Mail Call #9: Michelle Litjens says hello

I am thrilled to report that none other than former state rep Michelle Litjens wrote a letter to the editor in response to my recent column making the case for why we need more women in politics, tying it to legislation over women's health and reproductive rights. Litjens, if you don't remember, was part of the Republican controlled Legislature that passed Act 10 (the extreme, anti-union measure that prompted months of protest in the state), as well as being a hardcore anti-choice, pro-gun advocate. So the ideological bent of her letter should make a bit more sense, in that context. I appreciate that she took time to respond, so I've done the same (in bold, below):

In response to Emily Mills’ article on Oct. 23, “Needed: More women in politics,” while she is absolutely correct about that statement she is completely wrong about others (Crossroads).

We do need more women in politics. When I served in the Legislature, women were less than a quarter of the representatives. But I am unaware of any “institutional and systemic barriers” to women running for office. In fact, the common saying is true: “When women run, women win.” That's just...not a factual statement. Lots of women lose their races. I'm not even say they always lose because of sexism, but to claim that women always win when they run just doesn't make any damn sense. Also, just because you, a single human being, are "not aware" of certain things does not mean those don't exist. This is a fairly straight-forward concept for most.

Women are less likely to run for office because of lifestyle choices candidates are forced to make every day. Will a candidate attend a pancake breakfast, church picnic, fall festival or his or her kid’s basketball game? This choice is easier for a man to make than a woman. Not because society says so, but because women say so. She lost me here. This makes no actual sense. Is she arguing that men have an easier time putting work before their family? I'm honestly not even sure, this statement is so convoluted. Regardless of the details, though, those "choices candidates are forced to make every day" and how men vs. women respond to them is very much tied up in those aforementioned institutional and systemic barriers--a culture that demands completely different levels of accountability from for mothers vs fathers, pays women less for their work, etc.

My exception to Mills’ article is her comments about third-term abortions. It isn’t true that “hardcore anti-abortion activists continue to spout harmful lies” about third-term abortions. Maybe Mills was unaware that abortionist Kermit Gosnell of Philadelphia was sentenced to life in prison for murder. Aaaand PIVOT.

In the grand jury’s report, Gosnell didn’t call it murder, he called it “ensuring fetal demise.” And how did he accomplish this demise? The jury wrote, “The way he ensured fetal demise was by sticking scissors into the back of the baby’s neck and cutting the spinal cord. He called that ‘snipping.’ ” Kermit Gosnell's case is an aberration, and does not reflect anything remotely close to medical best practices in terms of abortion procedure and women's health. He was (rightfully) punished for gross malpractice. What he was doing is already illegal even with the protections provided by Roe v. Wade. And it was a single case. Litjens has long been an advocate for doing away with abortion rights, and during her time in the Legislature sponsored bills that significantly chipped away at (especially rural) women's right to access comprehensive and scientifically-based reproductive care.

Please, Ms. Mills, don’t patronize me by saying we need more women in politics because we need more abortion proponents (it was men who upheld Roe vs. Wade). We need more women in office because women bring a different thought process to the room. We contribute ideas during bill draftings that men just don’t think about because of our differing life experiences. She makes my argument for me. Though I do believe the debate over reproductive rights and women's health would be very, very different had women been at the table all along, I also don't for a moment believe all women think exactly alike on that, or any, issue. But Litjens and I are in agreement that we need more women in office because women bring a different thought process and set of experiences to the room.

Elected women are valued for far more than just their reproductive rights. And, I might also remind Mills, that many of us women would end that reproductive right at birth control.

Michelle Litjens
Former state representative
56th District, 2011-’12
Oshkosh

Again, my biggest takeaway here is that Michelle is willfully ignorant of the fact that even she is the product of systemic sexism. It's a little easier when you're a right-leaning white woman, of course, but even then I'm not keen to drive wedges between people who should be fighting to lift each other up over an oppressive system that hurts us all. The first step is learning that we all have different experiences and outlooks, and that just because you personally have not experienced something doesn't invalidate that experience for someone else. And that just because you, personally, would not make a certain decision--doesn't give you the right to dictate whether or not it might be the right thing for someone else.

