“Pro-choice” proponents turn on Planned Parenthood
I wrote on August 4 that a July 28 New York Times article about Planned Parenthood’s decision to abandon the term “pro-choice” had triggered a race war within the abortion movement.
This was because Planned Parenthood steered NYT journalist Jackie Calmes to seven white leaders of abortion groups for quotes but no women of color.
Plus, Planned Parenthood gave no credit to WOC groups for expanding on abortion advocacy to include other “reproductive justice” issues, a term WOC coined two decades ago. This July 31 tweet didn’t come out of nowhere…
We give honor to the Black women who came together in 1994 to name what we now know as #reprojustice. #KnowYourHistory
— SisterSong: National Women of Color RJ Collective (@SisterSong_WOC) July 31, 2014
On August 5 the racial schism burst into the open when Monica Simpson, Executive Director of SisterSong, published “An Open Letter to Planned Parenthood” at the pro-abortion website RH Reality Check:
Whether stemming from oversight or from deliberate exclusion, the New York Times story, “Advocates Shun ‘Pro-Choice’ to Expand Message,” and the Huffington Post essay, “We’re Fighting for Access, Not Choice,” suggests very clearly that Planned Parenthood did not inform the reporters of the long-term work of scores of reproductive justice organizations, activists, and researchers that have challenged the “pro-choice” label for 20 years.
Many of us received feedback from… Jackie Calmes, confirming that this history was not presented to her by the mainstream reproductive rights organizations with which she spoke. This is not only disheartening but, intentionally or not, continues the co-optation and erasure of the tremendously hard work done by Indigenous women and women of color (WOC) for decades.
[W]omen of color RJ organizations have sought to instill a reproductive justice framework into these fights - not always with the support of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America or its affiliates.
In fact, in 2011, when Planned Parenthood and other allies were given the opportunity to understand and work on the intersectionality of issues in Mississippi while working in partnership with SisterSong, the organization failed to step forward. The fight to defeat both the “personhood” and the voter identification amendment reflected a clear attack on the rights of Black women in the state.
Yet, when urged to see the connection between reproductive health rights and voting rights, PPFA rejected the notion. As a result, “personhood” was defeated and the voter ID initiative passed, leaving Mississippi more vulnerable to new “personhood,” anti-abortion, and other discriminatory and counterproductive laws in the future.
As an aside, that was an interesting take on how voter ID laws may negatively impact abortion at the ballot box. If the theory holds true, voter ID laws will not just help pro-life voter initiatives but also pro-life candidates.
Another aside, it’s also interesting that RH Reality Check published this letter.
Simpson (pictured left) listed several demands that included a “face-to-face meeting between executive directors of national WOC-led RJ organizations and PPFA leadership….”
“This public infighting is something we never used to see,” noted Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy advisor for Operation Rescue, in an email. “They used to keep this kind of thing behind closed doors. It’s a good sign for us.”
Then here’s another good sign, a July 29 letter to the editor in the New York Times from Susan Wysocki (pictured below right), board chairwoman of Catholics for Choice:
As a lifetime advocate for women’s health, I fear that your article may give rise to a misperception about the reality of abortion rights advocacy by highlighting the campaign strategy of one organization, Planned Parenthood….
Election cycle messaging campaigns, whatever they may be, cannot obscure this simple fact: If you will not say that you are in favor of choice, you are no advocate for women’s health and lives.
So Planned Parenthood is now publicly engaged in a two-front war with groups on its own side, on the issues of racism and strategy.
Sabotaging abortion zen
I cannot overstate how unsettling it was to the equilibrium of the abortion movement for Planned Parenthood to publicly renounce the truly hallowed term ”pro-choice.” “Pro-choice” is their identity, it protects them, it lets them sleep at night.
It is even the legal name of hundreds if not thousands of groups, like Catholics for Choice (see above), Center for Choice, Choice USA, Clinicians for Choice, Feminists for Choice, Medical Students for Choice, NARAL Pro-Choice America, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Republicans for Choice, Rock for Choice, Voice of Choice, 4000 Years for Choice, etc.
