Roe at 40: Looking Backward, Looking Forward

Today marks the 40^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the historic Supreme Court decision recognizing that women have the right to choose abortion.  While lawmakers and pundits have twisted themselves into knots analyzing the impact and significance of the decision, for generations of people, the meaning of Roe is quite clear: It is the key to securing women’s place as equals in society.

For 10 years, Linn Duvall Harwell could only guess as to why her mother died so suddenly in 1929.  But when she found out that her mother, Clara Bell Duvall, died of an illegal abortion, Linn instantly understood.  “She loved her children…She was desperate because she wanted to care for them beautifully,” she told the Philadelphia Daily News  in 1986. While Linn understood the sacrifice her mother made, she knew it was a senseless loss. 

Linn held many jobs in her life, but the one nearest and dearest to her was pro-choice activist – as a member of NARAL Pro-Choice Americ a, the National Organization of Women and the founder of the Clara Bell Duvall Education Fund (now the Clara Bell Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project of the ACLU of Pennsylvania).  In a letter addressed to Representative Karen Ritter in 1990 Linn wrote, “The last thing a woman wants to consider when faced with an unwanted pregnancy is some bureaucrat sitting in an office in Harrisburg or a robed judge in a courtroom…. No woman can make advances in a career without the protection of her reproductive rights.”  It’s chilling to think that those words are just as true today as they were in 1990.

Linn wasn’t the only person fighting for reproductive rights.  As a college student in 1970, Peter Goldberger smuggled a friend to a secret location in Delaware, where she could obtain an abortion.  “I knew it was civil disobedience, but I don't think I considered any part of it other than doing the right thing for a friend in trouble,” he recalled.  “It was the right thing to do because it is what she had decided.”  It was only last week that he realized that, had he been caught, he would have faced up to five years in jail.

Later as a law student at Yale, Goldberger thought back to that night as he sat in classes and watched his colleagues on the frontlines of public interest law.  When Roe was decided in the second semester of his first year of law school, he reflected that the decision itself wasn’t a “gigantic event” on campus.  But for him, it was monumental. “The freedom to make that choice…is critical to women’s ability to succeed and be on an equal plane.”  He added that he had always thought that – but seeing it codified was another thing.

Jumping forward to today, we see a national climate that is as hostile as ever to reproductive justice.  But we also see a debate that has become more nuanced and more diverse than in previous decades. “Women born after Roe v. Wade – known as millennials -- see ‘choice’ as more complex than their predecessors,” says Alanna Tievsky, born a decade after Roe v. Wade. “So many of our fundamental rights are under attack – we can no longer narrowly focus only on access to abortion.”

Indeed, the battle is no longer just about safe, legal abortion – it’s defending the right to contraception, to maternal leave, to bodily integrity.  It’s about honoring the rights of women and men whose lives may not look like ours – and valuing their voices in the conversation.  And it’s about remaining constantly vigilant in a political climate that is slowly but surely chipping away at Roe and the full spectrum of reproductive choices we depend upon.” The legacy of millennial women will be reframing the debate around abortion to a dialogue that is more encompassing, more diverse, and more in tune with the needs of women and men, at every stage of their reproductive lives,” argues Gwen Emmons, a millennial and a reproductive justice activist.  “It’s a responsibility we take very seriously.”

Unfortunately for millennial activists in this field, it’s challenging to get a toehold in the leadership structure of the ‘old school’ abortion rights organizations. “Despite the fact that young reproductive activists are working in these organizations, losing sleep on the campaign trail, or manning the phones at abortion hotlines, previous generations argue that we ‘lack passion for abortion rights,’” says Emmons.  “If we’re to be the next guardians of reproductive choice, things have got to change.”  Tievsky notes the numerous strategies this generation has been using to combat the onslaught of anti-women’s health legislation locally and nationally. “A difference in strategies does not make us less passionate than Peter,” she argues.  “A belief in a broader vision of what choice is does not mean we cannot stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Linn.”  But that is the opinion of too many leaders in the choice movement.