On 37th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I trust women

NARAL Pro-Choice America is sponsoring a "Blog For Choice" day on this, the 37th anniversary of the landmark Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. The case affirmed a woman's right to choose to have a legal, safe abortion if she saw fit.

Our nation was fighting over the issue long before that day in 1973 and the argument certainly hasn't died down since. In fact, the debate has probably only grown more heated and, in some tragic cases, deadly.

But today, NARAL is simply asking you and me to answer one question: What does Trust Women mean to you?

And this is my answer: To trust women means to leave up to them all decisions pertaining to their own bodies and minds. Whether that decision is to terminate a pregnancy or to see it through, we as a society must trust each other to do what is right for ourselves.

We must also work to provide the kind of education and support necessary for informed decision making and healthy living.

That means comprehensive sex education (can we please hire Dan Savage to help write the curriculum?) from an appropriately early age. That means good, affordable access to contraception and general medical care. That means well-funded child care programs both in and out of the work environment, as well as better maternity and paternity leave policies.

Because you can't have real, lasting, meaningful choice without a healthy, supportive environment in which to make it.

The first element in this process, then, is trust. And you don't build trust by screaming in each other's faces, passing swift judgment, assuming that you know what's better for someone than they do, or painting your opponent as evil.

Once we get that through our heads and really learn to trust one another, everything else will follow.

Legal health procedure? No funding for you!

The current, heated debate over the Stupak Amendment is more than a little mind boggling. The amendment, voted into the health reform bill last week by the House and now sitting in the Senate awaiting its fate, would place extremely tight restrictions on abortions that could be offered through any government-run health care plans. It would also "restrict any private plan in the insurance exchange from offering abortion coverage."

In short: It's crap.

I know that abortion rights are a contentious issue in this country. But the fact remains, thankfully and despite the best efforts of hardliners, that the procedure remains perfectly legal. Private insurance plans offer coverage for it, too, which helps keep women from bankrupting or hurting themselves when abortion becomes a necessity.

But now a handful of anti-abortion Democrats and pretty much all of the Republicans in the Senate are up in arms over the idea that the much-needed and loooong overdue health reforms headed for a final vote might include funding for the procedures. They argue that we shouldn't be asking tax payers who disagree with abortion to help pay for it.

That might seem somewhat reasonable until you consider the fact that we're already asking, say, Quakers to pay taxes that go toward funding our various war adventures. In fact, we ask all sorts of people to contribute taxes toward things they don't necessarily agree with and/or use. That's how this works. So why do the anti-abortion folks think they're so damn special?

Not to mention the fact that the RNC's insurance plan for employees covered abortions up until the fact was pointed out by Politico and suddenly they needed to save face so they got rid of it. Now that's compassionate conservatism!

No vacation from responsibility

I tried to only brief myself on the days' events while I was on vacation last week--both because I like to stay informed, and because it makes the transition back to regular life a little less jarring--but the news that hit me upon return to my home was still hard to take.

You've all undoubtedly heard about it by now. Dr. George Tiller, for a long time one of the few providers of safe, legal, late-term abortions in this country, was gunned down while attending church services in his hometown of Wichita, Kansas. His alleged killer, 51-year-old Scott Roeder of Merriam, Kansas, has a storied history of far-right, rabidly anti-abortion and anti-government activity. It's not a stretch at all to assume he carried out the assassination based on his beliefs.

The tragic events have, predictably and rightfully, brought the issue blazing back to the forefront of our national discussion. Many pro-choice advocates are pointing out the utter hypocrisy inherent in an act of murder by a supposedly "pro-life" individual. And many anti-abortion activists are doing their best to distance themselves from the act while still demonizing Tiller's profession.

Some just can't quite give up the ghost. In comments posted over at Folkbum's site, for instance, several went from denouncing the act to saying that Tiller "deserved what he got." That does a lot to illustrate the kind of cowardly inciting to violence that some of our nation's loudest right-wing talkers like to do. Bill O'Reilly has made Tiller into a favorite bogeyman, referencing the doctor in 28 separate episodes of his show since 2005. O'Reilly frequently referred to Tiller as a "baby killer" with "blood on his hands" and who is guilty of "Nazi stuff." He also made frequent claims that Tiller had performed upwards of 60,000 abortions in his career--which, given the limits of space and time, seems highly implausible to me. But plausibility, and facts for that matter, don't seem to stop O'Reilly and his ilk.

