Common Ground Among Pro-Life and Pro-Choice Students

I am always delighted by how much common ground I find with pro-life students, after enough discussion. For example, when I was interviewing student protesters outside of my clinic, I found I had a common cause (but different a approach) with the pro-life protesters. With a debate which is dramatized as tearing our nation to pieces, the things we disagree on are fundamental and important, but there is much on which we agree.

Here are 3 issues which I think pro-choice and pro-life students can agree:

1) Pregnant women (students and professors) are given no place in high education. This is sexist and wrong.
2) Teens are having trouble making responsible sexual decisions
3) Our culture wars are unproductive and impractical

With these three things in common, there are many useful projects we can do together and much common ground to be shared. The issues which divide us are vital–but practical good can come of moving beyond bumper-stickers and into productive debate. I know this sounds idealistic and naive, but I am not advocating that Operation Rescue and a resurrected Margaret Sanger plan a wedding together and be bffs, just that students, with much of the same background and outside interests, can do significant good working together. I believe any cooperation, even on small issues, will help lower the animosity level of both sides, and this is good for our american debate.

PS: I recently found an interesting example of a proposed compromise on abortion: abortion reduction.

Inspirational Quote:

Will Rogers – “I don’t make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts.”

The Value of Debate (for CMU’s Respect for Life Club)

I believe any opinion which is worth holding is debatable. I came to this conviction reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X, where Malcolm X, in prison, joined the debating club and formed most of his political opinions not through solitary research, though he did a lot of that, but through debate. Trying to follow in his footsteps, I advocate my position on issues as strongly as possible, and see where other people find holes.

Many of my beliefs (whether on race issues, religion or abortion) originated from solitary research and observation. I think of these initial opinions as lumpy rocks. One can be formed of the best sediment (the most well-reviewed journals) but until it has entered into agitator of debate, it is impossible to know what is true and what is trash.

My initial opinion on abortion was formed in the kind of echo-chamber described above–I learned my beliefs from my parents and my friends, who all pretty much believed the same thing. I can say with some shame that my opinion could have been summarized by some of the bumper-stickers you see on cars: Woman’s Right to Choose! Her body, Her Choice! Come Back When You Have a Uterus!

A lumpy rock indeed. And a weak one, not because the core of it was weak, I still hold firmly a basic abhorrence of forcing a woman to bear a child she does not want stronger than an abhorrence of ending a potential life, but because it was un-nuanced; un-subtle; un-educated.

With the efforts of many friends, particularly my Karate teacher who patiently and kindly challenged my bumper-sticker-quoting, lumpy opinion, I now have a more complex opinion on abortion. However my commitment to debate cannot stop there, because then my opinions would develop new lumps and I would never know it. In the process of honing my opinion on abortion, I spent some time interviewing the incoming Aimee, President of the Respect for Life Club of CMU.

Ostensibly, our interview was part of a project I designed in my Humanities Scholars Program class to study the performance of protest outside of the Allegheny Women’s Health Center in East Liberty, Pittsburgh. But the project itself was itself part of my commitment to having a strongly composed opinion on abortion.

In listening to Aimee, I discovered new trash and underdeveloped portions of my opinion–I did not honestly believe anyone at Carnegie Mellon would argue that contraception was un-natural and unacceptable, while holding a pro-life stance, much less that this was the jointly-held belief of all of the members of the Respect Life Club at CMU. This was ignorance on my part, and a weakness in my opinion.

Without this kind of exchange of information, our generation will be stuck in the same bumper-sticker flinging contest of our parents–our opinions will remain lumpy, and we will never stand together on the common group which we share.

