note to sound when discussing abortion.

Sixtus V outlawed all abortion in 1588. That was the year the Protestant Virgin Queen, Elizabeth Tudor, thoroughly trounced the power of the Church through her navy’s defeat of the Spanish Armada, a fleet blessed by the Pope and considered invincible in much the same way the Titanic was later considered unsinkable. As I recall, the Armada suffered from rough weather in the English Channel almost as much as from the smaller, faster ships that harried them, but I can’t help thinking Sixtus may have been in an especially misogynist frame of mind. Mind you, I don’t even know which came first, the edict or the defeat; but he certainly was in a near-constant rage about Elizabeth in those years.

Only three years later, another victory for the girls’ team: Pope Gregory XIV changed the law in 1591. He allowed abortions to be done up to the 40th day of gestation (some scholars dispute this, putting Gregory’s deadline at the even longer sixteen and a half weeks). Pinpointing the moment of conception then was surely no less dicey than it is now, so this ruling was a gift to women.

Saint Alphonsus Ligouri (b. 1696, d.1787) said that the fetus is “certainly not animated before it is formed.” It’s fair to assume he was referring to the “form” of a human being (as opposed, for example, to a five or six week fetus, which still has a discernible tail). He also said abortion should be allowed when needed to save the life of the mother.

In 1869, less than a hundred years after Saint Alphonsus’ death, Pope Pius IX forbade all abortion. Like Sixtus V, he was a hardliner, and that hard line, a ruling made less than 150 years ago, is church law in our time.

Pius XII announced in 1958 that the pill, that miracle of mid-20th century chemistry, was immoral because it prevents ovulation. Pius was a big opponent of overt sexuality as well as birth control. (What with the current connections so often made among stem cell research, conception, contraception, and abortion, I’ll note here that in that same year a Nobel prize for physiology and medicine was shared by Joshua Lederberg and the team of George W. Beadle/Edward Tatum, all of whom were working on genetics.)

Pius died the same year he banned the pill, and John XXIII became pope, bringing joy to millions of people all over the world, many of whom were not even members of his church. But he died in less than five years, so we will never know if his intelligence and compassion could have led him to the kind of radical shift implemented by those other popes in the past. We do know that his bishops affirmed “the value and necessity of wisely planned education of children in human sexuality.” Whatever they actually meant by this, their statement certainly could, even now, be interpreted as good news.

In the middle of 1964, Pope Paul announced that the Church position on birth control was “being studied.” Though this is a time-honored method of delaying action (often forever), John D. Rockefeller III considered it an opportunity to further the cause of family planning. He was cautioned, in the correspondence I read at the Archives, that there would be no overturning of papal proclamations, only the possibility of reinterpretation. There was an exchange in which he was urged to understand that the Church would not accept contraception that “destroys the natural structure of the marital act,” but he still thought there might be some acceptance of methods that intervene in the physiology of an individual person. That is, devices would be forbidden while chemicals would be allowed. But the pill remained condemned, and no part of JDR3’s hopeful interpretation has yet been realized.

Benedict now occupies the papal throne. His presence there may seem a grim emblem in the face of the desperately difficult struggle for women’s reproductive health. But Benedict now has to consider the use of condoms in relation to AIDS. I bet he’s thinking about this history of differing opinions, edicts, principles, and the willingness of all those men to contradict each other, to overturn each other’s rules.

Knowing that Vatican law has not been constant may make us angry: uncounted millions of women’s motherhood decisions have been dictated by all that back-and-forth. Or, knowing that Vatican law has not been constant may make us joyous: the generosity and grace of some men of the Church brought relief and release to many women and girls. Either way, knowing this history is provocative, energizing, liberating. Let’s tell everybody all about it.

*You can order copies of What if your mother from your local independent bookstore, from Amazon.com, or directly from the publisher at chicorybluepress.com.

You can learn more about Judith Arcana and read more of her writing here.

My election night (and the morning after)

It was 10pm before I even left the house to go to the election celebration at the Sioux Falls Sheraton, and I was in a mood. It's hard to bounce back and forth between the need to work together and the need to smack someone upside the head for being an idiot. And it's hard, too, to lose one's cool, as I have done publically, and then to go back and talk to these same people without feeling either angry all over again or like a great big idiot myself.

