Analysis Violence

Who’s Ending Street Harassment in Latin America and the Caribbean?

IPPFWHR

"I came to tell the truth. All I want is for justice to be done," Gabriela Chacón said just moments before Luis Enrique Sossa Maltés was sentenced to four and a half years in prison. A few months prior to that victorious day, Luis sexually abused the 25-year-old woman on the street of San Jose, Chile. Unlike most men who harass women in public, Maltés was held accountable for his actions.

“I came to tell the truth. All I want is for justice to be done,” Gabriela Chacón said just moments before Luis Enrique Sossa Maltés was sentenced to four and a half years in prison. A few months prior to that victorious day, Luis sexually abused the 25-year-old woman on the street of San Jose, Chile. Unlike most men who harass women in public, Maltés was held accountable for his actions.

All over the world girls and women face unwanted sexual harassment in school, at their jobs, and also on the street. Recently, many of these incidents have caused enough public outrage to force the legal systems and protective authorities to take women’s safety more seriously. To kick off International Anti-Street Harassment Week, I’ll tell you about a few brave women who are making public space safer for women in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Respect for women’s bodily autonomy should be a guaranteed human right, and women throughout Latin America and the Caribbean are fighting to ensure they have the right to be safe when they walk down the street. In Bogota, Colombia, the Latin American Women and Habitat Network (LAWHN) launched a poster campaign on city buses that reads: “We don’t need that kind of support.”

“During rush hour, when the buses are packed, the male passengers take the opportunity to stand close to women and feel them up,” said Marisol Dalmazzo. “It’s offensive and restrictive to women.”

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

The WomenSpeak Project in Trinidad and Tobago provides an online platform for street harassment victims to share stories of discrimination and receive peer support. The project leader, Simone Leid, also uses the media to increase public awareness about street harassment being a socially accepted form of violence against women and a global women’s rights issue.

“[Sexism] is still present and it affects us every day of our lives,” explains Simone. “If you take the time to examine street harassment, you see that it has a great deal to do with discrimination.”

Based in Argentina and coordinated by Redmujer, the Cities Without Violence Against Women, Safe Cities For All project is being carried out in several urban areas throughout Latin America — such as Brazil, Chile, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Peru. “The project is based on an assessment that shows that public safety policies in Latin America do not take into account violence against women in both the public and private spheres,” said Liliana Rainero.

After the assessment is complete, Redmujer will present city officials with concrete strategies on how to design safer cities. In the meantime, they are also engaged in public awareness campaigns and provide safety training for women, young people, and the police. Some local organizations involved in the project have also started neighborhood revitalization and public art projects to bring the community together to fight violence against women.

From today until March 24th groups around the world will participate in International Anti-Street Harassment Week to collectively demand respect for women’s safety and an end to street harassment. It’s women like Marisol, Simone, and Liliana that provide me with the inspiration to continue the lifelong struggle for women’s equality and human rights. Join us and become the inspiration for other women to become a part of this growing movement.

Analysis Law and Policy

Here’s Why 2016 Could Be the Biggest Year for Reproductive Rights and the Courts in Decades

Jessica Mason Pieklo & Imani Gandy

The next year promises to be an eventful one on the legal front—though we feel like we say that every December.

The next year promises to be an eventful one on the legal front—though we feel like we say that every December. After all, 2015 brought challenges to the Pregnancy Discrimination Act; a case on whether not hiring an employee because she wears a hijab is employment discrimination; the historic and successful challenge to same-sex marriage bans; the failed challenge to federal subsidies in the Affordable Care Act; and a failed attempt to gut the Fair Housing Act. Meanwhile, 2014 was the year the Roberts Court gave the green light to governments embracing prayer at civic functions; it also struck most abortion clinic buffer zones as unconstitutional in McCullen v. Coakley. And who could forget Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, the case in which the Roberts Court created a constitutional corporate right to object to contraception coverage?

Even so, 2016 is still shaping up to be an important year for reproductive rights and justice. Some cases on the list to watch—like yet another challenge to the birth control benefit in the Affordable Care Act—we anticipated. Other cases, like the trial in Colorado of Robert Lewis Dear Jr., who is accused of launching a siege at a Planned Parenthood health-care center in Colorado Springs that killed three, injured nine, and terrorized many others, we wish were not here at all. But given the violent rhetoric targeting abortion doctors, providers, and patients that increased over the course of 2015, we can’t say we were surprised to put it there.

