Where Are Pro-Choice Organizations in Birth Activism?

Erin Rockwell

Pro-choice groups work strenuously to protect our rights and provide affordable, essential care. But when it comes to choosing where and with which kind of provider to give birth, they are silent. Why?

As a former employee of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association; as a mother and a wife and a daughter and a sister and a friend; as a student of history, I have never questioned my dedication to the pro-choice movement. I am pro-choice to my core and have proudly pledged my time, effort and energy into making sure that access to abortion, birth control and preventive services are within easy reach for every American. 

It is with sadness, then, that I question the movement’s dedication to me.

I am a woman “of childbearing age.” I know Planned Parenthood, NOW, Choice USA, et al, will defend my right to choose abortion if I were to get pregnant and needed that option. I know they would provide me with subsidized birth control and pap smears if I didn’t have insurance and couldn’t afford to pay full price, or they would at least direct me where to go. And I know they will fight hard to ensure that legislators cannot stomp out my right to choose, or my access to subsidized birth control and yearly exams. Yet, when it comes to where I choose to give birth, they are silent. It would appear, in their eyes, that ensuring “choices” essentially ends with the decision to have a baby–more specifically of where and with what kind of attendant to give birth.

How is that possible? The birth of her child is for many women one of, if not the, most transformative moment in her life. And the circumstances surrounding it can be just as empowering or disempowering as those surrounding a woman accessing her right to an abortion.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

The right to choose how a woman gives birth is not confined to just whether she’ll have a cesarean or a vaginal delivery, or whether she’ll have an epidural or go natural. In many states, the right to choose the very place where a woman gives birth is a contentious subject. While maternal and infant mortality rates in the United States continue to rise, legislatures continue to refuse to grant licenses to Certified Professional Midwives, the most common type of midwife who attends home births. And even in states where home birth is legal, hospital policies can prevent a woman from being accompanied by her midwife should she need to be transferred during or after the birth. Women are ostensibly free to make the choice—in most states it is only midwife-attended home birth that is illegal—but the choice often comes down to going to a hospital and risking losing their autonomy or planning a home birth and losing their advocate (and the person with the medical knowledge) if something goes wrong.

The hesitation on the part of the major pro-choice groups is understandable. The right to make the choice where and how one gives birth, and especially to choose a home birth, is often seen as outside of the mainstream or more often, the choice of the uber-religious (the oldest Duggar child’s first baby was born at home), not exactly a natural ally of the pro-choice camp. And with access to abortion growing harder and harder to guarantee, it’s hard to find energy to devote to other aspects of reproductive choice. And it goes both ways, too. I saw a recent exchange on Facebook where a pro-lifer expressed their concern that if pro-choice groups began to take up the call for choices in childbirth, the cause would be lumped under “abortion rights,” a possibility that vexes many anti-abortion activists who nevertheless fully support having a choice when it comes to childbirth.

As a pro-choicer, I have to admit that I find the hesitation on the part of the anti-choicers rather short-sighted and naive. It is not our side, after all, that continues to propose and pass legislation granting fetuses “personhood,” that doctors then cite to get court orders for women to remain on bed rest or to be forced into having cesarean sections, all in the name of “fetal rights.” A recent editorial in the newspaper of the city in which I live appealed to those “who believe in the rights of the unborn” as a reason for denying licenses to Certified Professional Midwives. Translation: the unborn baby has the right to the best care (only available at the hospital), and the silly women who choose home birth are endangering their babies just as much as if they’d laid down to have a D&C.

It is clear, though, and has been clear to even anti-choicers (Jennifer Block, in her book “Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care” about modern obstetrics in the US, describes such a couple who, despite their deeply held belief that abortion is wrong, nevertheless attended the 2004 March for Women’s Lives in Washington, DC, because they realized it is the pro-choice side that is best-suited for championing their cause) that these indomitable organizations like Planned Parenthood and NOW are the ones that can best advocate for the right of a woman to choose how and where she gives birth.

The key to the abortion debate is the old NARAL standard: that it is the woman who is best suited to make her own reproductive choices. Childbirth is such a choice. Those of us who advocate for the rights of women to make their own choices, about birth control, about abortion and about childbirth need them officially on our side.