But I went, and I'm sure my friends were all thrilled to have me there as I was extremely cynical and pessimistic for most of the night, and every time some happy pro-choice activist would say, "I'm so glad it's OVER!!!" I would helpfully point out that it wasn't - that there is likely another version of the ban coming in a couple of months. (One kind soul finally took me aside and gently said, "Look. I really need to be happy about this just for tonight. Tomorrow, I promise, I'll be back to strategizing." And as I recognize that timing has never been my strong suit, and that I'm always working a couple of steps ahead of or behind everyone else, but rarely in step, I really did try to put on my brave little toaster face.

Random bit of trivia about me: I am completely incapable of not wearing my heart on my sleeve. If I am upset about something, you will know it. And I get upset a lot when it comes to trying to work together with other people in political situations, which is why I'm frequently threatening (to myself, mostly) to quit this or that organization or party. So I'm not at all sure that my brave little toaster face was convincing, and in retrospect, I'm really wishing I had bought everyone in our little bar group a drink last night.)

All day yesterday, whenever anyone had asked me what I was thinking about the outcome, I would say, "I think it's all going to go into the toilet." And their faces would fall, and I wouldn't even have enough hopeful energy to feel bad for making them feel bad. I was holding myself in that guarded place, in that way that you do when you talk to a friend or ex who has hurt you and you are trying to have a conversation with them but you don't trust them not to hurt you again. After the 2004 election, when I had been so sure that Bush would have his ass handed to him, it was hard to allow myself to feel hopeful.

But anyway, as the results started to come in and I noticed that the Democrats had won the House and perhaps the Senate, and as a few of the ballot issues I had voted on were coming out my way - I started to feel different. (I'm quite sure that, had I not been driving and therefore been able to drink, I would have mellowed out quite a bit earlier.) I didn't need the brave little toaster face after a while. I ended up staying out quite late and cheering on the results with everyone else. And for the most part, I think I managed to control my inner, bitter Plainsfeminist and let the less neurotic Plainsfeminist out to mingle.

Today, I am feeling postively chipper. Well - strung out and half-dead, having only slept for about four hours, but as chipper as one can be under those circumstances.

I took particular enjoyment in listening to a few of the Bushies try to claim that this mean that Republicans must stay the course, and in watching Bush try to convince us that he and Rumsfeld had been planning Rumsfeld's departure for some time but just didn't want to upset the election by introducing it now. (Because, of course, if both parties are calling for you to replace the guy, you should hold out until after the election, since doing so earlier might signal to disgusted members of your own party that you might be willing to change your approach and that they could maybe trust you and vote Republican yet again.)

And I've also had a pleasant back-and-forth in my head about impeachment: Bush deserves to be impeached. The crimes he has committed against our system of government need to be treated as crimes and punished because we never want anyone ever again to fuck with our system like this. And if we let all of this go, we are essentially saying, yet again, that Democrats are weenies who won't follow through.

But at the same time, we're the nice-guy party. Pelosi has made it clear that she is all about progress, and progress, methinks, won't happen if we move from this disaster of an administration into congressional hearings on the president's illegal actions. She's doing the Daschle thing, and I can't decide if I'm happy about that or not, because on the one hand, I want them to kick butts and take names, and on the other hand, I want them to raise the level of civil discourse in politics significantly.

And on the third hand, I'm so blissfully happy to be able to even consider these options that I almost don't care. I'm just happy that we've got our government back. Sort of.

(I'm also sort of secretly hoping that this loss will cause Bush to think twice about believing that God is on his side simply because no one has been able to stop him. I'm hoping that his prayers tonight begin, "Dear God, Obviously I've let you down, and I'm amazed at the graciousness of the Democrats in this instance, and just maybe I can learn something from people who don't agree with me" - but I'm not holding my breath.)

Whatever happens next...

I'm writing this on election day, four hours before the polls close.

Whatever happens next for the abortion ban, the pro-choice movement needs to make some changes (especially in South Dakota).