The Roberts Court

Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole is the Roberts Court’s first substantive dive back into abortion-rights law since Gonzales v. Carhart, which banned so-called partial-birth abortions in 2006. But unlike Gonzales, which focused on the constitutionality of a procedure-specific abortion ban, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole takes on the porous “undue burden” standard of 1992’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision by tackling just how rigorously courts should apply that standard when reviewing abortion restrictions that purport to advance patient health and safety. That makes Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole the Court case with the most potential to affect abortion rights in nearly 25 years.

Little Sisters and the Rest of the Nonprofit Contraception Cases

Another Roberts Court term brings another challenge to some portion of the Affordable Care Act. This time, the Court returns to the ACA’s birth control benefit and the question of whether the government’s process for allowing religiously affiliated nonprofits to opt out from providing health insurance plans that offer contraception is too burdensome under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). The Court consolidated seven cases filed by hospitals, nursing homes, and other kinds of businesses that are religiously run and affiliated; all object to filling out the opt-out form. The cases represent not just a test to the administration’s opt-out provision for the birth control benefit, but the strength of the majority decision in Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, which relied on the accommodation process now before the Court to rule that for-profit businesses should have a similar opt-out option available. A ruling that would allow these nonprofits to be exempted from the coverage would have enormous implications, as 10 percent of larger nonprofits have asked the Obama administration for an accommodation to the rule already.

Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association 

The Roberts Court has not been kind to workers’ rights generally, making it harder for employees harassed by supervisors to sue and drastically reducing employees’ abilities to raise class-action lawsuits. This term is no exception with Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, a case that takes on the way public employee unions are funded. Currently, if a union represents a group of workers, that company’s entire workforce, or at least a defined portion of it, pays a fee designed to compensate the union for its bargaining activities. The argument supporting these fees is that the union’s actions benefit the entire workforce—not just union members—and the fee is nominal in the face of the influence of management and corporate owners. But anti-union interests argue those fees violate the First Amendment. Should the Roberts Court agree, the result would severely limit unions’ abilities to raise money for their operations and to effectively bargain on behalf of their members. Women and people of color, who make up the majority of public employee union membership, would feel the most severe effects in this scenario.

Evenwel v. Abbott

Evenwel is the latest in a series of “representation” cases dreamed up by Edward Blum, director of the Project on Fair Representation—which was behind Shelby County v. Holder, the 2013 case that gutted the Voting Rights Act. Blum is also responsible for Fisher v. University of Texasthe case challenging the admissions policy at the University of Texas on the grounds that it discriminates against white studentsEvenwel challenges “one person, one vote”; though it concerns the drawing of state senate districts in Texas, the case has potential national implications. Under the 14th Amendment, states are allocated seats in the House of Representatives by “counting the whole number of persons in each state.” States follow this process when determining their own statewide districts, carving up districts based on U.S. Census Bureau population data and irrespective of the total number of registered voters in each. The plaintiffs in Evenwel argue that by counting children, documented and undocumented immigrants, many prisoners, and other non-voters, Texas denies “eligible voters their fundamental right to an equal vote.” If they win, legislative districts would become older, whiter, more rural, and more conservative. Political power would shift from urban areas to rural areas. Our elected officials would be even older and whiter than they already are. In other words, the gains made by the civil rights era in diversifying our elected bodies would be rolled back, the same way Shelby County v. Holder rolled back the voting participation gains made by the the Voting Rights Act.

Fisher v. University of Texas 

Race-based affirmative actions are again before the Roberts Court in Fisher v. University of Texas. Abigail Fisher applied to UT for admission into the undergraduate class of 2012. When UT rejected her application, she sued the university, alleging that it discriminated against her because she is white, even though of the 47 equally or “less” qualified students who were admitted over Fisher, 42 were white—only five were Black or Latino. Her case has made it up to the Roberts Court once before. The justices punted on the ultimate question of whether or not the University of Texas’ plan violated the Constitution, instead sending the case back to the conservative Fifth Circuit. After the Fifth Circuit ruled in favor of the University’s admission plan, again, conservatives ran the case back up to the Roberts Court.

During oral arguments, it became apparent that the conservative wing of the court is prepared to decimate affirmative action. Justice Scalia wondered whether admitting Black students into schools that might be too hard for them was doing them a disservice. Justice Roberts appeared frustrated that affirmative action still exists at all, and wondered what unique perspective a student of color brings to a physics class and whether diversity serves any purpose in that context. Given the Roberts Court’s palpable hostility toward any acknowledgement that race continues to be a decisive factor in the oppression of people of color in the United States, proponents of affirmative action are right to be concerned about the fate of race-conscious admissions policies at colleges and universities.

