I recently attended a webinar entitled, "More than a Book Club: NAF’s Repro Author Series - Controlling Women,” from the National Abortion Federation (NAF).
I like to listen to the pro-choice side to better understand where the leaders of the movement are trying to take the movement, what they believe, what their goals are, and what their motivations are. That means occasionally I attend a pro-choice webinar or rally, listen in, and digest what I’ve heard.
Let me share some insights from this webinar. Not only was the book Controlling Women: What We Must Do Now To Save Reproductive Freedom going to be discussed (and promoted) but also the recent Dobb v. Jackson SCOTUS case was going to get some attention.
The book focuses on how to keep abortion legal and expand access to it with new, different strategies, as opposed to relying on the Supreme Court to continue to uphold Roe and Casey.
The co-authors of the book and the main speakers at the webinar were Kathryn Kolbert and Julie F. Kay — legal giants in the pro-choice movement. Kathryn actually argued in defense of Planned Parenthood in Planned Parenthood v. Casey before the Supreme Court in 1992. Julie argued on behalf of A, B, and C in the ABC v. Ireland case challenging Ireland’s abortion bans.
The moderator of the webinar was Talcott Camp, the National Abortion Federation’s Chief Legal and Strategy Officer. These women have been in the pro-choice movement for a while and have quite the legal experience built up. I was especially interested in what their takes would be on the Dobbs v. Jackson oral arguments.
Do they think the pro-life movement has a chance to gain a legal victory here? Or sometime in the future? What do they propose as solutions to ensuring abortion remains legal and women have access to it?
And is the pro-life movement going to be able to withstand what the pro-choice side plans to do?
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
Thoughts on the Dobbs v. Jackson oral arguments
I found it interesting that much of their time spent discussing the oral arguments was focused on tearing down what justices said and analyzing what they disagreed with. The discussion of what justices said and what the two sides argued was not balanced. While they did mention what some justices or the lawyers arguing for Jackson said that they agreed with, they just did not focus on it as much as they focused on the opposition.
I took away several key ideas, many of which are not surprising to people who are more well-read on the current SCOTUS justices. But I am someone who has only wet their feet in the ocean of understanding of abortion-focused SCOTUS battles and the roles individual justices played in them; so if you’re like me, some of this may be new information to you.
How they view this case in regard to Roe and Casey
Casey, in their eyes, undermined Roe, and there is a definite sense that given the way court cases and state legislatures have gone, Roe will eventually be overturned or so gutted that it is meaningless. Kathryn mentioned that based on her experience with Casey, which was that Justice Kennedy only switched his vote “at the last minute,” she fears former Justice Rehnquist’s opposing opinion will be the newer Court’s opinion on abortion going forward, either in the Dobbs case or others. Julie also agreed that it is a matter of when, not if, Roe would be overturned or gutted.
One thing was very clear: they do not want the decision for abortion legislation to go back to individual states. They all mentioned how many states would immediately or quickly outlaw abortion in all or most circumstances. However, the number they stated varied. The book description says, “When Roe is toppled, abortion may quickly become a criminal offense in nearly one-third of the United States.” However, in the webinar Kathryn stated, “in our view, at least half the states in this country will ban abortion in all or most [circumstances].” Julie said, “Language matters...It is really important that we have our voices saying why this issue matters to me...how it will be to live in a country where more than half the states have criminalized abortion.” They are likely referencing this Guttmacher analysis which concludes 26 states are “certain or likely” to ban abortion.
No one saw much middle ground in the Dobbs case from the arguments presented. They discussed how even if Justice Roberts finds some sort of “middle ground” with a narrow ruling in favor of the MS 15-week ban, it would still be a major loss to the pro-choice movement. Banning abortion at 15 weeks is not middle ground to them…. the middle ground is letting individuals make the decision.
However, the SCOTUS ruling would come out before 2022 elections and could be used to galvanize voters.
Their views on the “conservative” justices
Kathryn mentioned, “The power on this court belongs to five individuals who don't care about the consequences and about women’s lives. So I don’t think good arguments will make a difference.”