Inspirational Quote:

Writing gives you the illusion of control, and then you realize it’s just an illusion, that people are going to bring their own stuff into it.
David Sedaris

Dr Tiller and Pittsburgh’s pro-life students

In the last semester I have spent a lot of time thinking about abortion, and the common ground between pro-life and pro-choice students. I have strong acquaintances with pro-life leaders on my campus, including several members of the CMU Respect for Life Club, while being a escort for Planned Parenthood. Dr Tiller’s murder is abhorrent to the anti-violence message of many in the pro-life student movement. Scott Roeder, the accused murderer, or whomever is responsible, cannot in my mind be placed in the same thought as the non-violent student protesters outside of my clinic. The non-violent protesters outside of my clinic are part of our national dialog on abortion. Our country grows by debate, even painful debate, and without a strongly argued dialog, we will stagnate as a society.

Violence has no place in that dialogue.

PS: This post, and the next two posts may be cross-posted on the CMU Respect for Life Club’s website through an arrangement I have.

Inspirational Quote:

Readers, after all, are making the world with you. You give them the materials, but it’s the readers who build that world in their own minds.
Ursula Le Guin

Rules for Commenting (or, a Lesson in Internet Etiquette)

Recently there was a bit of drama on the feelingelephants comments. People don’t leave many comments, so this was a bit of a surprise. Even more of a surprise was how uncivil the poster was. A brief chronology of the event exists below, but first, I would like to summarize the rules which I created in reaction to the ugly behavior of that one commenter:

-Ad hominem attacks are not permitted.
-Profanity is rarely useful, but is un-prohibited.
-Opposing views discussed politely are permitted.
-Crudeness is rarely useful, but is permitted as long as it is not obscene.

I figure these are the loosest rules I could tolerate, and so were a good first step of adding some law to the previously lawless (and nearly unused) comments sections on feelingelephants. Hopefully I won’t have to do anymore.

Below is a brief, and hopefully impartial, summary of my first experience with a comments spammer.

29 January, 2009 @ 12:12 am, “Clint Mahoney” comments on Planned Parenthood Escorting–Protester Images

29 January, 2009 @ 12:22 am, “Clint Mahoney” comments on Pittsburgh Planned Parenthood Escort

29 January, 2009 @ 12:40 am, I (feelingelephants) reply to “Clint Mahoney”’s comment on Planned Parenthood Escorting–Protester Images, not having yet seen his comment on “Pittsburgh Planned Parenthood Escort”

29 January, 2009 @ 1:03 am, I reply to “Clint Mahoney”’s comment on Pittsburgh Planned Parenthood Escort, having just been notified of it.

1 February, 2009 @ 11:00 pm, “Clint Mahoney” comments on Pittsburgh Planned Parenthood Escort

1 February, 2009 @ 11:53 pm, I reply to “Clint Mahoney”’s comment on Pittsburgh Planned Parenthood Escort

Clint Mahoney is, as far as I can tell, an pro-life organizer. In the above chronology I used quotes around “Clint Mahoney” because I am making no assumptions about my commenter’s actual identity.

If you want to read the conversations, feel free, they’re in the comments sections of the posts linked to above. A friend of mine replied to a few of his points, so there is some good discussion. For all of my comments I was pretending I was Miss Manners, so they may read a little formal.

You may be wondering why I have given “Clint Mahoney” this much more exposure (by not just deleting him once he started insulting me at the time, and now by writing a post referencing him), since the comments-storm someone using his name was stirring up at the time was probably a ploy to gain more exposure for their anti-Roe Anniversary protest.

I am giving “Clint Mahoney” this exposure because 1) the commenter confirmed publicly that he is Clint Mahoney; 2) I believe he comported himself badly in his commenting and I think this is a good lesson in netiquette. I also feel I comported myself well, and answered his accusations in a polite way, and want to show off a little.

Btw, if Clint Mahoney does not want his name tied to this commenter, he may comment here and we’ll see what we can do about it. You will notice in the comments I signed my full name, because I do not hide behind handles when I am engaging in political debate.

Also, if you are interested in a simpler lesson in internet manners, I will direct you to one of the more succinct posts on netiquette which I have found.