Courts of Appeals

Purvi Patel Conviction for Feticide 

Purvi Patel is an Indian-American woman who in July 2013 entered an emergency room in South Bend, Indiana, while suffering heavy vaginal bleeding. She initially denied to doctors that she had been pregnant, but eventually acknowledged she had miscarried. Patel told hospital staff the fetus was stillborn and that she had placed it in a bag in a dumpster. Doctors then alerted the police, who questioned her and searched her cell phone—all while she was in the hospital and under the influence of pain medication. During the search of her cell phone, police saw a series of text messages, which prosecutors later claimed made the case Patel had attempted an illegal abortion by ordering abortion-inducting medications and taking them. Police charged Patel with felony feticide and neglect of a dependent. The feticide charge presumed the fetus was stillborn, while the neglect of a dependent charge presumed a live birth. Despite this apparent conflict, a jury convicted Patel on both counts. Patel, who has no criminal record, was ordered to serve 20 years in prison. Attorneys have appealed her case, arguing there was no evidence she took any abortion-inducing medication. Attorneys for the State of Indiana have doubled down on Patel’s prosecution and defended their case, arguing as if it is good public health policy to radically restrict contraception and abortion access in the state and then criminally prosecute women whose pregnancies end in anything other than a successful live birth. 

Second-Trimester Abortions in Kansas

In 2015, Kansas became the first state to pass a ban on the most commonly used method of ending pregnancy in the second trimester, setting the stage for the next big legal showdown over specific abortion procedures. SB 95 bans dilation and evacuation (D and E) abortions—what anti-choicers like to call “dismemberment abortions”—and is based on legislation drafted by the radically anti-choice National Right to Life Committee. Oklahoma passed a similar version just one day after Kansas did, and copycat legislation has been introduced in both Missouri and South Carolina. Shortly before it was set to take effect in Kansas, reproductive rights advocates sued to block it. But instead of challenging the measure in federal court like most abortion-related challenges, advocates sued in state court, arguing the law violates Sections 1 and 2 of the Kansas Bill of Rights, which they say provide due process guaranteeing the government cannot infringe on personal liberties.

Because due process rights have been used at the federal level to protect the right to an abortion, pro-choice advocates argue the same should be the case under the Kansas Constitution. In December, the entire panel of judges on the Kansas Court of Appeals heard arguments as to whether a temporary order currently blocking the ban should be affirmed as the legal challenge proceeds. Regardless of how the court ultimately rules on the temporary order, the Kansas case is an important one to watch because it is in state court. Almost all of our abortion rights law comes from federal court challenges, but those have become increasingly hostile thanks to decades of conservative judicial appointments. State courts could, therefore, prove to be those rights’ final protectors.

Catholic Hospitals’ Refusal of Services

In 2010, a then-18 weeks pregnant Tamesha Means showed up at Mercy Health Partners in Muskegon, Michigan, in the middle of having a miscarriage. Mercy Health, a Catholic-sponsored facility, sent Means home twice, saying there was nothing it could do for her. It wasn’t until Means, a mother of three, returned to Mercy Health a third time—this time suffering from a significant infection as her miscarriage persisted untreated—that the hospital decided to treat her by offering her some aspirin for her fever. As Mercy Hospital was preparing to discharge Means once more, she started to deliver. The hospital decided at that point to admit Means and to treat her condition. Means eventually delivered a baby, who died within hours of birth.

Means sued Mercy Health, arguing that its adherence to the “Ethical and Religious Directives“—which, among other regulations, prohibit a pre-viability pregnancy termination—resulted in medical malpractice in her case. The lower court dismissed Means’ claims, ruling it did not have the power to interpret Catholic doctrine directly. Means appealed, and her case is currently before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, hospitals in California and Michigan face allegations similar to those in the Means case: that adherence to the directives has resulted in malpractice when treating reproductive health-care conditions. So far, courts have not taken this question of whether or not Catholic doctrine can override the medical community’s standard of care. But it is a fight they won’t be able to stay out of long, since one in nine hospital beds in this country are at a Catholic or Catholic-sponsored facility, and they appear to be turning away women in need at a pretty rapid pace.