Later, they discuss the individual justices’ questions and comments and are harsh on three of them:
Justice Kavanaugh, for saying the most neutral decision would be to overturn Roe and individual states decide. He claims the Constitution is silent on abortion, so it is rightly a state’s right to decide on. However, Talcott claims this argument is a sleight of hand. He brought up other cases where SCOTUS overturned past decisions — but, she pointed out, these were not decisions which gave power back to individual states, but changed the Constitution at the federal level (like Brown v. Board of Education) to protect rights. So his argumentation is disingenuous in their eyes.
Julie also talked about this. She stated,
“We don’t vote on human rights...These are really fundamental rights that should be in the Constitution...we need to start building up again to have that Federal Constitutional protection without question and without putting it to a popular vote.”
Justice Barrett, for bringing up Safe Haven laws and adoption. They claimed her comments were “disgusting” and extremely out of touch with real women’s actual lived experiences. Barrett is out of touch with reality, essentially. To suggest a woman just stay pregnant when she doesn’t want to just so she can give her child up is a gross violation of women’s rights and they referred to this as “forced pregnancy.” This is nothing but a rhetorical game used to demonize abortion bans, and you can read a very good critique of this rhetoric here.
However, what they fail to note is that Barrett brought this point up not to be disingenuous or detached from reality — she was making a very shrewd move. The Roe and Casey decisions focused a lot on the burden of motherhood — raising and caring for a born child — as support for keeping abortion legal and enshrining it as a right. Bringing up the changes in adoption and Safe Haven laws undermines a substantial part of the reasoning used to come to those decisions. If the question is about the burdens of motherhood, then Barrett’s comments directly address those.
However, their response to Barrett also shows how far the pro-choice movement has changed since fighting for Roe. They’ve shifted from the burden-of-motherhood language and reasoning used in that landmark case to focusing on bodily autonomy and fundamental rights for women to justify abortion.
And finally, Justice Thomas, for heading into personhood waters. While not even the lawyer for Dobbs (arguing for the MS ban and to overturn Roe) really touched on personhood for the unborn, Thomas brought the conversation to that point. He asked about using drugs during pregnancy, referencing a specific past case brought before the Court. If a woman has a right to an abortion and can kill a child, should she not be able to take drugs even knowing they would intentionally harm the child (even if she does not get an abortion)? This thought experiment challenges bodily autonomy arguments, which was the reason Thomas was asking it (court transcript, page 49, lines 5-7) This thought experiment has been in pro-life circles for a while, and I first it heard through the Equal Rights Institute.
However, the NAF panelists also interpreted this as a possible reach into personhood arguments by Thomas. They saw him as the only justice who would possibly reach so far in undermining abortion rights, and Julie commented on how Thomas is “always thinking ahead of the future and his questions about regulating drug use during pregnancy pre-viability really sent a chill...and no one was thinking they were going to go that far.”
Banning abortion just makes it go underground
Julie mentioned if Roe were overturned and abortion were banned, it would just make abortion “go underground.” She cited Ireland as an example case: prior to the legalization of abortion, Ireland had very few abortions happen within the country — but many women were just going outside Ireland to have their abortion. She also thinks it is very difficult to get an abortion in the US.
However, this does not make the point she thinks it does. First, going elsewhere for a legal abortion is not making abortion go “underground” (the connotation being just more illegal abortions will happen). Secondly, at least for America, plenty of research suggests that more abortion restrictions do actually decrease abortions — and not just legal ones! How do we know this? Because abortion numbers go down and birth rates go up in, showing that more women who were pregnant are giving birth Monica Snyder at Secular Pro-life does a great job debunking this myth and explaining why banning abortion actually works to reduce overall abortion rates (starting at minute 28).
Thoughts on the Texas law
In the context of abortion rights, they discussed how harmful the Texas heartbeat law is to women, and how women’s lives are in danger. It was noted that no women have died in Texas...yet.
However, Talcott brought up an example of a woman from Texas who called the NAF hotline explaining how her doctor would not give her treatment for her ectopic pregnancy because they were fearful of somehow breaking the law. Talcott mentioned doctors being too afraid to do something to save a woman’s life is portrayed by pro-lifers as “an unintended consequence” of the law. But she insists, “That is not an unintended consequence! Cruelty is exactly the intention of these laws, and we have to insist on that.”