The Campaign for Healthy Families has been fighting the good fight, mostly focusing on getting out the vote. They have been the ones pounding the pavement, knocking on doors, calling folks, and putting the truth about the abortion ban into the hands of the voters. And that's been important work, and I, for one, am grateful. And I want to make clear that the remarks that follow are not criticisms of Campaign workers and volunteers. They are criticisms of Campaign leaders, who didn't lead well and who, therefore, may have lost us this fight.

Campaign was run like - well, like an election campaign (hence the thoroughly imaginative name for last week's rally: "Election Campaign to Repeal the Abortion Ban." Makes you want to jump right up and get involved, doesn't it?).

Because of this, Campaign has had no room and no patience for pro-choice activism. (In fact, activists with "pro-choice" signs at a recent pro-choice protest were told by Campaign staff that no signs with the word "choice" on them would be allowed.)

To put it plainly, everyone involved, including several of the people working for the Campaign, think it was a "piss-poor organizing effort" (in the words of an activist colleague of mine working West River). I mean EVERYONE thinks the Campaign sucked. What they did was to completely squelch the growing pro-choice movement in South Dakota. They frequently did not allow pro-choice representatives to debate VoteYes representatives or even to appear on the same platform with them, so that what could have been public forums and opportunities to counter misinformation became one-sided presentations. The challenges to VoteYes' lies that did come were too little, too late.

Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and the Feminist Majority let them do it. They agreed to work in partnership with Campaign, and they agreed to let Campaign hold the reins. And when local chapters protested, they were told by their National HQs to let Campaign make the decisions.

Further, it's important to note that, while the name of the Campaign has been on every pro-choice effort we've seen, it has been largely due to the struggles of Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and Feminist Majority leaders and volunteers (local and out-of-state) that anything other than GOTV calls and lit drops got done at all. Campaign quickly earned a reputation for organizing events at the last minute, which were then poorly attended and not well-covered in the media. (Last week's rally was an exception only because other activists convinced Campaign that announcing it with less than a week's notice and planning to hold it indoors would be a bad idea.)

Campaign was afraid antis would show up. They were terrified of antis.

Maybe this is a good place to say that, in my experience with the movement, there are ALWAYS antis, and they always come to pro-choice events, and they always make their presence felt. Outside of South Dakota, pro-choicers do the same thing to them: the point is to always make a presence of the opposition. But we don't do that here, and people are always surprised and dismayed that the antis have, yet again, figured out where and when to show up with their (mostly not graphic) signs. But despite Campaign's fear, the most confrontational experience I've had here has been having a passing driver yell "Babykiller!" at me. In other places, pro-choice protestors are physically assaulted, spat on, and continually verbally harassed by mobs. That has, for the most part, not happened here. What has happened at organized protests is that, sometimes, pro-choicers have been outnumbered by anti-choicers, who insist on standing next to us and who try to cover our signs with theirs.

What Campaign didn't understand is that pro-choice activism means getting out there with a sign DESPITE the fact that you are outnumbered. Being visible reminds folks that there are dissenting opinions. It gives the people who see you hope. It makes them maybe want to come out and join you. If all the pro-choice activists simply gave up whenever they were outnumbered, Roe would have been overturned long ago.

And last spring, pro-choice activists in South Dakota were visible. We had huge rallies (for SD, anyway), and people who had never before been involved in activism and politics were coming out and holding signs and wearing buttons and t-shirts and telling their grammas why they should oppose the ban. (And I met some grammas who were out there telling teenagers whey *they* should oppose the ban, too.)

And then Campaign took over. And all that visibility just evaporated. Suddenly, the local pro-choice network was no longer calling the shots, and everything was about voter registration and lit drops.

I won't take away from Campaign what they did well, which was exactly this GOTV effort. Clearly, that effort was crucial. But it should not have happened at the expense of continued activism, continued visibility, continued morale-boosting of the pro-choice community. We lost energy, and we lost volunteers, because of that total and complete shift in focus.