Trial Courts

The Legal Battle Over the Planned Parenthood Tapes

Perhaps the biggest controversy to emerge from 2015 is the video smear campaign waged against Planned Parenthood by David Daleiden and his anti-choice front group, the Center for Medical Progress (CMP). Daleiden’s months-long sting operation, which saw him infiltrate under false pretenses private meetings held by the National Abortion Federation (NAF), resulted in the release of video footage purporting to show that Planned Parenthood is in the grisly business of harvesting fetal “body parts” and profiting from their sale. This, despite the fact that there’s nothing illegal about fetal tissue donation programs and Planned Parenthood has been repeatedly cleared of wrongdoing by several state and federal investigations. Within weeks of the release of the first video, the NAF sued Daleiden and CMP in federal court. The court granted NAF’s request for an order blocking the further release of any video footage recorded at NAF’s private events. It also ordered CMP and Daleiden to turn over to NAF the names of Daleiden’s associates, accomplices, and funders. The information they gave is under protective order, but should the court decide to make that list public, we’ll find out which Republican operatives and politicians, if any, Daleiden worked with to perpetrate this deception.

Anti-Abortion Terrorism in Colorado Springs 

Robert Lewis Dear Jr. is accused of opening fire at a Planned Parenthood reproductive health-care facility in late November, killing three people and injuring nine, in Colorado Springs, Colorado. He has been charged in state court with 179 felony counts, including first-degree murder. If convicted, Dear could face the death penalty. Federal prosecutors are also investigating Dear for possible violations of federal law, including the Federal Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, the federal statute that makes it a felony to target for harassment abortion clinics, doctors, patients, and staff. Dear’s charges came after a summer of escalating violent anti-choice rhetoric following the CMP’s release of its deceptively edited footage. Conservatives insist their claims about “Planned Parenthood selling baby parts” had nothing to do with the Colorado Springs shooting, despite Dear reportedly telling officers “no more baby parts” when he was arrested and calling himself a “warrior for the babies” in court. Just how much influence did conservative anti-choice rhetoric and politicking influence Dear? We’ll find out during his trial in 2016.

Anna Yocca’s Trial for Attempted Self-Induced Abortion

Police arrested Anna Yocca, a 31-year-old woman from Murfreesboro, Tennessee, in December after she allegedly tried to end her pregnancy using a coat hanger at home in her bathtub. During the attempt, Yocca began bleeding heavily and her boyfriend rushed her to the hospital, where doctors delivered a 1.5-pound baby boy. Yocca, who was approximately 24 weeks pregnant when she attempted to terminate her pregnancy, allegedly made “disturbing” statements to hospital staff, including admitting that she tried to self-abort. Her statements led a Rutherford County grand jury to indict her for attempted murder and imprison her in the Rutherford County Adult Detention Center. Should she be convicted, she faces life in prison.

The return of coat-hanger abortions is an alarming indicator of the repressive reproductive rights environment in Tennessee and around the country. Although prominent abortion opponents have claimed they are not interested in prosecuting women who try to self-induce an abortion, the increasing number of women—who include Jennie Lynn McCormackJennifer Ann Whalen, and the aforementioned Purvi Patel—who have been thrown in jail for allegedly doing so tells a different story. Prosecutors charged Yocca under the state’s general homicide statute, which opens the constitutional question of whether or not general homicide laws in Tennessee can be used to prosecute women who self-induce an abortion or who otherwise have a failed pregnancy outcome.

In other words, Anna Yocca is a test case for anti-choice prosecutors who want to find a legal hook to charge women who abort with murder.

Anything Else?

There’s always something else on the horizon when it comes to reproductive autonomy. We didn’t even include the many other legal challenges to the wave of anti-choice laws passed in 2015, or the explosion of “religious liberties” claims in response to marriage equality and the expanding protection of rights for transgender people. But don’t worry, folks. It may be shaping up to be one helluva year for reproductive rights and justice in the courts, but we’ve got you covered.

Commentary Law and Policy

The New McCarthyites: Lists, Lies, and the GOP’s Attacks on Women’s Health Care

Jodi Jacobson

McCarthyism is defined in the dictionary as the practice of making accusations unsupported by proof or based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence, and the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism. I'd say today's radicalized GOP has them both down pat.

Watching last Tuesday’s congressional hearing on Planned Parenthood by the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Committee felt less like viewing a bona fide hearing in the sense of fact-finding or rational questioning by capable public servants on issues of public import than it did, variously, like witnessing an inquisition, a series of performances in theater of the absurd, and raising Joe McCarthy from the dead.