Anyhoo, for my first encounter with a flamer, this was probably tame. But it certainly was interesting, and helped me articulate my rules for commenting on feelingelephants.

Have a great day!

Inspirational Quote:

“I think we can disagree without being disagreeable” Barack Obama.

Planned Parenthood Escorting–Protester Images

I enjoy Escorting and am proud to Escort for the Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania. Here is what a Saturday morning looks like on our Liberty Street Clinic. The first images are from my vantage point as an escort, the later ones I asked the protesters for permission to take better images of their signs. A side benefit I have found to being an Escort is a growing ability to be polite, direct and ignore whatever vitriol is beign thrown my way. Call it an occupational benefit.

Inspirational Quote:

“the net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” John Gilmore

Contraception Perception

Today I did a leadership activity where with a certain amount of money I proposed that we subsidize CMU’s prescription birth control methods because of the huge price increase created by President Bush’s Deficit Reduction Act. This Act changed the formula which had previously encouraged drug makers to offer school discounts to discourage them. I spent this morning Escorting and plan to attend Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania’s Rally for Affordable Contraception next week because I think unintended pregnancies are bad. And it was that simple for me. I don’t really think it’s my business to pass judgment on the morality of medical treatments, and as women (and their families) with devastating cramps know, the pill can be a life-saver for the non-sexually active.

But my group was offended. Not uninterested, not confused about the legal issue, offended that I wanted to subsidize contraception. Now as I Escorted this morning I got to listen to a man with yelling “Contraception causes Cancer! Abortion causes Cancer!” which I pretty much filed away in my head under the same category as things I hear listening to Rush Limbaugh or Martha Stewart. But standing with a group of Freshmen, I suddenly hear one woman say “I’m alienated by that idea”, a man say “I don’t like that idea because I’m a guy” and the entire group come to the general consensus that it was an offensive and unreasonable way to spend our money, all in about 30 seconds.

I have rarely found myself so poor a gage of an issue’s popularity. I consider myself relatively savvy about how people will deal with my issues and I was blindsided. As we decided on a much mellower and milder plan, I thought:

I thought most religions gave up fighting contraception in the 70s,” and (uncharitably)

“Do they think abortions are a better option or should all women start getting pregnant at 18 and not stop until they’re 40″, and

How is responsibility offensive?

Because that’s how I have always seen contraception. The intension to start a family and the intension to enter into a sexual relationship are differentiated in my mind. Now, having heterosexual sex requires (or should require) both parties to understand the possible implications of what they are doing and to plan for unintended pregnancies. But in my mind, contraception is only not used when a woman wants to get pregnant or is raped. There are other responsible situations where a woman and her companion might choose to go without contraception, but they are few and far between.

So why did my peers disagree so thoroughly?

Some later seemed to agree with me but it was too late and my idea had been taken out and crushed. I think I have just never known someone my age who didn’t understand the vital place contraception has in our society.

It took me a while to calm down, and then I started asking questions. Turns out I couldn’t find anyone who wold tell me they personally would deny women contraception. I’ll keep asking around, but I hope it was just a case of students being over-sensitive for hypothetical (non-existent) others.

I just don’t know.

Inspirational Quote:

Liberty without learning is always in peril; learning without liberty is always in vain.
- John F. Kennedy

Pittsburgh Planned Parenthood Escort

Hey all. Here is a tightened version of a blog post I did on my work as a Planned Parenthood Escort. My next post will be a follow up, but as a teaser, Ms Brown lost on her initial injunction. I sent this in one of my internship applications, so if Turnitin.com find it, feelingelephants is Jessica’s blog!

Here it is! It’s written in the form of a letter to the editor.

I would like to comment on the recent article entitled “Choice Words” (Pittsburgh City Paper, December 27th 2007) about Ms Brown’s lawsuit claiming the Pittsburgh Bubble Zone law, designed to protect patients of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania and other clinics which provide abortion services, violates her First Amendment rights to Free Speech and Exercise. While I enjoyed the article, I feel there are a number of legal points they failed to bring up. As an Escort for the targeted Planned Parenthood and an Aluma of the Carnegie Mellon’s 1st Amendment Law class, I feel I have an insight into the issues which Ms Brown brings up.