Whether we win or lose, the vote will be too close. The Nationals are still spouting the line that SD voters will overwhelmingly reject the ban. It won't be overwhelming. It will be a thin margin. And this isn't over. We either face a long and expensive court battle that could threaten Roe, or we face a new ban with exceptions for rape/incest survivors (but not women's health, I'm predicting). South Dakota clearly needs help from the outside if we are to maintain women's right to make decisions about whether or not to bear children - that much was clear last January. But let's not make the same mistake again. We have a pro-choice community in SD. We have activists that are ready to go. We need our leadership to come from within and for those leaders to be supported by the national organizations, not the other way around (which is what happened this fall).

We need to get ahead of this one. And the strategizing starts now.

The Rally. Be there or be forced to carry ALL pregnancies to term.

How else can I put it? We've got a long war ahead of us, and the upcoming vote is just one battle in that war. We need to mobilize the pro-choice community again, just as we did last spring (before, er, certain groups decided to take a, well, anti-activist stance). Whether or not the ban passes, we've got a huge number of South Dakotans in this state who support women's rights to make their own decisions about abortion.

So.

If the ban passes, it will immediately be challenged in court. This is a given.

If the ban fails, it will immediately be followed by a ban that allows limited exceptions (perhaps for rape and incest and not for health, or for health but not rape/incest, or even for all three). And this ban, most likely, will pass.

So we have our work cut out for us. We need, not just to get out the vote in the days ahead, but also to excite our base and get them ready to move. We need to be very visible in the days ahead and in the weeks and months ahead, so that the majority of our movement, people who are on our mailing lists but don't ever come out in public because they're afraid of the fallout among their friendships and professional relationships - not to mention property damage and personal safety - see us and take heart, and perhaps are motivated to get involved.

And, too, we need to change the discussion in South Dakota. This vote is not about whether abortion is right or wrong. It's about whether or not this ban is too extreme. That's the reason for all of the lies in the VoteYes ads and campaign literature - because they know the ban is too extreme, they know people balk at "no exceptions," and so they're creating all kinds of doubts in people's minds about whether there are, indeed, any exceptions. But we need to change the debate. We need to hear women's stories!! We need to hear personal stories about the things that go wrong in pregnancy and the reasons why the law should be compassionate. And we need to talk about the legal implications of giving the state jurisdiction over a woman's body. What's next? Will we mandate blood donation? Will we mandate organ donation? How will we be able to make medical decisions for ourselves if we give the state license to step in?

But first, we need a rally to remind South Dakota that pro-choice is a serious voice. So come. Bring a friend. Help us make history.

Rally to Repeal the Ban
Wednesday, November 1st; 12:00 noon -- 1:00pm
400 block of S. Phillips Avenue (Federal Courthouse )in Sioux Falls

AND

Corner of 9th and St. Joseph in Rapid City

Be there or...well, you know.

[For my out-of-state readers: I promise I will have something NOT about abortion soon. Thanks for your indulgence. Now, send a check or a postcard of support to one of the organizations on my sidebar. Thanks!]

On Signs

There's been a lot of brouhaha lately over sign vandalism, specifically vandalism of "Yes on 6" (pro-abortion ban) signs.

For example:



[Note: They took the picture down, I think. Here's a link that will work - and the blogger is similarly suspicious of the veracity of the VoteYes claims of vandalism: robbinsdale radical: Self-abuse?]

For weeks, I confess, I have been wanting to photograph this particular church's sign and put it up here for you. I've watched the sentiments on the sign escalate over the past weeks. For a while, it read something like, "Gay Marriage, Abortion, What Would Jesus Do?" But very quickly that changed to a more specific, "Vote to End Abortion" (again, an approximation), and from there, "It's Time to Stop Killing Babies." The sign was stuck on that message for some time, until the sign vandalism provided an opportunity to change the message.

But here's the thing. I don't believe that anyone really vandalized the signs. I think the VoteYes campaign did it themselves.

