re-branding abortion rights

i've tried a number of times to get this op-ed published, but since that's looking less and less likely, i'm finally going to post it on the interwebs. i still think it's timely. please share if so moved.

***

In the wake of Dr. George Tiller’s murder, abortion rights are back in the public eye. Though his death saddens me, I hope reproductive rights groups will seize upon this opportunity to reinvigorate the movement. Because as an advertising professional, and perhaps even more as a 29-year-old woman, I can see nothing in more desperate need of a branding overhaul than the pro-choice cause. It’s dated. Off the radar. And out of touch with young people.

Like so many consumer products, reproductive rights groups must re-package and re-present themselves to stay relevant to that ever-elusive young target. That’s not to say they aren’t trying. Every major abortion rights group has online presence on Facebook, Myspace, and YouTube. They still have pockets of young activists, as seen recently on the campus of Notre Dame. Pro-choice groups are even getting provocative by sponsoring college events like the Vagina Monologues. And by piggybacking onto less controversial issues such as affordable birth control and comprehensive sex education, they’re aiming to broaden their support base.

But these efforts have done little to evoke the same passion in protecting reproductive rights that opposition groups have evoked in shutting them down. Anti-choicers have figured out how to connect on a deeply visceral level to galvanize young people towards restricting and eventually outlawing abortion. Through activist summer camps, political internships, and organized youth groups, a growing number of minds are being won over. In 2008, a Pew survey found that 22% of young adults support a total ban on abortion, compared with only 15% of their parents’ generation.

Unlike their parents’ generation, who remember the struggles surrounding Roe v. Wade, these so-called “millenials” have never lived in a time when abortion was illegal. So even if support for legal abortion in some or all circumstances still sits in the majority, the sentiment is latent at best.

On the other hand, anti-choicers see themselves as heroic crusaders, saving lives against the bastion of an immoral practice. George Tiller “was a mass murderer” who “reaped what he sowed,” said Randall Terry, founder of anti-choice Operation Rescue. "The thought of him leaving this life with blood on his hands for having killed so many thousands of children and not having been prepared to meet his maker is a dreadful, terrifying thought."

Yikes. How do you compete with a damning sentiment like that? You don’t.

Every movement needs a villain. The pro-lifers have theirs, and they’re well-funded and mobilized to fight it. Where’s the pro-choice villain? Something young women like me can rally against? Something to get us mad, and get us moving?

It may not be as obvious, but it’s just as potent. Our villain is hypocrisy. My generation can’t stand bullshit. In our young lives, we’ve seen an election stolen, a war started under false pretenses, and ridiculous cases of corporate greed. It’s hardened us. We like calling people’s bluffs. We take nothing at face value. And understanding how we think is the key to winning us over.

One of the most successful public service efforts of our lifetime is the anti-smoking truth® campaign. Its genius was not in getting moralistic about whether smoking was or wasn’t bad, but in bringing the tobacco industry and its underhanded lobbying, marketing, and pseudo-scientific research practices to light.

Reproductive rights groups have an even bigger opportunity to expose ugly truths about their supposedly morally-driven opposition. Pro-life organizations habitually spread unfounded or over-exaggerated health myths, claiming abortions contribute to breast cancer, psychological damage, and infertility. They set up “crisis pregnancy centers,” which use misleading and intimidating tactics, including agenda-driven movies, slideshows, and lectures, under the guise of legitimate health information. Worse yet, these pregnancy centers often receive state and federal funding.

NARAL Pro-Choice America reports that some of these crisis pregnancy centers do not have any medically trained or medically supervised personnel at all. And even in cases where centers are overseen by medical professionals, there are no regulations to ensure women receive complete and medically accurate information. According to the Pearson Foundation’s How to Start and Operate Your Own Pro-Life Outreach Crisis Pregnancy Center manual, staffers should “[b]e put off by nothing… Let nothing stop you. The stakes are life or death.” Said its author, Robert Pearson, in 1994, “[o]bviously, we’re fighting Satan… A killer, who in this case is the girl who wants to kill her baby, has no right to information that will help kill her baby.”

More women need to know about the underhanded tactics that threaten their reproductive health. Do they need to know the full picture, the ethically complex, medically accurate, and unbiased health facts as well? Of course. But they’ll never seek that information without a much more pointed motivation.

Here’s one way to point them. Go into any Planned Parenthood. Sit by a phone, regardless if it’s the most senior doctor’s or the lowliest intern’s. As a former volunteer, I can almost guarantee that right above that phone is a protocol for when a bomb threat is called in. Run a picture of that protocol with the headline, “Still think women’s rights aren’t under attack?” Even before the Tiller murder, the Guttmacher Institute reported that 82% of large abortion providers experience some kind of harrassment, vandalism, or threats, sometimes at staff members’ homes.

