CAROL DOWNER’S FEMINIST CRYSTAL BALL:

 CAROL LOOKS INTO HER CRYSTAL BALL TO MAKE  PREDICTIONS ON SCOTUS DECISION IN WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH VS. HELLERSTEDT, 15-274

Tuesday, March 2, 2016, SCOTUS heard arguments on the constitutionality of Texas abortion regulations, Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt.   Various SCOTUS watchers have weighed in with cautious predictions of the decision.  I offer my predictions with reckless abandon.  Be forewarned, my predictions are solely to spark discussion and debate.  I failed miserably to predict the shutdown of clinics in Texas.  I figured the U.S. military-industrial complex needed women in the work force so much  that they would not allow state legislators to pass legislation that actually shut down clinics.

HISTORICAL BASIS FOR CAROL’S CRYSTAL GAZING

Since the 1970’s, having a network of abortion clinics and being leaders in the abortion provider movement, our Feminist Women’s Health Centers brought us into contact with government agencies, other abortion providers, and activists, demographers and other people high up in international population control circles.  We found that political change in the arena of abortion comes when governments are influenced to either encourage or discourage population growth by the liberal and conservative sections of the ruling elite, not from changes in the political climate.  Throughout the last 50 years, abortion polls have been consistent.  Generally, 20% favor legalizing abortion in all situations, 20%, favor making abortion illegal in all situations and 60% favor abortion being legal in nearly all cases. The violence against abortion providers and the drama that is played out in front our clinics by the 20% who oppose abortion diverts the public’s attention from the national and global political struggles within and between nations around the control of women’s fertility.  

COMPARISON OF CAROL’S ASSUMPTIONS AND POPULAR ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT WHAT DRIVES POLITICAL DECISIONS ABOUT CONTRACEPTION AND ABORTION

CAROL’S ASSUMPTIONS                           POPULAR ASSUMPTIONS

Each SCOTUS Justice brings their own worldview, including religion and views on women’s rights, but each are heavily influenced by their reference group re affect of abortion regulations on population growth	Each SCOTUS justice bring own views of the morality of abortion and women’s rights, but may be responsive to public opinion
SCOTUS Justices first vote, then find the precedents and arguments which support their decision; their talents lie in their ability to rationalize any decision	SCOTUS justices are bound by precedent, but their talents lie in researching the law and creatively applying precedents with skillful argumentation.
Ruling U.S. elite disagree about the dangers posed by Europe and U.S. low birth rates.  The Right Wing calls it “the coming demographic disaster”. Liberals still favor access to abortion to keep TBR* low, but will accept policies to raise it.	The TBR* has nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision; it’s all about views on morality and women’s rights.
*Total Birth Rate	*Total Birth Rate
Right-wing politicians care nothing about the “right to life”.  They hide their true motives, to encourage birth for nationalistic reasons.	Right-wing politicians want to enforce their code of sexual morality on women.  They care nothing about the “right to life”.
Liberal politicians care nothing about “choice”.  The hide their motives, to solve social problems solely through controlling population, behind a façade of caring about women’s rights.	Liberal politicians care about women’s “choice”, and of course they do want women’s votes.
Liberal elite is not as worried about population explosion as it was, because demographic experts’ models now show world population growth leveling out mid-century, then slowly declining.	Population growth is not slowing down fast enough; we can’t change consumption ways or destruction of environment.

History and Possible Effect of SCOTUS upholding Texas Regulations

 Roe v. Wade made the decision to have an abortion between a woman and her doctor, but it included a “however” which gave a back door through which a woman’s right could be partially or completely negated by giving states the right to regulate the delivery of abortion.  Through a succession of decisions, reductions to women’s access to abortion have been ruled constitutional as long as they do not constitute “an undue burden”.  

Now, forty-plus years later, SCOTUS, if it were to rule the Texas regulations contested in Whole Woman’s Health vs. Hellerstedt constitutional, a handful of Texas abortion providers will remain open, and within a few years, most other states will pass similar regulations.  Access to abortion would then go back to pre Roe v. Wade levels.