Roe has had a profound impact on the fight for women’s equality.  Each generation has reacted to the continued attacks on women’s health with their own brand of activism.  For Linn Duvall Harwell, it was to volunteer and speak out at every opportunity she could.  For Peter Goldberger, it was to do the right thing – even if it was illegal.  And for Alanna Tievsky and Gwen Emmons, it’s to question the strategies and direction of previous generations – and plot a new course for the future.  As we look ahead to another 40 years of Roe (and beyond!), the goal must not only be to defend this monumental decision – it must be to nurture, inspire, and trust the next generation of activists who will be protecting it.

Pledge to stand strong against attacks on Roe and all reproductive freedoms – then spread the word.

Roe v. Wade anniversary message: Don't tread on me

“Don't Tread On Me.”

It's a favorite saying of anti-government tea partiers and libertarians alike. Dating back to the Revolutionary War, this motto-- paired with the image of a rattlesnake coiled to strike-- summons along with it a call to defend certain natural rights to privacy and autonomy, a fundamental resistance to the authoritarian impulses of state power. Leave me alone, the snake glares, or else. Though the iconic phrase has been co-opted for many causes over its long existence,  today it seems as though only right-wing small-and anti-government advocates wave the Gadsden flag (as it is historically named) with pride.

But it’s no secret that tea partiers and the politicians who pander to them don't actually believe in freedom from government regulation -- at least, not without notable exceptions. For all their talk about financial, educational, and environmental deregulation, the glaring inconsistency of smaller-government activists and politicians lies in their fierce opposition to the deregulation of a most fundamental site-- the (female) body. My body. And this isn't just a back-burner issue. This is a priority. In the first six months of 2011, Pennsylvania lawmakers spent 30 percent of their days at the Capitol working to restrict access to safe, legal abortion when they should have been solving real problems.

Actually, that's small-minded of me. For some voters, activists, and lawmakers, my bodily autonomy is a “real problem.” They are so uncomfortable with the idea that I currently can choose whether or not to have a baby that even my right to use birth control is coming under fire in popular discourse. Iowa caucus runner-up Rick Santorum has infamously said that contraception is “a license to do things in a sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be.” It's no stretch of the imagination to think that if elected president, Santorum or any one of his like-minded colleagues will continue to push these paternalistic, religious, anti-sex, anti-liberty agendas.

And to them I say: don't tread on me.  Writing under a pseudonym in 1775, Ben Franklin commented on the appropriateness of the rattle snake as a symbol for the freedom-loving American spirit:

She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders... she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of stepping on her.—Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America?

As the 39^th anniversary of Roe v. Wade  approaches and my reproductive rights increasingly come under fire, I think it’s time to re-appropriate the Gadsden flag for its original purpose -- the symbolic defense of civil liberties against the creeping authoritarianism of the state.  Like the Gadsden flag's rattlesnake, American women have generously given notice that these onslaughts against our basic bodily autonomy are unacceptable. So let this year be a year filled with pro-choice visibilities, actions, and activism -- a shot across the bow for opponents of personal liberty and reproductive privacy. Consider this fair warning: don't tread on me.

Janna Frieman is an intern with the ACLU-PA’s Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project and a Master of Social Policy candidate at the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy and Practice.


This post is part of the We've Had Enough Campaign's Roe v. Wade Blog Carnival.  See other posts on the importance of Roe and the attacks against women's health here:  http://www.wevehadenoughpa.org/blog.html

Hypocrisy Abounds on the Anniversary of Legal Abortion

Today we celebrate the 37th anniversary of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. In the U.S. abortion rates continue to decline, but in countries where abortion is illegal, the number of abortions is really, really high. Double, triple, even quadruple that of countries where it’s legal.

Why is that? Because enlightened and developed societies recognize that abortion is part of the continuum of care for women.

It begins with access to health care for every member of society from birth to death. Preventing pregnancy is viewed as a public health concern like preventing tooth decay. Always brush your teeth. Always use a condom.

How is the United States doing overall on women’s health? Not as good as we should be. Overall, few women here die during pregnancy or childbirth -- we rank 20th out of 135 countries. Good not great.

