[Peace-discuss] Re: [Peace] AWARE Minutes-10-10-04

Wed Oct 13 10:42:06 CDT 2004

Thanks Brooke for your explanations. I agree with, and am in sympathy 
with, everything you say, as you could infer from my terse comment. But 
this is a (tactical?) question for AWARE to resolve. Our meeting 
consensus clearly favored endorsement, but Carl had left. Had he been 
present, he probably would not have acquiesced to endorsement. Since 
decisions usually are make on the basis of consensus, and clearly there 
is no absolute consensus on this issue amongst all of us, I suggested 
that we move on. I'm not sure I was right to say so. I'd like to hear 
others chime in on this.

Mort

On Oct 12, 2004, at 3:31 PM, Brooke Anderson wrote:

> Dear Carl, Mort, and AWARE friends,
>
> First, as an organizer for CCHCC's Campaign for Access to Emergency 
> Contraception, I want to thank you all for co-sponsoring our upcoming 
> rally in support of greater access to emergency contraception (or EC, 
> for short). We really appreciate your help and support and I was 
> dismayed on the list to see suggestions to withdraw this support.
>
> Second, I wanted to respond to your messages, Carl and Mort, and 
> provide people with some more accurate information about what EC is, 
> and (perhaps more importantly) what it is NOT.
>
> Emergency contraception (or EC) is a special dose of ordinary birth 
> control pills that can prevent unintended pregnancy if taken within up 
> to five days of unprotected intercourse, contraceptive failure, sexual 
> assault, or incest. EC is definitely NOT an abortafacient, and is not 
> at all the same thing as RU-486 (or what is sometimes called "the 
> abortion pill"). EC works by: (1) preventing ovulation, (2) preventing 
> fertilization, and/or (3) preventing implantation of a fertilized egg 
> into the uterus -- all of which occur prior to the medical definition 
> of pregnancy, which is the implantation of a fertilized egg into the 
> uterus. Therefore, EC can only prevent pregnancy, and simply CANNOT 
> terminate an existing pregnancy. If a woman is already pregnant, EC 
> will have no effect and will do no harm to a developing fetus. If you 
> believe EC is an abortafacient, then you must, by definition, also 
> believe that regular birth control pills and devices are 
> abortafacients -- as they work by the exact same mechanisms (in fact, 
> EC is really just a larger dose of regular birth control pills, but 
> which can be taken after, not just before, intercourse).
>
> If you believe that life begins with the mere presence of sperm inside 
> a woman (as opposed to a fertilized egg implanted into a woman's 
> uterus), then that is your individual religious belief and your choice 
> not to use EC. However, I would urge you not to force your religious 
> beliefs on others and oppose women's access to EC. In fact, when half 
> of all pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, and half of those end 
> in abortion, greater access to EC could greatly reduce the need for an 
> incidence of abortion in this country. So if you oppose abortion, you 
> should really support greater access to regular and emergency forms of 
> contraception.
>
> On a more personal note, in a world run by men that devalues women and 
> children's lives, I find it troubling to see men in the anti-war 
> movement dismiss women's issues as somehow irrelevant - or even an 
> obstacle - to our larger movement for social justice. By progressive 
> men like y'all aligning on reproductive justice issues with men in 
> power like Bush who are hell bent on limiting women's access to family 
> planning, contraception, sex education, abortion, and pre-natal care, 
> and yet not providing any health care, education, housing, food, etc. 
> for new mothers and their little ones, etc. -- by aligning with Bush 
> on this, y'all are just sending a message to those of us women in the 
> anti-war movement who've also fought like hell to end this war, that 
> we're not welcome, our lives and concerns aren't of importance to you, 
> and that the new social order we're fighting for won't value us any 
> more than we're valued today by the Bush administration.
>
> If we're talking about what will make the anti-war movement welcoming 
> and applicable to diverse communities, I find astounding the 
> suggestion that supporting women's right makes our movement less 
> friendly to people who are not "self-described liberals."  Many of the 
> women organizing for EC  in our community and beyond are poor and 
> working class women, high school women, and other women traditionally 
> excluded from the political system, as well as from anti-war and other 
> progressive movements. I'd hate to have to tell such women we're 
> working with, some of whom have had to get EC after having been 
> assaulted by friends or family members and some of whom have worked 
> hard in the anti-war movement, that they have a "casualness towards 
> human life" or that their needs are thought by some in AWARE to be an 
> impediment to building an anti-war movement. That would be 
> unfortunate.
>
> I'd be interested to hear what the * WOMEN *  in AWARE think about EC 
> and the relationship of women's movements for reproductive rights and 
> economic justice to the movement to end the war.
>
> Thanks,
> Brooke.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> At 9:38 PM -0500 10/11/04, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>> I left the meeting early Sunday (I'm doing a walk-on in the current
>> Station Theatre play, Aristocrats -- which I can recommend in good
>> conscience, as my contribution is slight), so I wasn't there when this
>> matter was discussed. I should have spoken against it for two 
>> reasons, one
>> substantive and one tactical. "Emergency contraception" may be 
>> necessary
>> for victims of rape, but it's understood by some as an abortifacient; 
>> its
>> general promotion does seem to suggest a casualness towards human life
>> that we decry in other US government policies. Tactically, it's the 
>> sort
>> of issue that Tom Frank describes in What's the Matter with Kansas? as
>> derailing progressive politics.  An anti-war group that wants to talk 
>> to
>> people other than self-described liberals should stay away from it.  
>> --CGE
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004, David Green wrote:
>>
>>>  ...  We agreed to co-sponsor a rally for emergency contraception
>>>  access, Oct. 28, 5:30-6:30, SE corner of Neil & Green (mini-park 
>>> 2)...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
> -- 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Brooke Anderson, Community Organizer
> Champaign County Health Care Consumers
> 44 E. Main St., Suite 208
> Champaign, IL 61820
> Phone = (217) 352-6533, x 17
> Fax = (217) 352-9745
> Email = brooke at shout.net
> Web = http://www.healthcareconsumers.org
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
> http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>