Studious peering into my crystal ball reveals:

SCOTUS MAY FIND ONE, BUT NOT BOTH HB2 REGULATIONS CONSTITUTIONAL AS WRITTEN.

I don’t think SCOTUS will uphold both regulations.  You don’t need a crystal ball to know that as other states pass similar regulations, the present social upheaval in Texas would spread throughout the country, and women’s collective memory is not so short that they would allow such an abrupt return to pre Roe v. Wade situation without reviving the protests and the widespread civil disobedience like openly setting up illegal clinics, or learning how to do abortion ourselves.  Today, the online mail order distribution of the drug combination of mifepristone pills and misoprostol pills would enable thousands or even millions of women to self-abort, creating a new class of criminals, a minority of those women who have tried to abort themselves who have been arrested when they go to the hospital with complications.

SCOTUS WILL NOT STRIKE DOWN BOTH HB2 REGULATIONS. 

  

As much as I would like to think that SCOTUS will reject both the regulation requiring that a doctor performing an abortion have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles and the regulation requiring a clinic to meet the standards of an Ambulatory Surgical Center, my ball  grew murky, but I could see some form of regulation in it.  The Total Birth Rate (TBR) is 1.9, and something more than requiring minors to get parental consent, cutting off funds for poor women, waiting periods and shaming consent procedures will be needed to raise it—at least a tad. 

SCOTUS could decide that, with some changes, one or both of the regulations do not create an undue burden for women seeking abortion.  This will allow some abortion clinics to stay open, so the TBR will stay low, but it will not go much lower.   I see some regulations, but I can’t see SCOTUS ordering modifications to the hospital admitting privilege requirement.   Most abortions in the U.S. occur in a clinic setting, because hospitals don’t like to do them, and don’t like abortionists.  Further, they don’t like abortion complications being treated at their hospital.   would necessitate some changes in the way hospitals run their businesses, and even SCOTUS can’t tangle with the nation’s hospitals.  Also, doctors would get very upset if their hands are tied to perform legal procedures.  Also, is most states passed the regulation, nearly all abortion clinics outside metropolitan areas would be eliminated, ergo, the hospital admitting privilege requirement is probably history. 

WHAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE AMBULATORY SURGIAL CENTER REGULATIONS CAN WE EXPECT?

My crystal ball was all cloudy when I asked this question, but, as an officer and board member of the National Abortion Federation and abortion provider for many years, I know there are many options a regulator has to choose from, and I would expect the Texas legislators to pick those that impose some burden on providers, but not as many as Ambulatory Surgical Center regulations, as presently written, would.  Also, SCOTUS no doubt is aware of the millions of dollars that the highly visible Planned Parenthood Association has received from women sending in checks each time PP is attacked; they may feel confident that Planned Parenthood could erect ASC-type clinics around the country.  If the barrier to having minimally adequate clinics is reduced to a mostly financial one, vigorous fund-raising on the part of all abortion providers would enable the majority of our nation’s clinics to keep their doors open.

 UH, OH, my crystal has returned to its ornamental state on my mantle. While we’re waiting for the decision, I’d love to hear about what you see in YOUR crystal ball (or tarot cards or in the stars).  After all, SCOTUS isn’t the only game in town for devious feminist thinking.  

 

SPOTLIGHT: A Feminist Film Review by Carol Downer

It's great for those of us who see the institution of patriarchy as oppressing the class of women when a movie comes along that shows clearly how patriarchy works in society. The Oscar-nominated and award-winning film, Spotlight, released in 2015, recounts the story of how the molestation of many young children by Catholic priests in Boston, Massachusetts was covered up until reporters from the Boston Globe exposed it.

Even those who scoff at the term "patriarchy" to refer to anything other than the type of family structure headed up by males, agree that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church has a patriarchal structure and promotes a patriarchal family structure.  So no one should quibble at the term "patriarchal conspiracy" to describe the policies of the Catholic hierarchy in Boston, which was headed up by Cardinal Law, to settle any threatened lawsuits brought by families of the victims (on the condition that they not sue), keeping information about an accused priest confidential- coupled with the decision of the Church to reassign the priest to another parish. The attempt of anyone to cover up a crime is itself a crime, and therefore, if it were to be taken to court and proven that they had done so, the Church's actions would be a criminal conspiracy.