At least one Planned Parenthood even has “choice” in its name: Planned Parenthood Center for Choice in Houston.
But back to Planned Parenthood and its racism problem – which is really nothing new since it was founded on racism and eugenics - Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards issued a response in an “Open Letter on Reproductive Justice and ‘Choice'” within hours after Simpson posted her open letter.
The buck does NOT stop here (unless it’s $$)
Interestingly, Richards never addressed the huge gaffes Planned Parenthood made in shaping the NYT article other than to say she was “eager to talk to you about the events of the last few weeks, and what we can learn from this experience going forward.” There was no apology.
Furthermore, although Simpson addressed her letter specifically to Planned Parenthood, outlining where Planned Parenthood had failed WOC abortion groups, Richards dragged the rest of the abortion industry into the melee, writing “how Planned Parenthood and other organizations have sometimes fallen short….”
I’m sure groups formerly known as “pro-choice” appreciate standing with Planned Parenthood as racists.
Double diss.
[Photo of Simpson via elixher.com; photo of Wysocki via flickr.com]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
On voter ID, the argument against it is that low-income people are the most likely to be unjustly turned away from the polls. I won’t deny that low-income people tend to vote Democratic, and given the scarcity of good pro-life Democratic candidates, that probably means voting for pro-abortion politicians.
**But they vote Democratic IN SPITE of abortion, not BECAUSE of it.** Low-income Americans don’t support abortion nearly as much as the nation’s elites. (Details: http://blog.secularprolife.org/2014/04/dont-let-oligarchy-get-you-down.html)
So when it comes to INITIATIVES, rather than candidates, voter ID probably hurts the pro-life movement.
Just my two cents. Obviously there’s more to think about re: voter ID than its impact on the right to life.
At least prolifers generally fight over real things like moral strategies, candidate endorsements and pieces of legislation. Abortionists fight over propaganda terms and who gets recognized at the head table. Throwaway culture? You betcha!
I agree, Christ. Knock yourselves out, ladies.
I meant Chris, not Christ!
The decision to switch away from the word “choice” is far more ominous than many realize. It can only mean that choice is going to go away – like in China. All this is “battle-space preparation” and is probably a very good indication that those calling the shots believe the temporary hit from political side-effects will be more than offset by the need to start removing individual centered “choice” from the culture.
What many who been Planned Parenthood’s closest allies are failing to see is that old maxim – “keep your friends close – and your enemies closer”. Remember, when you’re closer, it’s easier for them to stab you in the back!
Chris, that’s a very good point. Hope you’re wrong, but…
I know this sounds terribly cynical and politically incorrect. But if voter ID laws really are just an evil plot by the right-wing to stop people from voting, I don’t have a problem with that. If someone doesn’t have the time/money to obtain photo ID, they probably don’t have the time/money to follow the candidates closely enough to cast an informed vote. And the last thing we need is more low-information Homer Simpson voters. Quality over quantity.
Still, my main problem with the ID laws is that they’re not the same in all 50 states. Even for a federal election, each state has a different ID law, a different system of counting ballots, a different ballot, and something weird always happens in Florida (like in 2000). Crazy system.
You need photo ID for a lot of necessary functions, such as obtaining one’s controlled substances at the pharmacy. So gimme a break……… people of all shapes, sizes, colors and economic strata have photo ID.
Lefties hate voter ID because it means: one person, one vote, and helps prevent voting from beyond the grave.
Jill! Great series on the conflict within the pro-abort side!
If low-income people can’t obtain photo IDs, that is a serious problem, and it would be an impediment for far more than voting. So I do wonder why we only hear about it in the context of voting, and not the myriad of other things that require a photo ID.
Serious question:
Announcing that they are stepping away from “pro-choice” in their effort to re-engage with young women has been a faux pas for Planned Parenthood, but does it really matter?
I expect that these disgruntled ethnic activists will knuckle under, just like Komen Foundation and the Girl Scouts did. The blog articles will disappear, PP’s cash flows and tax subsidies will remain, and the abortion industry will not implode.