Assuming this story is 100% true (I have no reason to believe otherwise), it is awful. The Texas law does allow exceptions for the life of the mother, and left untreated, ectopic pregnancy can cause serious injury and death. Moreover, treatment for ectopic pregnancy is not even medically coded the same that abortion is. There is no reason the doctor she spoke to should be concerned about breaking the law and refusing to treat her!
Talcott’s concern with laws that only allow a life-of-the-mother exception is that doctors will fear being criminalized for providing treatment for miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies and therefore not give women the healthcare they need, placing their lives further at risk.
Julie claimed this is exactly why, in Ireland, Savita could not get the miscarriage management treatment she needed before her death; doctors were too scared to treat her even though Irish law allowed abortions in the case of a woman’s life being at risk.
If doctors are too scared of lawsuits to save a woman’s life when laws clearly allow treatment — up to and including abortion — to save a woman’s life, that is not the fault of the law. The law is not cruel because doctors are afraid of lawsuits.
Perhaps more work could be done to inform doctors of relevant laws and applications of them, so they are not afraid of penalization for doing something that would actually be staying within the law. Perhaps laws protecting human life have become so politicized that undue fear has been sown into doctors’ minds.
Thoughts on political solutions NOW
After discussing the SCOTUS oral arguments and the Texas law, the conversation turned to what the pro-choice movement can do now to ensure abortion rights and access to abortion.
Pro-choice = Democrat, Democrat = pro-choice
It was very clear throughout the whole conversation that for political affiliation, pro-choice = Democrat. If you’re pro-choice, you are blue. You vote for Democratic candidates. If you are a Democrat, you are obviously and automatically seen as pro-choice.
And that is just wrong.
There are many pro-life Democrats who feel disenfranchised because their party insists on abortion rights being a part of the official party platform.
Mandatory voting
One question I absolutely did not see coming was Talcott asking about mandatory voting — should there be a law mandating people to vote in elections?
The surprising answer was no — not because they did not want people to vote, but because they see mandatory voting as a threat to their cause! Just increasing the number of people voting does not turn things to their side.
Kathryn pointed out that “red” voters are angry, so they come out in droves, and when they vote, they vote on this issue. The issue of abortion is a make-or-break topic for them; but for Democratic voters, it’s pretty low on the long list of important things. That is why Democrats lost so much ground in local and state elections, even though they won the presidency.
Julie admits that even in a really blue part of a blue state, people get complacent. They have to make voters care about abortion more with regard to voting. She suggested pro-choice people need to put their feet down and when they vote, vote down-ballot (for Democratic candidates, obviously).
Steps forward for the pro-choice movement
So what does the pro-choice movement need to work on, according to these legal giants?
1. Build up political power state by state, district by district. (Aka, turn everything blue)
2. Radical expansion access to the abortion pill like what has been done with birth control.
Kathryn sees access to the abortion pill as the next big thing pro-choice people can push for. She would like to “flood the market” in blue areas so women have it available and on hand. She argues that women are smart, and they will just get it anyway...so instead of them getting it illegally or on the “grey market,” just expand access to it in blue states.
We have seen this at Option Line: women calling to get the abortion pill “just in case” or before even taking a pregnancy test. Women are treating it as if it’s an emergency contraceptive or birth control, not an abortion. And the pro-choice side would like to see more of that.
3. On the medical side, Julie mentions that they need to see an increase in the number of providers, recruiting more midlevel providers who can do medical and surgical abortions, providing better reimbursement for services, building up better philanthropy, and providing public coverage of travel and childcare expenses
4. Garner allies by framing abortion as both a gender and racial equity issue.
5. Eventually, as a long-term goal, get abortion rights enumerated in the Federal Constitution based on gender equity — this will allow for public funding of abortion.
It seems the only way they see getting a change into the Federal Constitution is by making abortion about gender and racial issues because that way they can accumulate more allies who will fight for abortion. They also discussed the fact that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is not enough, they would like to see a “supercharged” version of the ERA with more inclusive language.
Other thoughts
Throughout the webinar, there were a few miscellaneous ideas mentioned that I found noteworthy.
Tweet This: What I saw in this pro-choice webinar was some fear, a lot of urgency, and a lot of ignoring any serious oppositional viewpoints.