Roeder and his extreme actions certainly don't represent all anti-abortion advocates, not by any means. But he's not alone in viewing the murder of abortion providers as being "justifiable homicide." Several groups across the country operate on that assumption--unapologetically flouting the law and, in my opinion, their own allegedly pro-life stance.

I don't pretend that everyone is ever going to agree on the issue of abortion. But I expect a modicum of civility in the debate that has been lacking, in certain sections of both sides of the issue, since as long as I can remember. And I definitely expect everyone involved to remain safe from harm. There is no excuse, no justifiability, nothing to brush aside the abuse, violence, and even death that many abortion workers and patients have to face down every damn day.

Those who spend their time demonizing and rationalizing the harassment and abuse of abortion providers and patients may not enjoy the same level of culpability as those who carry out the types of disgusting acts being discussed here, but they're not guiltless, either. I'm just a lowly blogger, and yet I'm reminded time and time again through angry comments that, through the operation of a public forum, I have a responsibility for what I espouse and support here.

So then one should suppose that that responsibility should only be dramatically increased when one has a bigger audience, a larger platform from which to spout their thoughts. I'm about as big a proponent of free speech as you're likely to come by, but even I recognize that no one has the right to shout "fire!" in a crowded theatre. Perhaps, then, we should be more closely examining the effects of shouting "baby killer!" on a public, nationally syndicated talk show.

And in the meantime, we would all do well to take a step back and cut the more inflammatory rhetoric and tactics. That way it might be easier to pick out the potential Roeders from the more sane citizens in the crowd--I wouldn't be tempted to drive by the protesters outside the Madison clinic soon to provide late-term abortions and wonder which one is carrying the gun, for instance. And that way, there might be less senseless murder and terrorism (because that's what this is) in the future.

UPDATE TO ADD: A very interesting look at the issue over at Jezebel, featuring the testimony of many women who went to Tiller's clinic for its services.

Looking for common ground on the issue of abortion

For many, there simply is no middle ground on this issue. I get that. Though I am ardently pro-choice, I understand that for some people, the issue of abortion is like the issue of the death penalty to me. I am completely against it, period. Between that lack of gray area and the heated passions often raised by the subject, a major schism has developed in our society over this one thing: should the woman have ultimate say over what happens to her body, or should outside interests? When does life begin, and when does a human life begin to reap the benefit of the law?

I've addressed the subject several times before on this blog, as it comes up time and time again. My stance has been and continues to be that both sides have both irreconcilable differences and mutual interests.

Currently, debate is raging about whether or not UW Health and Meriter Hospital should begin providing second trimester abortions at one of their clinics in Madison. The idea was proposed when the only doctor providing the procedure retired. Since then, there has been a great deal of outcry from both sides.

Over the weekend, a large group of anti-abortion protesters gathered on Library Mall and marched to the Madison Surgery Center, where the procedures would be performed. They were met by counter, pro-choice protesters and heated words were exchanged.

In the Capital Times' coverage of the rally, there was one quote that really struck me:

"This is the human rights issue in America," said Steve Karlen, founder of Madison Vigil of Life. He invoked Martin Luther King Jr. as he shouted at the crowd to stand fast in their determination to end legal abortion. "We have a dream today," he cried out to applause.

Karlen is apparently content to forget and/or ignore the several other human rights issues that still exist in our country: the exploitation of immigrant workers, equal marriage laws, discrimination against those of different races or classes, etc. Hell, we should perhaps be more concerned that slavery still exists in this day and age.

One of the biggest problems I've had in coming to relate to anti-abortion activists is their seemingly blind insistence on focusing only on those people who haven't even been born yet, as opposed to working to better the lives of those already living and breathing in our overcrowded world.

That combined with my firm belief in the ultimate right of the individual person to make decisions about their own bodies--not the government or church--makes it difficult for me to see and understand the other side of the debate.

But there must be middle ground.

Later in that same Capital Times article, there's an interesting exchange between two of the protesters:

In the midst of it all, two women on either side of the debate talked to one another, quietly, face-to-face.