But, among African American women, maternal mortality rates are 3½ times greater. Health care for a black woman living in the U.S. more resembles Uzbekistan or Iran than the United States.

Among young people in the U.S. rates of unintended pregnancy, HIV infection, and STD’s are rising. In the Latino and African American communities, they are skyrocketing.

What’s wrong?

Under Bill Clinton, a group of conservative lawmakers started a $50 million dollar program promoting “abstinence-only until marriage.”

During the Bush Administration, the program became the darling of the far, far right and it experienced explosive growth -- – it grew to over $250 million dollars every year.

Even though abstinence-only until marriage programs have been:

• proven ineffective
• shown to increase unsafe sex practices
• discriminate against LGBT youth
• are insensitive to victims of sexual assault & abuse
• and, withhold vital information about safe sex practice

Money was handed out from the federal government to state governments, local school districts, private non-profits, and anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers -- anyone willing to carry their message: that premarital sex, at any age is harmful physically and harmful emotionally.

So, that definitely leaves out gay sex, at any age, or straight sex unless you’re married. And since studies show that over 90% of Americans who do marry will have sex beforehand – what kind of message are we giving youth? And why are we allowing our government to do this?

We know that a whole host of abstinence promoters from George Bush to Sarah Palin to Dick Cheney have daughters who have not followed the message preached by their parents.

Does anyone believe Jenna Bush was a virgin on her wedding night?

What about Bristol Palin -- now a spokesperson for abstinence? Her message is something like: “It didn’t work for me, but you should try it.”

And a personal favorite – Mary Cheney, daughter of Dick Cheney, who gave birth to a daughter with her lesbian partner. Were they abstinent until marriage? Oops, they can’t get married – they’re gay. Her father was part of an administration that not only demonized gay sex, it demonized gay marriage.

I don’t know about you, but hypocrisy is not something I value in our political leaders. But this sort of hypocrisy runs wild in our political discourse. And who does it harm?

The one who thought you couldn’t get pregnant the first time.
The one who thought that pulling out was safe.
The one with HIV.
The one with Chlamydia.
The one who didn’t have enough money to refill her pills.
The one whose boyfriend refused to use a condom.

During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama promised to base policy decisions on science and public health. And in his first budget, just submitted to Congress, we have cause for optimism.

We may, just may, have eliminated all funds for abstinence-only-until marriage and in its place are plans for sex education programs. But just because there are funds available doesn’t mean that school districts will change.

We all know that many young people get their sex education or mis-education from television and their peers.

Don’t get me wrong -- some if it useful. On season 2 of Weeds, Uncle Andy taught me more about banana peels and masturbation than I ever knew.

Seriously, if we want to reduce unintended pregnancies, if we want to reduce STD’s and HIV, if we want to be inclusive of LGBT students, we need to take action.

As voters, as citizens, as people who care, you have that right. The right to make your voice heard. For your opinion to count. To try to make this a better world for yourself and for others.

Please contact your Pennsylvania state representative and let them know you want comprehensive reality-based sex education in every public school. Tell them you support HB 1162 and 1163. To find your state representative click here. If you would like more information about these bills, check out PARSE (Pennsylvanians for Responsible Sex Education). I promise you it won’t be hard. They absolutely will be nice to you on the phone.

As we mark the 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we can look around the world or look around our communities to see that reproductive rights and is hopelessly tied up in the politics of the day. But for a woman experiencing an unintended pregnancy, politics is the last thing on her mind. It is time to step back and reexamine the issues broadly. It is time to refocus the conversation on fairness and opportunity so that we all can make meaningful decisions about whether and when to bear children, how we conduct our sex lives, and to hold our government accountable for the information it provides. Our democracy depends on it.

- Carol Petraitis
Carol is the Director of the Clara Bell Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project at the ACLU of Pennsylvania.

On the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, anti-choice group targets...Krispy Kreme?

What is more American than a big, beautiful, toasty, tasty Krispy Kreme doughnut? Not much I can think of. However, that’s probably because all that I can think about now is getting a doughnut. The chain store is one of many that sought to show its patriotism on Inauguration Day by offering one free doughnut to each customer. Another All American doughnut franchise, Dunkin’ Donuts, chose to celebrate the day as well, featuring a limited time only, red white and blue frosted “Stars and Stripes” doughnut. What a great day to be an American, right?