A Bubble Zone is an area where protesting is restricted by an city ordinance. At the Planned Parenthood clinic where I volunteer, the Bubble Zone has two aspects:

1. Protesters cannot stand within a 15 feet of the clinic door, as marked out by a semi-circle painted by the city. Since the clinic entrance is on an open city street this could theoretically get awkward if the protesters weren’t easy to recognize. As an Escort, I have never seen a non-protester have trouble walking through the marked semi-circle. Protesters are easy to recognize because they are carrying literature and disturbing signs.

2. There is a 100 foot area where advocates of any viewpoint must respond to requests to back up by moving back 8 feet from the person who asked. In Escort training I was taught that all kinds of language could serve to ask a protester to move away, but the most common is probably “get away from me!”.

This statute would be illegal under 1st Amendment precedent as I understand it if it banned only protesters against the clinic. However in Pittsburgh no one is allowed to remain within 8 feet of someone who has asked them to back off within the Bubble Zone. In 1st Amendment law this is called a “content-neutral” statute.

As an Escort I could, but don’t, ask protesters to move away from me. If they’re focused on me, maybe some people will get into the clinic without being hassled. Escorts never engage and never ask for attention other than by standing in front of the clinic in our Planned Parenthood jerseys but it is always nice to see people get into the clinic because the protesters weren’t paying attention. In fact on my last weekend, every single couple got in without needing our help. That Saturday we got more “good job”s, “thank you”s and even an “I love you guys!” than fingers and sermons from the random Pittsburgh residents who passed us on their way downtown.

On the First Amendment implications of the 15 foot painted semi-circle where protesters cannot go, I know from personal experience it is easy to discern the messages of the protesters standing as far away from them as possible in the 15 foot buffer zone. Though I am far from an expert, I remember no First Amendment precedent which requires privately run organizations to allow all speech inside of their facilities. In fact, the distinction between a “restricted forum” and a “public forum” seems to imply that, unless specifically designed as such, most spaces are not open to all messages and forms of discussion. Also, would the clinic be required to leave its doors open on 20 degree mornings if they were required to make sure the protesters’ speech could be heard by all?

On the 8 foot requestable personal space bubble within 100 feet of the clinic, I believe that protesters are prevented from a method of distributing their speech rather than the act of speech itself by the 8 foot personal space bubble. The method which I assume Ms Brown is wishing to engage in is commonly called Sidewalk Counseling, where a protester walks very close to a patient and pressures them in a low and sincere voice. It is this sense of private counsel which Ms Brown and her fellow protesters lose if they are asked to move back, not the ability to convey their messages.

The only other possibility is that Ms Brown is hoping to physically intimidate a patient and her partner as they try to enter the clinic. Protesters sometimes ring the 15 foot circle, forming a seemingly impassable wall of yelling people and ugly signs, though they are legally banned from forming “human chains”. However physical intimidation is an action, not speech and therefore is not automatically protected by the First Amendment or any aspect of the United States Constitution.

Anecdotal evidence is also damning to Ms Brown’s claims. In my limited time at Planned Parenthood I have never heard or seen anyone invoke the 8 foot rule. I have seen protesters squeeze between a woman and her companion to try and separate them and I have seen protesters specifically set down outside of the 100 foot Bubble Zone to display their signs. I have heard protesters orate from the full 15 feet away and I could hear them clearly. I could also hear them saying the rosary quietly.

One protester chooses to deliver his speech in the form of a 12 inch wooden crucified fetus pendant. I believe its bearer’s message may be most effective when viewed from within 8 feet; however the size of a sign (or in Ms Brown’s case the volume of speech) is the speaker’s choice, and if the speaker makes an ineffective choice, the Constitution does not required the speaker’s intended audience to step closer or listen harder.