"I don't like the idea of men sitting somewhere saying 'you can have an abortion. You can't.' I think I am the best one to determine what happens," UW student Olive Oyama said.

Dee McCoy of Sheboygan County said she was 18 when she had an abortion, and it took years until she understood she had been coerced into it.

"I can understand where she's coming from," Oyama said. "The reason women feel so much guilt afterward is because there isn't a space to talk about it."

"I love to meet more people like her who are willing to talk," McCoy said of Oyama. "I would like to find the middle ground."

Abortion is not a pleasant topic for anyone. For the vast majority of women who even consider having one--I'd hazard something like 99.8% of them--it's a deeply personal and painful choice. The circumstances leading up to being faced with such a decision are almost never good. They range from incest, rape, and massive in-utero defects to stupid mistakes and poor education.

I strongly suspect that one side will never totally convince the other to come over to their way of thinking. It's just too polarizing and complicated an issue. What we should be focusing on, I think, is reducing the overall need for and number of abortions. This can be achieved through stronger, comprehensive, and more affordable health care for everyone, regardless of race, social status, or gender. No more of this abstinence-only, contraceptive-phobic approach that's proving to be so harmful. It can be achieved through being honest with ourselves about sexuality, and about the major and serious hurdles faced by those living in poverty.

Because pro-choice and pro-life may never see eye-to-eye on the right to abortion, we should at least work together toward improving the situation for everyone so that the instances in which the procedure becomes a possibility are reduced significantly. To reach that point, we're going to need to put down the signs of mutilated babies, stow the personal insults, stop the threats to personal safety, and really talk with one another. It'll take a lot of hard work and a new level of honesty, but I think it's possible.

UPDATE: The Wisconsin State Journal has an interesting article up detailing the current debate up, including statistics on the number of second trimester abortions performed (which is extremely low).

(photo courtesy UW Digital Collections)

The slow but steady chipping away of reproductive rights

Recently, it was announced that UW Health wanted to begin providing second trimester abortions at one of their clinics. This after the only provider of such services in the Madison area retired this past December.

Unsurprisingly, several anti-choice organizations immediately lodged complaints against the plan. Among their stated reasons for their opposition are that it would be illegal under Wisconsin laws that prohibit public funding of abortions, and that it might force physicians who are morally opposed to assist in performing them. There is also a general opposition to second trimester abortions because some believe the fetus is far along enough in its development as to constitute "viability" - a stage at which Wisconsin law prohibits the procedure.

Unsurprisingly, they're wrong on the first two, and hazy on the third claim.

UW Health spokeswoman Lisa Brunette has already stated that employees will be allowed, as provided for under state law, to opt out of any such procedures. She has also stated that no public funds will be used for the operation. Money, instead, will come from insurance and patient fees.

As for the final claim, that certainly becomes a bit more nebulous. Under section 940.15, enacted in 1985, "Wisconsin has prohibited intentional performance of an abortion after the fetus or unborn child has reached viability, unless it is necessary to preserve the mother’s life or health, as determined by her physician. (“Viability” is the stage of fetal development when, in the judgment of the attending physician, the fetus may sustain survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support.)"

Banning second trimester abortions outright would, I'd argue, violate two laws: Roe v. Wade, of course, but also the aforementioned section of state statute. The determination of fetal viability is to be left up to the individual physician in regards to the individual case, not outside interest groups. No two instances of a woman seeking an abortion are the same, and should never be treated as such. We have exceptions carved out for cases involving the health of the mother (an important issue, despite things like McCain's air quotes on the subject), sexual assault, and incest--and for damn good reason.

I've heard people arguing against second trimester abortions say that there's no reason a woman should need to wait that long to "make up her mind." What these individuals fail to take into account, though, are the many and varied circumstances surrounding such a difficult personal decision.

Listening to Lee Rayburn's show on the Mic this morning, I heard one caller describe an instance where a woman had to save up the money for the procedure in secret, because her husband was incredibly abusive and would have beaten her up if he knew. She was into her second trimester by the time she'd saved enough. I wouldn't call that a failure of planning by any means.