So why is Krispy Kreme now facing a litany of protests for their generous offer? Who are these protesters? I mean who has a problem with FREE doughnuts? That is just crazy to me. Well, apparently, the American Choice League does. Their problem is not the doughnuts themselves, but rather, Krispy Kreme’s promotional ad for the event. Here is the catalyst of their objection:

“Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) is honoring American's sense of pride and freedom of choice on Inauguration Day, by offering a free doughnut of choice to every customer on this historic day, Jan. 20. By doing so, participating Krispy Kreme stores nationwide are making an oath to tasty goodies -- just another reminder of how oh-so-sweet 'free' can be.”

The American Choice League’s problem with the ad has nothing to do with the idea of pride or freedom, but the word “choice.” Apparently, in their minds, “choice” is now synonymous with access to abortion. There goes most franchises featuring “your choice of…” on their menus and in their campaigns.

“Choice” doesn’t have four letters, but at this rate it is well on its way to being known as the “Ch-word”. This is the problem with fanatics of any kind. They take seemingly harmless situations and contort them into something they can build a platform on. In doing so, they strive to ruin simple things like words. Words that the Constitution guaranteed to be used by all. I understand not wanting to offend others, but I like to think Choice is a great word. Our country is run on choice. The choice to decide what to eat in the morning, what to do for a living, where to live, and to make one’s own decisions and ideas. Maybe Krispy Kreme was celebrating the Anniversary of Roe v. Wade a couple of days early, or maybe they were celebrating the fact that we freely elected another president, or maybe they were just celebrating the ability to eat the doughnut of your choice for free. We just don’t know what they were trying to convey. It is an individual’s decision to decide how they perceive such a vague statement. It is their prerogative if the far-right chooses to see this as an abortion issue, but it does not make it true.

Despite the groundless nature of their claims, members of the American Choice League are allowed to exercise their constitutional right to choose not to purchase from the franchise. They should, however, realize that the constitution grants Krispy Kreme the right to free speech and may say what they wish. The franchise has issued a statement on their website announcing, “The Inauguration Day promotion was not about any social or political issue.” While this may abate some, the real fanatics will probably still complain. They will do what they do best; contorting words, issues, and situations, to better support their cause. It is the strategy of a weakly established institution, and one that only exacerbates social animosity. I am sorry they choose to do so.

While we can make fun of incidents such as this one, it is a sobering reminder of just how far we still have to go since the Supreme Court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade 36 years ago today. Before abortion was made legal many women died as a result of botched back-alley operations. The founder of the Clara Bell Duvall Reproductive Freedom Project, Linn Duvall Harwell, was the daughter of one such woman. Clara Bell Duvall, a married woman and mother of five, lost her life because she was unable to obtain a safe surgery and had to resort to an unsafe, self-induced abortion. Had the laws been different Linn could have enjoyed growing up with her mother by her side, but instead she lived most of her life motherless. It is a tragic story but a good reminder as to how important Roe v. Wade is to women’s rights. On the anniversary of such an important judicial ruling we should celebrate but also remember to remain vigilant in the face of continued opposition to women’s reproductive rights.

Cassidy in Philadelphia

And another thing....

To follow up on Chris's post from yesterday, national ACLU has an excellent "Freedom Alert" video from Matt Coles, the director of the ACLU's LGBT Project. Here it is.



And there's another ballot initiative out there that attacks civil liberties- Measure 11 in South Dakota. This is yet another attempt to enact a law that can ultimately challenge Roe v. Wade. Check out national's blog for info about what's happening in SD, including a Freedom Alert video.

Andy in Harrisburg

Into the heart of an activist

This post is not your standard SF fare. I'm going to veer on to a different track for this one to get a bit personal to talk about the mechanics of our work.

Last week we posted "Why we're pro-choice" in honor of the 34th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision. There were a lot of great comments posted on this important commemoration.