Ignore pro-life people and pro-life arguments
First is that the pro-life side is all about power and control. In order to sidestep any real objections to abortion, the NAF members have to frame the pro-life side as deliberately malicious. Our intentions are cruel, so our arguments (and us) can be ignored wholesale.
The panelists mentioned that access to abortion is the first step in bringing gender equity. Except abortion is about the most misogynistic institution you can think of. They also made the assertion throughout the webinar that abortion is a fundamental human rights issue — not a controversial or debatable issue, a fundamental issue that demands attention, action, and a firm stance. However, Julie made an interesting comment at one point when discussing her case in Ireland, concerning how to discuss abortion rights:
“We were able to reframe the conversation to really talk about the human rights that are at issue, and to get out of this sort of...Catholic country debate around ‘this is about religion,’ ‘this is about philosophical questions about when life begins,’ and really talk about why this issue matters and why it matters to women…”
And later she stated, “This is not a controversial issue...this is a fundamental human rights issue.”
Why on earth would discussion on when human life begins — scientifically or philosophically — not be central to a stance on a fundamental human rights issue? That is the most convoluted side-step of one of the most important questions in the debate I have ever seen! However, it’s a smart move. They do not want the issue of abortion to be seen as a debate, so they are just asserting that abortion is a fundamental human right. They are attempting to deflect and ignore any question that could even hint that abortion rights should be fettered in any way.
America is very pro-choice
Kathryn mentioned that 75% of Americans think the states should not regulate abortion but instead leave the decision to be between a woman and her doctor; and over 60% of Americans want to uphold Roe.
That is interesting, on several fronts. Women do not normally get an abortion from “their” doctor. In the case of abortion pills, they may never even see or talk to a doctor. In the case of visiting a clinic, they aren’t seeing their doctor — they’re seeing some other doctor, probably for the first time, and will never contact them again, even if they develop complications.
Additionally, the stat just doesn’t add up.
We know that given context, like explaining what Roe does, moves people from saying they support Roe and would not want it overturned to people saying they would support Roe being overturned. In fact, the more context given to abortion questions in polling, the less pro-choice America seems to become, especially women. See examples here, here, and here. Certainly, most Americans are not for completely unfettered abortion access throughout all 9 months of pregnancy for any reason like NAF pushes.
Viability is really late in pregnancy
Near the beginning of the webinar, Talcott said in reference to the MS 15-week abortion ban that 15 weeks is “months before a fetus can become viable.” That’s a big stretch, considering 22 weeks is viable in many hospitals in America, and that is less than 2 months from the 15-week mark. Even the more recognized viability limit, 24 weeks, is barely 2 months from the current ban. The way in which she states this makes it seem like 15 weeks is some pie-in-the-sky number for viability and that viability is much later in pregnancy than it actually is. This is a poor (and inaccurate) attempt to ridicule the law.
Pro-life people are being deceptive
A hilarious situation they mentioned is that on the day of the Dobbs v. Jackson oral argument, Julie mentioned she was on the steps of SCOTUS. And while she was there, she saw people with bullhorns and signs and for a while, she thought they were pro-choice — but they were not! She is likely referring to the representatives out who were from Secular Pro-life, Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising, and Rehumanize International. She was a little upset about the mix-up and stated, “they are taking our language.”
Well, Julie, the fight for fundamental human rights does not belong to just one political party or one stereotype of an American. And pro-life people — just like pro-choice people — are not a monolith. There are pro-life people who are not religious, who are a part of the LGBQ+ community, who are Democrats, who are liberal, who are progressive, who are feminists, who are young, who are not white...the list goes on. Both the pro-life and pro-choice movements do their cause a great disservice when they put “their” side or the “other” side in a box.
Tweet This: The fight for fundamental human rights does not belong to just one political party or one type of an American.
But I suspect if NAF publicly acknowledged the diversity in the pro-life movement, they would lose a lot of the strawmen they like to attack. And if they for one moment seriously considered that abortion kills a human being, it would make their entire viewpoint crumble. What I saw in this webinar was some fear, a lot of urgency, and a lot of ignoring any serious oppositional viewpoints.