Ostensibly, these hearings were called to investigate claims by an anti-choice group known as the Center for Medical Progress (CMP) that Planned Parenthood was profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. This in turn gave House Republicans a reason to call for “defunding” Planned Parenthood. But there has never been any actual evidence offered by CMP or anyone else to support the charges of profits from the sale of fetal tissue, which is widely used in critical health research and has long been regulated under federal law. No evidence was offered at the hearing either. None of the congresspeople had seen the full, unedited versions of these videos, which have yet to be publicly released by CMP, though they’d had months to ask for them. In fact, that same day, Missouri became the sixth in a list of states that have wasted taxpayer money on investigations that found the claims to be baseless. (Never mind that the Missouri Planned Parenthood clinic does not even offer fetal tissue donation, but you know, let’s investigate anyway.)

The sale of fetal tissue isn’t and never really was the point of this hearing nor in fact of the videos themselves. Rather this attack is yet another salvo in a very long, large, and well-organized campaign to destroy the single largest provider of reproductive and sexual health care in the United States. As noted by CMP founder David Daleiden in an interview with Politicohis agenda is to bring down Planned Parenthood by any means possible. Because after all, why worry about the lives and health of the three million people a year who get services at Planned Parenthood clinics when you have political points to score and a reputation to make.

But hearings were of course held anyway, because if there is anything the GOP hates more than gun regulations and immigrants, it’s the ability of women to get access to health care whether it be contraception, abortion, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, or breast exams.

Like This Story?

Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Donate Now

Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), appeared at the hearing voluntarily, but that did not prevent her from having to take five hours of abuse. Watching in real time, I quickly understood there were three reasons for this hearing. One was to try as much as possible to humiliate Richards, who, apart from being a political force in her own right, is also the daughter of former Texas Democratic Gov. Ann Richards, a Democrat herself, a former chief of staff for Nancy Pelosi, and the head of both a powerful health-care provider and a powerful political action committee. Attacking Richards covers a lot of bases for right-wing hate-mongers. Several House members appeared committed to doing anything possible to trip Richards up such that she said something, anything, they could perhaps later use as fodder for campaign ads and another round of attacks.

A second reason appeared to be to further obfuscate the issue of funding for reproductive health care such that the GOP could find “better” uses for that money.

Finally, and most insidiously, taking a page right out of the playbook of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, this hearing was about taking names and getting lists of providers, of clinics, of staff people and even of organizations providing family planning services abroad for the purposes of harassing and stigmatizing them, if not more.

The most aggressive tactics apparently meant to humiliate or trap Richards were used by Congressmen Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Jim Jordan (R-OH). As the following videos show, they each asked leading questions of Richards, and, before she could even begin to reply they interrupted, answered for her, and then twisted what she had managed to say in reply. In fact, throughout the hearing, GOP congresspersons asked convoluted questions only to cut Richards off any time she tried to respond.

Gowdy didn’t bother with questions about fetal tissue, body parts, or funding. Instead he ran off the rails with irrelevant questions about whether or not Richards understood “how some of us may at a base level disagree with you on the origin of life?” He then went on to badger her about her opinions on abortion and on so-called partial birth abortion, neither of which were relevant to the stated purposes of the hearing and the latter of which does not exist.

Jordan focused on a Planned Parenthood video featuring Richards and made in response to the first release by CMP. He badgered Richards about this video, without allowing her to reply.

The effort to confuse the public around funding for Planned Parenthood was at first raised obliquely by House committee chairman Jason Chaffetz. He opened the hearing with a tearful though disconnected story about his personal family losses from cancer. Chaffetz said:

This is an important topic. The risk of getting a little—a little personal. My wife, Julie and I have been married some 24 years. Have our 25th wedding anniversary coming up in February.  I’m proud of my wife. She… she got her degree in psychology later in life after helping to raise three kids, some are still at home. She has just started to work [with] a plastic surgeon [who is] involved in helping women who are having to have their breast removed. And my wife (inaudible) helping these women. And I’m proud of her for doing that.

My mother—she passed away when I was 28 years old. She fought cancer for more than 10 years. She had breast cancer. And I miss her.  I lost my—I lost my father to cancer as well. Cancer, in this country, kills about 1,500 people a day. A day. And yet, our federal government only spends about $5 billion to fight it. If they were shooting 1,500 people a day, if there were rockets coming—we would be fighting this with everything we have got.