This kind of simple but poignant messaging gives young people a reason to give a damn, not only to save reproductive rights, but to shine a light on the hypocrisy of a movement whose extremists will kill in the name of “saving life.” Because if there’s anything my generation hates, it’s bullshit. And in the anti-choice camp, there’s plenty of it.

sex ed for kindergarteners

John McCain and Sarah Palin are pro-choice—at least when it comes to schools. They say that “parents should be able to decide the learning environment that is best for their child.”

But a recently released McCain ad lambasts Barack Obama’s achievements in comprehensive sex education, scoffing at the idea of “learning about sex before learning to read” and concluding that Obama is “wrong on education… wrong for your family.”

Excuse me, but shouldn’t parents be able to decide?

After all, every parent is a sexual being. But more than likely, their sexual activity didn’t begin with a marriage vow. Government data show that not only do 9 out of 10 people engage in premarital sex, but that the rate of premarital sex has been consistent for over 50 years. Even Sarah Palin can’t claim she saved herself for marriage; she gave birth to her eldest son only 8 months after eloping.

Parents understand that just as babies discover their fingers and toes, they also discover their genitals. They know that on every playground, toddlers are aware of the biological differences between boys and girls.

Age-appropriate sex ed helps shape healthy attitudes about gender roles, teach communication, and heighten capacity to build relationships. And as children progress into adolescence, they need complete, medically accurate information on the values of abstinence, the use of contraception, and the risks of pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections (STI).

But even though only 10% of the nation’s school districts teach comprehensive sex ed, McCain wants to rob parents of that choice completely. Since the 1980s, McCain and his cronies have forced abstinence-only-until-marriage (AOUM) programs on parents, students, and public schools, spending $1.5 billion in the process. Palin has echoed these sentiments, writing “The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support.”

Of course, we all know how well that turned out. Bristol Palin’s pregnancy is national news, and her boyfriend Levi Johnston had to shut down his Myspace page because it stated “I don’t want kids.” No matter how the McCain camp spins it, if Alaska’s school system had encouraged safer sex practices, Bristol and Levi might not be expecting one.

But if Bristol Palin isn’t evidence enough that abstinence-only doesn’t work, try a 2007 Health and Human Services study that says just that. Of the more than 700 federally funded AOUM programs, the evaluation looked at only four. These four programs were handpicked to show positive results—and still failed.

If McCain hopes to overturn Roe v. Wade, and remove a patient’s choice to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, then he needs to do more to ensure young people never have to face that choice. He needs to advocate real efforts to curb teen pregnancy and reduce the number of teens who have an STI (currently 1 in 4).

Instead, when a reporter asked McCain whether he thought contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV, he replied, after a long pause, “You’ve stumped me.”

And if McCain is stumped, then the choice for parents who want real sex education for their kids should be crystal clear.

freedom isn't free...

and therefore, we should tax the shit out of it.

support our athletes

yesterday's olympic torch protests in paris got me thinking. there is a supposed line that separates the olympic games from politics; however, that line has been fairly consistently blurred. there are those that believe that the spirit of the games should transcend geopolitical divides, and others who believe they can't.

it reminded me that during and after vietnam, people who opposed the war were known to yell at, spit at, and harrass soldiers. sometime after that, a movement emerged to separate the troops fighting in wars from the wars they were actually fighting. "support our troops" bedecked banners, bumper stickers, and lapel pins.

i wonder if a similar movement will start to emerge, one that is equally open to interpretation and could be used as a similar diversion from the issue at hand. will "support our athletes" become the rallying cry of those who wish to turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, choosing to drape themselves in the olympic flag?

but then i thought about the protesters themselves. if they are truly opposed to beijing's politics vis-à-vis tibet, human rights, or free speech, wouldn't a more effective protest be against anything manufactured or processed in china? of course, in this flat world, such separation is nearly impossible. nonetheless, that might be a rallying cry that china's government is actually forced to pay attention to.

an impressive interview with an impressive man.

colin powell speaks with GQ here

blog 2.1

no, seriously this time. i really mean it. this is now my blog. even though i posted to myspace earlier today. hehe. this is what i wrote, in case anyone is keeping track:

another one bites the dust.

today, john warner announced that he would not seek a sixth term in the US senate.

john warner has been virginia's senator for my entire life. in that time, he has become one of the most influential senators of either party, heading up the armed services committee and famously opposing robert bork's confirmation and oliver north's bid for public office.

warner has always been one of the more popular politicians in virginia, never afraid to stand up against his party. i have a deep respect for this man and will miss him dearly.

virginia may become more of a battleground now, as the GOP tries to regain the senate, and as virginia closes further in to the center. it will be interesting to watch.



that's all. so i'm pretty excited about my new site, which is 99.9% done. all i have to do is upload the goodwill video and i am off and running. even though, technically i was off and running last night. lapu even stumbled upon it and commented, which i would NEVER have suspected. oh well. please feel free to comment on the new site, report broken links, difficulty, or viewing issues. annnddd... this really is my blog now.