And then there are cases when women simply don't know they're pregnant right away (cripes, sometimes they don't know until the kid pops out), cases where they're too young and scared to know what to do, or when something goes wrong and their life is threatened by the continuation of the pregnancy. The list goes on and on, and just goes to reiterate my point about each instance being unique.

Ultimately, it should always come down to the rights of the woman over her own body. Society should not be allowed to dictate what she does with it--and that, I suspect, is what's really at issue for these anti-choice groups. For them, laws about public funding and physician rights of conscience are secondary to their real goal: the complete and total outlawing of all abortions, in all circumstances.

They know that the majority of people in this country think that's a terrible idea, though, so they focus on smaller battles they think they can win. And so far, their strategy is working. Reproductive rights in this country have only been chipped away at since Roe v. Wade passed. Funding for sexual health and education has been significantly eroded, leading to fail-tastic abstinence only programs and the resultant higher unwanted pregnancy rates and STDs. Large segments of the population have no access to abortion services, instead often needing to travel across state lines to find a clinic where they can get help. And inaccurately named "partial-birth abortion" bans have found their way onto books across the country.

I applaud UW Health for being willing and able to provide the service to the community, and for abiding by state law along the way. I hope they're able to weather the slings and arrows lobbed by groups like the Alliance Defense Fund and Pro-Life Wisconsin. In the meantime, we must do our part, as the community served, to support UW Health and the efforts of their physicians.

The good news for Jan. 7, 2009

So much news, so little time. Most of the articles I've collected for your reading pleasure today have to do with the environment, and green technologies (except for the abortion one, which probably isn't as "green" as one of the comments wryly suggests). I've written extensively on the subject of sustainability and conservation, and I'm always on the lookout for news of positive developments on those fronts. There's plenty of doom and gloom involved, so we all need some reassurance from time to time, no? Anyway, I encourage you to check out the following articles:

• [Grist] In the midst of the many and varied pile-of-shit rule and legislative changes being pushed through the pipes at the last minute, the Bush administration went ahead and authorized the creation of the largest marine sanctuary on Earth. Excellent! Still, I can't help but wonder: Do these guys realize that you can't just designate a few patches of land and sea as nature reserves and then go off and plunder the rest of the planet? It's all connected, you jerks!
  
• [TreeHugger] Macintosh's annual bonanza-o'-self-promotion is on, and they've just announced the development of a laptop battery that's both far more long-lasting and recyclable. Pretty cool, Mac, pretty cool.
• [World Changing] Smart folks ponder the future, and what big questions and events will shape it the most. Unsurprisingly, climate change takes center stage.
  
• [Capital Times] UW Health is considering whether or not to add second trimester abortion services. Anti-choice advocates are, naturally, livid.
  

What's the word again?

I don't think I could have made this point any better:


If you haven't caught any of the Daily Show's coverage of the DNC and RNC, you owe it to yourself to hit the backlog. Despite, or perhaps because of, being a "fake news" show, I have to say that it continues to present some of the most biting, on-point, and informative commentary on the state of modern politics and culture that can be found anywhere in this country. There's a reason so many of my generation turn to it.

This isn't to say that if you don't watch it there's something wrong with you. I'm just saying that I think its popularity, at very least, is a thing worth paying attention to in and of itself.

Obama, babies, and misperceptions

I'm going to stray away from more local matters (there goes half my audience!) and talk about Barack Obama. And babies. I know, riveting stuff, but stick with me for a second, eh?

I recently dove into a rather heated debate over at Badger Blogger regarding Obama's stance on both the federal and Illinois "born alive" laws--that is, rules that make sure any child born viable as the result of an abortion is afforded full medical care. Obama has come under a great deal of fire for voting against the Illinois version of this bill back in his state senate days. He has said that we would have voted for the federal bill had he been in the Senate at the time (it was passed with bipartisan support), and that the reason he voted no on the Illinois incarnation was because it lacked the neutrality clause included in the federal one. That neutrality clause spelled out, in no uncertain terms, that the bill did not in any way circumvent Roe v. Wade:

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being "born alive" as defined in this section.