Kelsey: If low-income people can’t obtain photo IDs, that is a serious problem, and it would be an impediment for far more than voting. So I do wonder why we only hear about it in the context of voting, and not the myriad of other things that require a photo ID.
Looks like State ID’s cost between $5 and $34, so should not be prohibitive for almost everybody. I wonder if having the necessary supporting documents in hand presents a problem, many times….
As for the other things that require a photo ID, good question – there are yet people who live pretty much under the radar, so to speak, but as Pharmer mentioned, even just getting a prescription means you have to have the ID.
The flip side is that “voter fraud” is not the target of the rule and law changes. Voter suppression is the aim, and there are tapes of state legislators affirming just that; there are confirmations of it from former Republican office-holders and campaign officials, etc. Hard for me to think that intent should be rewarded.
Navi: If someone doesn’t have the time/money to obtain photo ID, they probably don’t have the time/money to follow the candidates closely enough to cast an informed vote.
Well, there are plenty of “pro-life” voters out there who don’t follow the candidates closely, as well as other voters like that.
I will say that among those who claim not to have enough money for such an ID, there are probably quite a few who still always seem to have money for cigarettes.
Anymore, smokes cost a lot – some places in New York they are now $11 or $12 a pack. You drive along, see someone holding a sign, “Very hungry, please help.” Lit cigarette hanging out of their mouth, and that cigarette cost 50 or 60 cents….
I know this sounds terribly cynical and politically incorrect. But if voter ID laws really are just an evil plot by the right-wing to stop people from voting, I don’t have a problem with that. If someone doesn’t have the time/money to obtain photo ID, they probably don’t have the time/money to follow the candidates closely enough to cast an informed vote.
It also sounds terribly elitist and exclusionary. Not everyone who voted for Obama was a “low information voter.” Remember that he did very well among college-educated white women, the Sandra Fluke types. Just because someone doesn’t vote for the same candidates I do just mean they shouldn’t be able to vote.
Doug, I work with VERY low income people — I’m talking about 900 a month, in SSI, plus maybe 200 in food stamps. The cost of voter ID may be prohibitive after paying for rent, clothing and other necessities. Also, I am not condoning cigarette smoking, but it’s a hard habit to kick. Many times those cigarettes you see homeless people smoking are bummed off someone, picked out of the garbage, or “loosies” which I assume are cheaper than buying them in a pack.
Phillymiss: Just because someone doesn’t vote for the same candidates I do just mean they shouldn’t be able to vote.
Well, Phillymiss, right there you are disagreeing with those who are bringing in the changes in the rules/laws that are designed to suppress certain parts of the voting public.
—–
Doug, I work with VERY low income people — I’m talking about 900 a month, in SSI, plus maybe 200 in food stamps. The cost of voter ID may be prohibitive after paying for rent, clothing and other necessities. Also, I am not condoning cigarette smoking, but it’s a hard habit to kick. Many times those cigarettes you see homeless people smoking are bummed off someone, picked out of the garbage, or “loosies” which I assume are cheaper than buying them in a pack.
Okay, point taken, Phillymiss. I would say that loosies are going to be more expensive per cigarette than buying them by the pack, but agreed that it’s a real booger of a habit to kick.
If it is a meaningful hardship for some people, financially, then all the more reason not to approve the measures aimed at excluding part of the electorate.
Because putting a planned parenthood in a poor neighborhood doesn’t send a message of intolerance… NEWSFLASH! Planned Parenthood doesn’t hate “Black People”, they hate people(blobs), but only when they can’t make money off of them. When they can bank on human flesh, they love people-just not alive. Even the most tolerant post-abortion woman, will say had abortion been less accessible, the child PP took from them would still be here. The more vulnerable, the better! That’s their essential sales pitch; you need us because your hopeless. If “Just Another Girl From The I.R.T.” had ended with a message about abortion access instead of a legacy win in face of all odds, would be such a well-loved hit? No-it would be about a sad concession made in persuit of an American Dream that was cheap, and superficial, and it would also have been about the exploitation of young Black Americans instead of what it is: a film about their strength and power to overcome.
[…] written two posts in recent days on a new phenomenon – abortion groups publicly challenging the big kahuna, […]