For one thing, no one who has had any dealings with them puts it past them. They've lied about exceptions in the ban, stating that women could terminate their pregnancies in cases of rape and incest. They've lied about EC, stating that women can use it for up to 14 days (it's actually only 72 hours) after unprotected sex. They routinely lie about the studies they cite to "prove" that abortion hurts women. And they've invited extreme groups with violent ties to come to South Dakota. And if you read their blog, you'll see that they are interested in manipulating the news to suit their purpose. For example, here's a short bit from a review of the pro-choice play, "Words of Choice":

"7: What I Said
A woman's testimony to Congress about the partial birth abortion ban (2003) finely illustrates the eugenic streak in pro-abortion thought. Faced with several genetic defects, it's painted as a mercy killing. Interestingly enough, she claims that the doctor told her that delivery would be too dangerous. The application of scissors, I suppose, greatly reduced the risk to the woman's health. The impression you're left with is that unless a person is "perfect," it is not fit to live."

...except that, in this case, the baby's defects were incompatible with life, as the piece made quite clear. (She said that: "incompatible with life.") What that means is that the baby, once born, would not survive. And it doesn't mean that it wouldn't survive into toddlerhood. It means that it would die within hours or days. And often, in pain. What mother would want that? But her very words are twisted by this blogger to serve his own argument, to make her say what she is not saying and to make invisible that this is exactly the kind of suffering that South Dakota women face under this rigid abortion ban.

For another thing, I just think it's too convenient. Sign vandalism has been going on all fall. Where was VoteYes when Democratic candidates' signs were being vandalized and torn down, or when Democratic candidates' houses were being egged? (I mean that seriously - where were you, VoteYes? Do you have an alibi?)

And look at the language on the sign - that says it all. This is nothing more than a photo op. A person who truly believes that something hurtful was done to them might simply write, "we forgive." Pointing out that the person/people responsible should be dealt with violently (why do these groups always come back to violence?) makes the assertion of forgiveness ring hollow.

Finally - I know that pro-choice activists are too busy getting out the vote to waste their time vandalizing signs. But I could totally see VoteYes doing it to try to make the pro-choice groups look bad.

The Big One

This is it, folks:

STOP THE LIES
Rally to Repeal the Abortion Ban

Wednesday, November 1st; 12:00 noon -- 1:00pm

400 block of S. Phillips Avenue
at the Federal Courthouse in Sioux Falls

- and -

Corner of 9th and St. Joseph in Rapid City

(And after the rally, USF is hosting an abortion forum at 7pm. I don't have the location for you, but there will be a panel from VoteYes and also one from
Healthy Families.)

And I'll see you all TOMORROW. Bring your cameras, bring your buttons, bring your friends!

So I almost went Unruh today...

DON'T FORGET FRIDAY!!!

(Yes, this is again turning into The Blog of Abortion. I promise to include something heartwarming or funny just as soon as something heartwarming or funny happens.)

I thought about calling in crazy this morning. I just couldn't get on top of my anger. I dropped off my son at daycare, turning around to notice the ugly abortion truck driving by, the one my son had just missed seeing. (I'll never understand the logic by which teaching children and young adults about reproductive health and functions is immoral and unnecessary, but exposing them to what they will see as unspeakable violence is a required part of their social education.)

I had visions of myself plowing into the friendly neighborhood abortion truck. I imagined the headlines: "Local Woman Goes Berserk; Threatens Truck Driver with Coat Hanger."

I drove to work, still seething about all the lies and the lies and the lies.

And then an acquaintance happened by, someone who reads this blog and knows that I am struggling with not going over to the Robert Regier (our homegrown version of James Dobson) side, the one that believes that people who don't agree with it are evil.

This acquaintance is someone I think very highly of. She's talented, funny, and smart - yes. But mostly I respect her for recognizing the complexity of life and for not thinking she has all the answers. She listens. She is interested in learning for the sake of learning. She isn't afraid to hear new ideas that might challenge the ones she already has.

And she said, "if you ever want to talk with a pro-lifer, if you ever want to vent your anger, you can talk to me."

But the thing is, I would never get angry at her. Partly this is because she is not one of the people who is agitating for the ban to pass. But mostly because I cannot imagine having a conversation with her about a serious issue that was not grounded in mutual respect and sincere search for truth.

And I think the fact that she would offer herself as target practice, basically, having read my blog and knowing that I am, as Anne Lamott would say, "not remotely well enough" to be trusted with a firearm, tells you a lot about the kind of person she is.