I posted this:

"The anti-choice messengers regularly remind me why I am pro-choice. Usually, those who are against us on reproductive freedom are white men, and when I see them, one word comes to mind. Patriarchy." - Andy, Harrisburg

I've been thinking about this all week. In two years with the ACLU of PA and more than six years in the anti-death penalty movement, I've had the pleasure of meeting and working with a lot of great people, people who are working for justice in a wide variety of ways. And some of them happen to oppose legal abortion.

Now, I am pro-choice because I believe that a woman should have the right to control her body without interference from the government. And I am deeply concerned that attempts to stop abortion are rooted in patriarchy. It might not even be conscious for some, but the foundation of anti-abortion fervor could very well be in the ancient desire to control women or the belief that men have a right to control women, which, as we all know, was quite prominent until only very recently.

But I kept thinking back to what I said and to those whom I've befriended who happen to be anti-abortion. These are folks who work hard every day to protect civil rights, including not only for racial minorities but also religious minorities and lesbians and gays. They're standing up for immigrants and willing to speak out in favor of treating newcomers to our country with dignity and respect. They are working toward a more just criminal justice system, which is too often plagued by discrimination and other problems that border on atrocities.

And they happen to oppose abortion. I respect these folks and consider them my friends, and when I thought back to my own words, I wondered what they would think if they happened to read them.

Then on Saturday, I came across this passage in Barack Obama's book The Audacity of Hope:

The reason the doctor was considering voting for my opponent was not my position on abortion as such. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, suggesting that I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." He went on to write, "I sense that you have a strong sense of justice and of the precarious position of justice in any polity, and I know that you have championed the plight of the voiceless. I also sense that you are a fair-minded person with a high regard for reason...Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded."

Again, I thought back to my comment from Monday's post and of those I've worked with who happen to be against legal abortion.

I believe that we can make great progress toward a more just society if we open ourselves to working with those with whom we sometimes agree and sometimes disagree. If we do this from a place of mutual respect, we can make tremendous strides.

Andy in Harrisburg

Why We're Pro-Choice

Today marks the 34th Anniversary of Roe v. Wade and the ACLU of Pennsylvania thought we'd participate in NARAL Pro-Choice America's "Blog for Choice" to reflect on why we're pro-choice.

The ACLU has recognized that the right to privacy, which encompasses the right to reproductive freedom, is among our most important constitutional liberties and has been a principle defender of abortion rights since 1973 when U.S. Supreme Court recognized the right to choose in Roe v. Wade. Reproductive freedom means the right to make informed decisions about whether and when to become a parent without government interference and to access a broad range of reproductive health care including contraceptives, prenatal care, treatment for sexually transmitted disesase, and abortion.

While the ACLU identifies as pro-choice in constitutional terms, we realize that there are a number of other, sometimes much more personal, reasons why our staff, board members, volunteers, and members are pro-choice. Here are their reasons in their own words:

"I think I may be an odd duck. I'm Irish and Roman Catholic. I know that I could not ever have an abortion. I also know that I have no right to make that decision for someone else." - Beth, age 44, King of Prussia

"I am pro-choice because I believe that women should be treated with dignity and respect and that in order for women to be equal to men they need to have the right and the means to decide when and whether to bear a child." - Larry, age 51, Philadelphia

"I'm pro-choice because I am the only one who should determine the treatment of my body. I am pro-choice because a fetus is not a person, and therefore should have no bearing over a women's choice, health, or life course. I am pro-choice because no individual's religious beliefs should determine legislation." - Shoshana Rosen, age 22, Pittsburgh, Jewish

"As a mother of two precious daughters and a grandmother of one beautiful brand new granddaughter, I am committed to the absolute protection of choice for my loved ones and for all women. A woman's right to choose to carry a pregnancy or to not carry a pregnancy should be a decision that is hers to make. Young people should be provided with full and correct information regarding their personal health and wellness." - Nancy, age 61

"I am pro-choice because 77% of anti-choice leaders are men and 100% of them will never become pregnant." - Jamie, Harrisburg