Then, Chaffetz continued:

And as I said before I came to Congress and I’m saying here today, as fiscally conservative as I can possibly be, we don’t spend enough on cancer. We don’t spend enough. We need to spend more. I would quadruple the amount of money if I had my chance to fight cancer and win. And the reason I’m passionate about the hearing today is we got a lot of health care providers, who, I think, in their hearts know that they’re trying to provide good.

The question before us is, does this organization—does Planned Parenthood really need federal subsidy? Does it need federal dollars? Every time we spend a federal dollar, what we’re doing is pulling money out of somebody’s pocket and we’re giving it to somebody else. What I don’t like, what I don’t want to tolerate, what I don’t want to become numb to is wasting those taxpayer dollars.

It is not at all unusual for congresspeople to use personal stories in hearings. Normally, however, such stories are relevant to the subject of the hearing itself. Cancer research was not relevant. It is funded through the National Institutes of Health, the budget of which was cut by Republicans in March of this year.

This hearing was about the federal funds that support services delivered by Planned Parenthood, which come through two avenues, either reimbursement of services for patients who qualify for Medicaid, or through funding to support Title X family planning services. To suggest funds for cancer research have anything to do with funding for these services reveals either that Chaffetz did not know his facts, or he was playing on sympathy as a guise for suggesting there was a choice to be made between the two. In the same way that the GOP either truly does not get it or purposefully misunderstands the actual process women go through to get mammograms (first a primary caregiver provides a referral, then you go to a radiologist), they seem bent on pretending that switching funds from Planned Parenthood to other purposes is a better use of money. We’ll have to watch for these comparisons to be made later.

But what was perhaps the most insidious aspect of the hearing were the “lists.” As the hours wore on, there were repeated requests for Richards to send the committee lists of everything from the organizations to which Planned Parenthood provides funding overseas to the names and contact info for clinics and providers. In the 1950s, former Sen. Joe McCarthy touted lists he claimed proved communists had infiltrated the U.S. government. He used those purported lists (which did not actually exist) to create fear and intimidate people throughout the country, and to haul them in front of Congressional committees. He ruined many lives. And it appears his spirit lives on in the contemporary GOP now in power.

Reproductive health providers know about lists. A number of organizations in the anti-choice movement have been known to make and publish lists online, including the names of doctors and service providers of abortion care, the names and addresses of clinics, and the home addresses of those who work at clinics. These lists are used to intimidate, target, follow, and sometimes harm or murder abortion providers and staff. Some state attorneys general have tried to use their power to obtain the records of women who have had abortions, and in at least one case, that of former Kansas State Attorney General Phill Kline, information gathered by his office was shared publicly and with anti-choice groups. And now, since CMP released its videos, there have been a number of attacks on clinics throughout the country.

Chaffetz started taking names and making lists almost immediately. He began with a question about the Democratic Republic of Congo (yes, you read that right, straight from fetal tissue to the DRC):

CHAFFETZ: Ms. Richards, Planned Parenthood has sent 32-plus million dollars in grants overseas. Does any of the funds go to the Democratic Republican of the Congo?

RICHARDS: Congressman, let me…

CHAFFETZ: No, no, no. We don’t have time for a narrative. I just want to know…

(CROSSTALK)

CHAFFETZ: Yes or no.

RICHARDS: You asked me a question. Any of the money that is — Planned Parenthood raises and is given by foundations and individuals to support family planning services is in Africa and Latin America, and they go to individual organizations.

I’m happy to provide you a list of those organizations, but I did not bring them with me.

CHAFFETZ: If you could give us a list of those organizations.

Chaffetz then asked for a list of Planned Parenthood’s “ownership in foreign companies,” a somewhat strange request to a nonprofit, but…

CHAFFETZ: Does Planned Parenthood have any ownership in foreign companies?

RICHARDS: I don’t believe so. I don’t know what you mean by ownership.

CHAFFETZ: Well, in your 2013 tax return, it lists $3.3 million marked as, quote, “investment,” unquote in Central America and the Caribbean. I’m just asking if that investment was an actual investment?

RICHARDS: We don’t own anything in those countries. What…

CHAFFETZ: OK. Let me keep going. I have to keep going. I need to — I would appreciate a list. You have been very cooperative so far.

Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) picked up this thread by asking for a list of affiliates that “receive the majority of their revenue from abortion.” Lummis insinuated that there must be something wrong with Planned Parenthood’s data on the share of services for abortion, given revenues from abortion appear higher than those from other services. Her line of questioning was wholly misleading. Surgical abortion is more costly than other services, and those services are not reimbursable by Medicaid or other government funds, so the revenue stream is not relevant to the share of services provided. It’s like asking a dentist why she brings in more money for root canals than teeth cleanings.

Chaffetz, however, did not want to let that point go by, and so he reiterated the request when Lummis was done. “[A]s a point of clarification, Ms. Richards, I want to make sure there’s no ambiguity here. The gentlewoman from Wyoming asked for a listing of affiliates where the majority of revenue comes from abortion services. You said you’d talk to your team. Will you actually provide us that list?”

Like Joseph McCarthy, GOP members of the hearing panel then went on to suggest some sort of guilt by association with President Obama and the Department of Justice.

JORDAN: Since the videos have surfaced have you had any conversations with the President of the United States?

RICHARDS: No I have not.

JORDAN: Since the videos have surfaced have you been to the White House?

RICHARDS: No I have not.

JORDAN: How many times have you been to the White House?

RICHARDS: During what period of time?

JORDAN: Since Mr. Obama’s been president.

RICHARDS: I don’t know that’s been I think seven years, so I would have to get back to you on that.

JORDAN: Our count shows that you, your board members and senior staff have been to the White House 151 times in six and a half years. I’m just curious, that’s why I ask the question if you’ve been to the White House or you talked to the President since these videos have surfaced?

RICHARDS: And I said I have not.

JORDAN: And you’ll get back with me on if the Justice Department has contacted you since these videos have surfaced?

RICHARDS: Well I think you listed several folks, so I’m happy to work with the committee and find out what all you need to know.

JORDAN: CMS, HHS, Inspector General, Justice Department; Justice Department’s the most important.

Was President Obama featured in the CMP videos? I don’t think so either.

Chaffetz then once again stepped in and reiterated the list of lists being requested, and added a couple more.

CHAFFETZ: We are looking for the amount of revenue by affiliate for abortion services. So you have the — that should be pretty straightforward. We would like to know which affiliate provides which services.

RICHARDS: I believe you have that, but we’re happy to provide that.

CHAFFETZ: We’re still—we want to make sure we’ve it crystal. I think we have portions of it, but we don’t have all of it.

RICHARDS: OK.

CHAFFETZ: The names of organizations and the countries that Planned Parenthood gives funds to overseas. So based on the tax returns and reports, you’re sending money to overseas. Some of them have been listed as investments, so as other things, we’d like to get some details and specificity as to how much is going to which country and what those are for. Is that fair?

RICHARDS: I really have to talk to my team about that but I will.

And:

CHAFFETZ: We obviously, have some concerns about the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. So we’re trying to get to the duties performed and compensation received for all Planned Parenthood or affiliate employees. This could either by for the Planned Parenthood Action Fund or for either of the — I believe there are two, 5207 organizations. One of our concerns, is that the shared services and the sharing of employees between political actives and non-political activities and we would like to understand how broad based that is.

CHAFFETZ: [And] the cost of reimbursement for both contraception, and abortion, and abortion obviously breaks down into in clinic as well as the pill.

RICHARDS: Actually, there’s a lot of kinds of contraception too.

CHAFFETZ: Yes, contraception, I left it as broad as I could. But for the abortion services…

RICHARDS: I’m just saying, I think it’s important, I’m not sure we got into much of that conversation about how birth control—how many different kinds of birth control there are now because that’s one of our specialties.

CHAFFETZ: Help us understand and what services and money you’re allocated and what the costs of that are. There were some points that should be helping to drive down those costs and we’re just not understanding the ratio…

RICHARDS: That’s why…

CHAFFETZ: It needs clarification. I’m not asking…

RICHARDS: It was clear that folks weren’t aware of the various costs of different kind of contraceptions..

CHAFFETZ: Exactly, and that’s where we need help. Not right now, just as a follow up.

And:

CHAFFETZ: A list of political organizations, Planned Parenthood collarbones, including the names in compensation of received of shared employees.

I think I covered that in general, but I’ll keep going.

Yes, it seems they will keep going, as one means of spreading fear and intimidation.

There are two definitions of McCarthyism in the dictionary:

  • the practice of making accusations unsupported by proof or based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence.
  • the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.

I’d say today’s radicalized GOP has them both down pat.