I told you today that you restored my faith in humanity. You really did. Thank you.

This Friday: Day of Pro-Choice Action in Sioux Falls

Come join the SD blogging community in a pro-choice action!

We're meeting this Friday, 4pm, at the SD Healthy Families HQ (109 N. Main) in Sioux Falls. Bring signs! Bring stuff to make signs! Bring cameras! Bring friends!

Remember the rally last March? Let's do it again!

Struck Dumb

(This was written Friday.)

I got a copy of the VoteYes postcard this morning, the one I posted about yesterday. When I showed it to a friend of mine, her eyes immediately welled up and she said, "So. They're just lying, then."

It's hard to explain this sense of betrayal, particularly when it involves the opposing side of a political fight. But still, you hope that the other side will show some integrity, that the battle will be, if not civil, then at least based on the truth as each side tells it.

But what's worse today is that I'm beginning to realize, in small glimpses, that there really is very little justice.

I called the Attorney General's office this morning. I was connected to a lawyer. I read her the postcard, specifically the language "women have the option of terminating pregnancies." I even pointed out that in the next paragraph, the postcard explains that women can take EC to "prevent conception." And I said that for VoteYes to say that the ban allowed women to terminate pregnancies was a blatant misrepresentation of the ban.

But the lawyer I spoke with told me, "that's a matter of opinion."

And I said, "but their use of the language, their statement about terminating a pregnancy followed by the paragraph about preventing conception makes clear that these two are not the same. If you are preventing conception, then you cannot possibly be simultaneously terminating a pregnancy. They are talking about two different things here, and one of them is flat out wrong."

And she said, "it's a matter of freedom of speech."

And I said, "but it's a class 2 misdemeanor to publish false or erroneous information on a law during an election, according to South Dakota Codified Law 12-13-16."

And she said, "I think that's a matter of interpretation."

Next, I called the Secretary of State's office and spoke with Kea Warne, the Election Supervisor. I read her the language of the postcard and said I was concerned because the information was false and I was sure it was illegal.

She said, "yes, that's a class 2 misdemeanor."* But, she said, her office couldn't investigate it, and I should call the Attorney General's office or local law enforcement.

So I called the State's Attorney's office. I again read the postcard and a portion of the law. I said explained that "terminating pregnancy" was clearly not allowed in the ban.

Dave Nelson said, "eye of the beholder."

So I said, "do you mean that people have different beliefs about whether or not EC is an abortifacient?" [EXPLANATION: In about 5% of cases, it is estimated, EC prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. Since the moment of implantation is the moment that, according to science, pregnancy begins, EC thus prevents pregnancy. Most of the time, however, EC prevents the egg and sperm from coming together by toughening the walls of the egg so that it can't be penetrated, by making cervical mucous "hostile" so as not to allow sperm to reach the egg, or by preventing ovulation altogether.]

He said, "yes."

And I said, "but when they say 'terminating pregnancy,' it's pretty clear that what they mean is abortion. To most people, "terminating pregnancy" means abortion. And further, the ban explicitly states that no women can have abortions unless they are at risk of death. So their statement is false, and willfully so."

And he said, "I am reluctant to bring the force of the State of South Dakota to bear in a public debate. That's a very serious thing. I am confident that the other side will be able to get their message out."

So I asked, "has there ever been a case in which this law, which criminalizes lying about a proposed amendment or question or law that is referred to voters, has been applied?"

And he said, "not as far as I'm aware."

So we have a law that forbids this behavior, yet we don't enforce it because it might jeopardize public debate. And, in truth, I can see his point: State intervention in this kind of issue could set a dangerous precedent.

But doesn't it also set a dangerous precedent to allow people to purposely misrepresent their own legislation in order to mislead voters into voting their way?

As I was told more than once today, I can always write a letter to the editor.

Right.

*I don't know if Warne was agreeing that the postcard was in violation of the law or if she was simply stating that, if it were in violation of the law, it would be a class 2 misdemeanor. In any case, at least she was familiar with the law - unlike the lawyer in the Attorney General's office.