I see no First Amendment support for Ms Brown’s claim. I absolutely believe in the protesters’ right to share their message; however I also believe that people have a right to access medical care without intimidation: this is why I Escort. Ms Brown’s First Amendment claim is erroneous because she is mistaking a manner of speech restriction for a speech restriction. The statutes is content neutral and is written in such a way as to balance the right to Privacy of the patients with the First Amendment rights of the protesters. Thankfully for the patients of Planned Parenthood, the Constitution does not compel them to listen to Ms Brown or anyone else.

Inspirational Quote:

“In addition, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed the Abortion Control Act, 18 PA.
CONS. STAT. § 3201, et seq. (1989), which provides the statutory framework governing abortion in the Commonwealth. The Act ensures that all women, especially minors, receive information about 24 the risks, consequences, and alternatives to abortion to ensure that the patients give an informed consent to the procedure. 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 3205 (1989); In Re L.D.F., 820 A.2d 714, 716 (Pa. Super. 2003). In fact, physicians are required to provide all women with access to state produced materials, which offer information on alternatives to abortion. 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 3205(2)(i); In Re L.D.F., 820 A.2d at 716. Physicians must also inform their patients about medical assistance benefits that may be available and that the father of the unborn child is “liable to assist in the support of [the] child,” even if he has offered to pay for the abortion. 18 PA. CONS. STAT. § 3205(a)(2)(ii),(iii). With this in mind, the Court recognizes that the women Brown seeks to counsel are required by law to receive mandated information about abortion and its alternatives from their physicians upon becoming a patient.” Opinion on Mary Katheryn Brown v City of Pittsburgh et all, 2:06-cv-00393-NBF

Article on Bubble Zones (Clinic Escorting)

From a strictly non-legal perspective comes the article entitled Choice Words. It’s a personal opinion on the value and social use of Bubble zones. A Bubble zone is an ordinance (usually handled by individual cities) that declares some area out of bounds for protesting. At the Planned Parenthood clinic I volunteer at, the Bubble zone has two aspects.

PS: here is a more factual Post-Gazette article.

The simple sum-up of why I believe Ms Brown’s First Amendment Claim is erroneous is that 1) the statute she is seeking to overturn is content neutral 2) she is mistaking a Manner of speech restriction for a Speech restriction (the first is allowed [think bull-horns being banned in residential neighborhoods by nuisance ordinances] and the second is not).

1) protesters cannot stand within 15 feet of the clinic entrance. Since the clinic entrance is on an open city street this could theoretically get awkward if Planned Parenthood protester’s weren’t terribly easy to recognize (ie, because tons of ordinary people walk through that special semi-circle en-route to the bus or the bakery). However, as every protester I’ve seen has a) their hands full of literature or b) is carrying a truly large and/or disgusting sign it is fairly easy to enforce.

2) There is a 100 foot area (also measured from the clinic door) where advocates of any viewpoint must respond to requests to back up my moving back 8 feet from the person who asked. I was trained that all kinds of language could serve to ask a protester to move away, but the most common is probably “get away from me!”.

As an escort I could, but don’t, ask protesters to move away from me. See, if they’re focused on me, maybe some people will get into the clinic without being hassled. We never engage and we never ask for attention other than by standing out there in our Planned Parenthood Jerseys, but it is always nice to see people get into the clinic without our help. In fact on my last weekend, every single person came in without needing our help–they were empowered and did it themselves.

On the argument mentioned in the article that a protester (the one suing is Mary Kathryn Brown) is not able to access his or her intended audience I would question as an accurate assesment.

On the 15 foot painted line which mark where protesters can and cannot go, I know from personal experience it is absolutely possible to discern the messages of the protesters from just in front of the clinic doors. Though I am far from an expert, I remember no precedent which requires privately run organizations to allow all speech inside of their facilities. In fact, the very doctrine of designating a space a public forum seems to imply that, unless specifically designed as such, most spaces are not open to all messages and forms of dicussion.

