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

Wed Oct 13 11:13:49 CDT 2004

But remember that we adopted a policy that we could go ahead without 
100% consensus.I think the number we approved was 85%.

At 10:42 AM -0500 10/13/04, Morton K.Brussel wrote:
>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
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Peace-discuss mailing list
>Peace-discuss at lists.cu.groogroo.com
>http://lists.cu.groogroo.com/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss

-- 

Al Kagan
African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
Africana Unit, Room 328
University of Illinois Library
1408 W. Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801, USA

tel. 217-333-6519
fax. 217-333-2214
e-mail. akagan at uiuc.edu