I highly recommend that you see Spotlight because it shows this conspiracy very well, but it shows much more. It shows how various attorneys in Boston and the Boston press made this alleged criminal conspiracy successful. The phrase "old boy network" applies in this case. In Boston, a Catholic town, the prominent men that were in a position to do something went to school together and played golf together. Some shared family celebrations together. They were loath to assist in ferreting out the truth because associates who represented the Church persuaded them that the damage to the Church's reputation by bringing a spotlight to the problem would greatly outweigh whatever damage had been done to individuals. The attorneys for the victims had a duty to get justice for their clients, so when their clients decided to settle and keep quiet, they had performed their duty and had to no obligation to the public.

Spotlight shows us the pain of the victims who were haunted for years by the shattering of their childhood innocence and it also shows the power of male bonding,  and the ways that patriarchal socialization effects everyone. The erring priests were able to carry out their abusive behaviors, because of the trust of the victims and their families, and they were able to go unpunished and continue their abusive behaviors because of the victims' and the Church members' unwillingness or inability to reconcile this breach of their trust with their reverence for the Church and the men who run it.

Spotlight is a beautifully acted, touching film that skillfully recounts the story that most of us followed in the media, and the brilliant editing enables the viewer to answer for themselves the question most of us asked while the repercussions of the scandal unfolded: "How could this happen and go on for so long?" It's unsparing journalistic style doesn't preach any message, other than to the show the importance of vigorous journalistic investigation in a democracy and to caution all of us to not let loyalties to old friends and fear of facing unpleasant truths turn our eyes away from injustice, especially toward young and defenseless children.

Note: Subsequently, it was established that the Catholic hierarchy had been engaging in the practice of transferring accused priests to locations all over the country where they were in a position to continue their abuse.

Also, none of the leaders of the Catholic hierarchy have been charged with any crime. Most are still in their position, or even transferred to positions that give them more power and prestige within the Church organizations.

REPORT ON MANA CONFERENCE: 2015 

Midwives Alliance of North America Conference

2015, October 15 to 18. Albuquerque, New Mexico  

By CAROL DOWNER

BACKGROUND:

To promote my Pro Woman Agenda project, I attend midwifery events, such as the MANA conference.  This year, I also participated in a “shadow conference” put together by MANA member and midwife, Mary Lou Singleton and members of WoLF (Women’s Liberation Front), to protest a change in MANA’s “Core Competencies” document language. “Pregnant woman” was changed to “pregnant individual”, “mother” was changed to “birthing parent”.  This was done to be inclusive of trans men who have babies.  WoLF had reserved a table to discuss the issue with attendees. MANA cancelled their reservation and refunded their fee, on the grounds that it would make the conference more “safe”. I exhibited the WoLF literature and the announcements of the workshops on my table.

THE ONLINE CONTROVERSY BEFORE THE CONFERENCE

Mary Lou Singleton and fellow midwife Michelle Smith wrote the Open Letter to MANA a month ahead of the conference, placing it on the website, Women-Centered Midwifery with 190 signatories. Birth for Everybody set up a website, including hyperlinks to other sites to further explain their support for the language change with 625 signatories. Supporters of the language change

A Midwife for Every Body Buttons

set up a petition to ban a prominent midwife Ina May Gaskin from speaking at future conferences.

The Open Letter sparked other online responses, including a blog on Huffington Post from a trans man, Trevor MacDonald. Mary Lou commented on this first blog, prompting a second blog which contained outright misrepresentations of what Mary Lou had said in her comment that was obvious to anyone who read the photo of her comment that he had placed there.