News Law and Policy

Anti-Choice Group: End Clinic ‘Bubble Zones’ for Chicago Abortion Patients

Michelle D. Anderson

Chicago officials in October 2009 passed the "bubble zone" ordinance with nearly two-thirds of the city aldermen in support.

An anti-choice group has announced plans to file a lawsuit and launch a public protest over Chicago’s nearly seven-year-old “bubble zone” ordinance for patients seeking care at local abortion clinics.

The Pro-Life Action League, an anti-choice group based in Chicago, announced on its website that its lawyers at the Thomas More Society would file the lawsuit this week.

City officials in October 2009 passed the ordinance with nearly two-thirds of the city aldermen in support. The law makes it illegal to come within eight feet of someone walking toward an abortion clinic once that person is within 50 feet of the entrance, if the person did not give their consent.

Those found violating the ordinance could be fined up to $500.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

Harassment of people seeking abortion care has been well documented. A 2013 survey from the National Abortion Federation found that 92 percent of providers had a patient entering their facility express personal safety concerns.

The ordinance targets people seeking to pass a leaflet or handbill or engaging in “oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person in the public way.” The regulation bans the use of force, threat of force and physical obstruction to intentionally injure, intimidate or interfere any person entering or leaving any hospital, medical clinic or health-care facility.

The Pro-Life Action League lamented on its website that the law makes it difficult for anti-choice sidewalk counselors “to reach abortion-bound mothers.” The group suggested that lawmakers created the ordinance to create confusion and that police have repeatedly violated counselors’ First Amendment rights.

“Chicago police have been misapplying it from Day One, and it’s caused endless problems for our faithful sidewalk counselors,” the group said.

The League said it would protest and hold a press conference outside of the Planned Parenthood clinic in the city’s Old Town neighborhood.

Julie Lynn, a Planned Parenthood of Illinois spokesperson, told Rewire in an email that the health-care provider is preparing for the protest.

“We plan to have volunteer escorts at the health center to make sure all patients have safe access to the entrance,” Lynn said.

The anti-choice group has suggested that its lawsuit would be successful because of a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled a similar law in Massachusetts unconstitutional.

Pam Sutherland, vice president of public policy and education for Planned Parenthood of Illinois, told the Chicago Tribune back then that the health-care provider expected the city’s bubble zone to be challenged following the 2014 decision.

But in an effort to avoid legal challenges, Chicago city officials had based its bubble zone law on a Colorado law that created an eight-foot no-approach zone within 100 feet of all health-care facilities, according to the Tribune. Sidewalk counselor Leila Hill and others challenged that Colorado law, but the U.S. Supreme Court upheld it in 2000.

Analysis Politics

Timeline: Donald Trump’s Shifting Position on Abortion Rights

Ally Boguhn

Trump’s murky position on abortion has caused an uproar this election season as conservatives grapple with a Republican nominee whose stance on the issue has varied over time. Join Rewire for a look back at the business mogul's changing views on abortion.

For much of the 2016 election cycle, Donald Trump’s seemingly ever-changing position on reproductive health care and abortion rights has continued to draw scrutiny.

Trump was “totally pro-choice” in 1999, but “pro-life” by 2011. He wanted to shut down the government to defund Planned Parenthood in August 2015, but claimed “you can’t go around and say that” about such measures two months later. He thinks Planned Parenthood does “very good work” but wants to see it lose all of its funding as long as it offers abortion care. And, perhaps most notoriously, in late March of this year Trump took multiple stances over the course of just a few hours on whether those who have abortions should be punished if it became illegal.

With the hesitancy of anti-choice groups to fully embrace Trump—and with pro-choice organizations like Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and EMILY’s List all backing his opponent, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton—it is likely his stance on abortion will remain a key election issue moving into November.

Join Rewire for a look back at the business mogul’s changing views on abortion.

Appreciate our work?

Vote now! And help Rewire earn a bigger grant from CREDO:

VOTE NOW

credo_rewire_vote_3

Vote for Rewire and Help Us Earn Money

Rewire is in the running for a CREDO Mobile grant. More votes for Rewire means more CREDO grant money to support our work. Please take a few seconds to help us out!

VOTE!

Thank you for supporting our work!