On the 8 foot requestable personal space bubble, I believe that protesters are prevented from a method of distributing their speech rather than the act of speech by the 8 foot personal space bubble. The method which I assume Ms Brown is wishing to engage in is commonly called sidewalk counseling, where a protester walks very close to a patient and speaks to them in a low and hopefully sincere voice. It is this sense of private counsel which Ms Brown and her fellow protesters lose if they are asked to move back, not the ability to convey their messages.

The only other possibility is that Ms Brown is hoping to physically influence, ok, let’s just say it, intimidate, patients coming into the clinic. Protesters sometimes ring the 15 foot circle, forming a seemingly impassable wall (though they are legally banned from forming “human chains”) of yelling people and ugly signs. There are protesters whose choose to wear very disturbing jewelry (a fetus crucifix is one example) which I’m sure is quite upsetting in its detail (and the First Amendment absolutely protects all of the disturbing, upsetting and ugly signs. I am firmly of the belief that all content-based censures are violative of the most basic human right to speak and be heard). However physical intimidation is an action and no speech and therefore is not covered by the First Amendment, or any aspect of the United States Constitution.

The crucified fetus’s message may be most effective when viewed from within 8 feet; however is a speaker chooses a size (and in Ms Brown’s case, volume) of speech which is ineffective, it is not Constitutionally required that the Government support that speech.

On two anecdotal notes I would like to say something.

1) In my limited time at Planned Parenthood I have never heard or seen anyone invoke the 8 foot rule. I have seen protesters step between a woman and her companion to try and separate them, and I have seen protesters specifically set down outside of the 100 foot area where they may be asked to back up.

2) I have stood inside the 15 foot circle and had protesters yell in their best stage voices from the full 15 feet away and I could hear them clearly. I could also hear them quietly saying the rosary and greeting each other good morning.

As I see the protesters have no First Amendment right to have their voices carry inside of the clinic (would the clinic be required to leave its doors open on 20 degree mornings and never install soundproof glass if this was held as true?) since their voices carry just fine to everyone inside of the 15 foot circle I see no First Amendment issue here.

Inspirational Quote:

Clover – Three leaf relates the holy trinity. Four leaf relates good luck. – Sinead Toolis Byrd

Escorting for Planned Parenthood

Hey all,

Here are some pictures I took this morning while Escorting for Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania. Escorting is *not* being a body guard. It is not counter-protesting. It is far more powerful and far more important for me: it is simply helping individuals make it past crowds of protesters who wish to shock and horrify them into not going into our clinic. But like many worthwhile pursuits, Escorting involves a lot of waiting around. Thus most of my pictures are of buses, murals and people. The protesters give speeches, pray, yell and above all have boards and signs. I’ve learned to enjoy the prettier signs (I don’t have any pictured here because I didn’t want to attract the protesters attention while I was Escorting and most of them had left by the time I was done) like a lovely one of Jesus. And I though I see the uglier signs, they never change my mind about what I’m doing (a fellow Escort said her least favorite was a many wearing a 10 inch tall, hand carved crucifix where Jesus has been replaced with a fetus image). And this is what is so powerful about Escorting: we have the responsibility to not interact with the protesters. We don’t talk, we rarely make eye-contact, we don’t refuse pamphlets from them for patients (though we tell the patients the pamphlets aren’t allowed inside the clinic), and *we don’t give them the satisfaction of bothering us*.

And do you know what the best part about today was?

Not a single Patient or companion felt intimidated enough by the protesters to need our help. Talk about empowerment.

Fun in a totally different way was going on a public transit adventure. I got on the wrong bus and so had the chance to take all of these lovely pictures of the Wilkinsburg station–check out the snow!!!

Inspirational Quote:

Roman: the urge to walk around and incorporate countries

One liner from Madrigal concert