The Loss of a Good Friend: Pati Garcia, who went to midwifery school in Texas three years ago signed the Birth for Every Body response and placed it on her Facebook Page.  I followed the very long thread of comments she received, all in complete agreement with her.  One commenter said that she was upset to see respected pioneers in birth, such as Ina May Gaskin, on the list of signers to the Women-Centered Midwifery Open Letter.  Pati’s response was to say that I was one of the signers that she knew very well, and that she had stopped associating with me because I am racist. She said that I said that women of color have too many doors being opened for them.  Of course, I have never said this nor do I believe it, so I wrote Pati to admonish her on her ad hominem attack (I never quite understood what that was until it happened to me).  I saw her at the conference many times because she staffed a table with others.  Anyone who knows me and Pati knows that we were closely associated for several years and I was privileged to help her with her founding of Shodhini.  I know that her slur will not damage my reputation with those who know me and work with me, but her personal attack deeply wounded me.

Perhaps this is one reason this report has taken so long to write.   It may show the level of acrimony that exists in the movement over this disputed debate.

SHADOW CONFERENCE SCHEDULE

 

”Women’s Liberation is Based on Sex, Not Gender,” Kathy Scarbrough.

“History of the Women’s Self-Help Movement”, Carol Downer.

“Confronting the Gender Industrial Complex”, Mark (Maritza) & Lynna (Paul).

“Women’s Body for Sale: the growing market in eggs, milk and wombs with a Personal Story,” Mary Lou Singleton.

“Cervical Self-Exam Workshop”, Laura Perez and Carol Downer

WoLF activities: WoLF members (who had traveled to attend the conference and protest) distributed leaflets announcing their workshops.  Six WoLF members and supporters attended a plenary program presented by Sam Killerman (Gender Bread Person) and WoLF hosted an informal discussion about the forced professionalization of midwifery.

WHWH.ORG TABLE

One of the officers of MANA came by to visit my table to see that I wasn’t violating the agreement regarding the literature that all exhibitors have to comply with.  We had met at a prior MANA conference.  She was borderline civil; she stopped just short of being nasty and she let me know they were keeping an eye on me and would be back to check to see that, although I’m a member of WoLF, I was not just a front for WoLF.

Our table was poorly located, and I didn’t have too many visitors.  However, the few that came by were quite interested and had interesting things to share.  We talked some about the controversy, but mostly people were interested in the books and leaflets I had on display.  All the brochures for the Trans Health Initiative at the Feminist Health Center in Atlanta were snapped up. I hope the program became known to midwives around the country.  As usual, my copy of Radical Doula attracted a lot of interest, until it, along with all of my WoLF literature, disappeared during the night.

. ATTORNEYS FOR CHILDREN INJURED BY VACCINE

An organization of attorneys, Know Your Vaccines, was located across from my table.  I learned from the woman staffing it that the government recognizes that the vaccines given to babies and young children do cause severe injury to a certain number.  To protect the manufacturer from being hit by big damages from lawsuits from parents, the government has set up a fund to help parents to care for children who require years of institutional care, but attorneys are needed to help parents with the complicated process to qualify for the money.

OUTCOME OF CONTROVERSY MANA, like many liberal women’s organizations, quickly accepted the demands of the trans gender community to change its language to be gender-neutral.   They had a speaker, Sam Killerman, and they have accepted his views of gender. Some of the women who came to the table told me that at the opening Plenary Session, a MANA speaker had said that MANA “is still discussing the issue”, so they had the impression that perhaps there would be a reversal of MANA’s change.  No one has offered to discuss the issue any further with Mary Lou or Michelle, both of whom have been active in the organization for years and held high office.

IMPORTANT POST-CONFERENCE ARTICLE TO SHARE

                Women’s Health in Women’s Hands has just come across an article in an online magazine, Model View Culture, by Kyra, December 10, 2014, “How to Uphold White Supremacy by Focusing on Diversity and Inclusion”.   This article would have changed the dialogue about being “inclusive”.

                Kyra shows how white supremacist liberalism uses the demands for diversity and inclusion by working to ignore and erase difference rather than to undo oppression.  Of course, she is speaking from the viewpoint of oppressed people of color and people with marginalized identities with racial/gender/sexual backgrounds, but her analysis of the change to gender-neutral language in MANA’s guidelines is very applicable.