Obama's stated problem with the Illinois version of the law was two-fold: first, that Illinois already had a law on the books (it had been there for 20 years) that was nearly identical to the one being proposed:

For more than 20 years, Illinois law has required that when 'there is a reasonable likelihood of sustained survival of the fetus outside the womb, with or without artificial support,' an abortion may only be performed if a physician believes 'it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.' And in such cases, the law requires that the doctor use the technique 'most likely to preserve the life and health of the fetus' and perform the abortion in the presence of 'a physician other than the physician performing or inducing the abortion who shall take control of and provide immediate medical care for any child born alive as a result of the abortion.' [Chicago Tribune, 8/17/04]

Secondly, because the new Illinois law being introduced lack the neutrality clause, Obama worried that it could be used as a tool for undoing many of the rights and protections afforded women by Roe v. Wade. The new bill was nothing more than a political ploy to make anyone who voted against it look bad--and it worked. In the comments thread at Badger Blogger, Obama was accused of being "pro-infanticide," an incredibly offensive and loaded accusation if ever there was one. But apparently those making the claim felt comfortable handing out this label to anyone who tried to point out a different side to the story. That included me.

I was called upon to "try to explain how infanticide is okay" and labeled with gems like "You, and people like you, are the problem that serves as a vehicle for the horrors committed in this nation" and "You support live children being left to die on a shelf." There's more, of course, but I don't feel like posting them all. If you can stomach it, give the comments thread a read to see the rest.

I don't know how anyone really believes that accusing people of being pro-infanticide will help further their argument, or win over any previously disagreeing hearts and minds. It's right up there with Godwin's Law in my books.

I foolishly tried to have a reasonable debate with those folks, but they weren't having it, so eventually I just left well enough alone. Still, the fact that there was anyone out there who might really believe, even incorrectly, that I or Obama or anyone outside of homocidal, sociopathic maniacs were actually pro-infanticide, remained deeply troubling to me. As in so many of these sorts of charged, emotional debates, no amount of what I thought was reasonable refutation of misperceptions or presentation of fact could move them.

Today, I read a fascinating, well-worded piece over at the Huffington Post by Drew Westen, who talked about Obama's recent talk at Rev. Rick Warren's "Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency" - specifically, how he addressed the issue of abortion in comparison with John McCain. Go give it a read, I'll wait....

...So, he makes some great points. And it got me to thinking: the people over at BB who were so adamant that Obama and myself are pro-infanticide seem to have thoroughly linked that issue with abortion (a good example being the citation of this post, that claims to list the "Top 10 Reasons Obama Voted Aginst the Illinois Born Alive Act" but, in fact, only lists quotes of Obama talking about abortion, and not the bill). It may be impossible for them to see how the two differ, because they feel so strongly about the latter. And I, being not the greatest debator of all time, couldn't find the words to make them see the common ground between us, and the misperceptions that both sides were bringing to the table. It being an internet debate certainly didn't help things, either.

Westen lays it out like this:

No one truly knows what's in the mind of God, and I just don't like the idea of government telling a woman or couple when they should or shouldn't start their family based on somebody else's interpretation of Scripture. We need to find the common ground on abortion, reflecting our shared moral beliefs, not the beliefs that divide us. We are all united in the belief that we should do everything we can to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies, teen pregnancies, and abortions, starting with instilling in our children both the values and the knowledge to make good choices. And we all agree that abortion shouldn't be used as a form of birth control and shouldn't be an option late in pregnancy except when the mother's life or health is in danger. I could go on and talk about how misguided I think our currently policies are that deny access to birth control to women and teenagers in our inner cities, which does nothing but perpetuate the cycle of poverty, stop young people from getting an education and fulfilling their God-given potential, and make it more likely that they'll have children before they're ready to be good parents. But the main point I want to make is that in this country, we don't force one person to live by another person's faith. This should be a personal and moral issue, not a political one.

I don't pretend to know the mind of Barack Obama, but I do know that I agree with the statements and sentiments laid out above, and I at least suspect that he would, too. I just wish he, and other Democrats, independents, and any other pro-choice persons, would learn to express these feelings in such an eloquent and even-handed way. Leave the accusations behind--no more cries of "baby killer!" or "fascist!" from either side. Then maybe we can all come close to something approximating an equitable solution for an issue that is and always shall be incredibly complicated and difficult.