"I am pro-choice because I believe that in a free society women can and must be trusted to make fundamental personal decisions. Anti-abortion laws cannot be enforced without allowing the government a totally intolerable level of intrusion into individual, private medical decisions and the doctor-patient relationship that would be incompatible with basic American values of liberty." - Peter Goldberger, Ardmore, ACLU of PA Board of Directors, VP of ACLU Greater Philadelphia Chapter, father of 3 daughters

"When my mother and my sisters and I attended the March for Women's Lives in 2004, my younger sister wondered why there were signs with pictures of coat hangers. She represents a younger generation of women who haven't had to worry about back-alley, botched abortions and their frightening consequences. I am pro-choice for all the future generations of women, so that they, too, may not know the shadowy horrors of a life without reproductive freedom." - Paula, Harrisburg

"Every woman has the right to control her own body and to determine when or whether to bear a child. Child bearing must always be by choice, not only for the sake of the mother but for the welfare of a wanted and nurtured infant. The hard-won right of choice in child-bearing by all women must be respected and protected." - Sonya

"I am pro-choice because women should have every opportunity to live the life they choose to live and because options allow each women to subscribe to her own religious and social morality." - Chelsea, age 22, Philadelphia

"The anti-choice messengers regularly remind me why I am pro-choice. Usually, those who are against us on reproductive freedom are white men, and when I see them, one word comes to mind. Patriarchy." - Andy, Harrisburg

"I am pro-choice because I believe every woman should be trusted enough to make individual and personal decisions regarding her body without the interference of government. If another woman chooses to have an abortion, it's none of my business and I would never be so arrogant to assume that I (or anyone else) have the right to make that decision for her. Against abortion? I promise, I will never make you have one." - Amy, age 22, Philadelphia

"Being raise Catholic in the 1950s, as you can imagine, I was always what is referred to today as "pro-life." However, "anti-choice" is what I prefer to call it today. Back then, I believed that no woman should ever have a right to terminate her pregnancy no matter what the reason; the time to decide not to get pregnant was before you had sex, not afterwards. I believed this until I was in my mid-forties when someone very near and dear to me confided in me that she was planning to terminate her pregnancy. I knew at that time I had to stop her. So, I turned to a few friends who were also Catholic, who I assumed they felt just as I did, to see if they had some magic words for me to use to stop this young lady. As it turned out, each one had experienced an abortion firsthand. I had no idea any of these beautiful women went through that experience as they had never shared it with me (and for good reason). They knew how I felt about it. These women are all very decent, loving, respected women. All have children of their own, all remain practicing Catholics--one, a Sunday school teacher. I left the Catholic Church in my late 20s but the ignorance remained with me for a long time following. I've come to learn that there are many reasons for women to choose to terminate a pregnancy--each has her own story. And, each deserves to have a clean, safe means to do so if she chooses. I've also learned through my involvement with NARAL that the majority of American women who choose to terminate a pregnancy are of a Christian-based religion. These women are our friends, neighbors, grandmothers, mothers, aunts, daughters, ministers, etc. hether we know it or want to believe it or not and they deserve respect." - Anonymous in PA

"I am pro-choice for the same reason that I favor all individual liberty against government infringement. The Constitution confirms that "We the People" have all rights and we never gave the government the power to abridge any of those rights unless it can prove the absolute necessity for so doing. The right to choose whether to have children is a parade example of a right that government can never justify denying." - Burton Caine, Professor of Constitutional Law

"I am pro-choice because I am pro-life. I don't see being "pro-life" and "pro-choice" as opposites, as those opposed to abortion rights would argue. I value the lives of women, whether they choose to be mothers or not, and I think that children should be brought into this world when they can be cared for and loved in all the ways they deserve to be. With all of the children in poverty, being abused and neglected, it astounds me that those who call themselves "pro-life" devote the amount of resources they do to protecting a fetus when they could be saving the lives of children that are already born. But, you know, that's their choice, isn't it?" - Julie, age 25, Philadelphia

Please use the comment space to offer your own reasons why you are pro-choice (that is, if you are pro-choice). Click here to link to read about what else the ACLU is doing to facilitate discussion around reproductive rights for the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Julie in Philly