Read the week's best commentary from bloggers at Slate's "XX Factor," American Civil Liberties Union's "Speak Freely."
CLINIC VIOLENCE:
"Victims of Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood shooting sue clinic for poor security," Christina Cauterucci, Slate's "XX Factor": Victims of the "the 2015 terrorist attack at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood ... are suing the health clinic for what they say was inadequate security, making the clinic negligent and liable for the deaths and injuries wrought by gunman Robert Lewis Dear," Cauterucci writes. According to Cauterucci, the suit was filed on behalf of Samantha Wagner, who was one of nine individuals injured at the clinic, and the wife of Ke'Arre Stewart, who was one of three individuals killed during the shooting. The "suit alleges that the Colorado Springs facility should have anticipated a potential attack, considering the 'long history of violence' perpetrated against abortion providers, and should have instated more and better security measures to prevent an anti-abortion extremist like Dear from gaining access to the clinic," Cauterucci writes. Further, she writes that the lawsuit "suggests that the facility should have better secured its entrances, better trained its employees for emergency situations, hired an armed guard, posted warnings about 'the risk of physical harm, injury or death associated with entering (Planned Parenthood) properties,' and built perimeter fencing to keep out violent terrorists." Citing a report from the National Abortion Federation, Cauterucci writes that "Stewart and Wagner are right" in saying that "[v]iolence at abortion clinics is on the rise, largely due to a spike in the prevalence and extremism of anti-abortion rhetoric." However, she explains that the "Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood did not discount the possibility of an attack," noting that the "the clinic's preparations helped staff and law enforcement officials respond quickly to minimize the harm Dear could cause." For example, she writes that a staff member who received active shooter training notified the police of the attack and shepherded staff and visitors to a safe room, while law enforcement was "able to use live feeds from the clinic's interior surveillance cameras to direct officers at the scene." Nonetheless, according to Cauterucci, some still "have found reason to blame Planned Parenthood for the attack." She adds, "Though plenty of Planned Parenthood clinics do have metal detectors, bulletproof glass, and steel doors with buzzers, they shouldn't have to." She writes, "Patients shouldn't have to feel like they're entering a prison when they're just showing up for a doctor's appointment. Doctors shouldn't have to sneak into their offices or check in with armed guards to give proper care to their patients." Citing the "rhetoric of genocide and hellfire" used by abortion-rights opponents and by Dear, Cauterucci concludes, "The answer to anti-abortion terrorism is a crackdown on the political and rhetorical enablers of anti-abortion terrorism, not more guns in exam rooms" (Cauterucci, "XX Factor," Slate, 5/24).
What others are saying about clinic violence:
~ "Arson indefinitely shutters a California Planned Parenthood clinic," Alex Zielinski, Center for American Progress' "ThinkProgress."
~ "Colorado Planned Parenthood attack victims speak out about losing loves ones -- this is their important message for the organization," Noor Al-Sibai, Bustle.
ACCESS TO CARE:
"The federal government must stop Catholic hospitals from harming more women," Brigitte Amiri, American Civil Liberties Union's "Speak Freely": Amiri relays the story of a woman experiencing pregnancy complications who was denied medically appropriate care at a Catholic hospital because "the medical staff refused to provide an abortion based on Catholic directives that dictate what care can be provided in Catholic hospitals." According to Amiri, the woman's "story is one of several complaints against Catholic hospitals -- which take billions of taxpayer dollars to serve the public -- that have been lodged with the federal agency that oversees hospitals." Amiri writes, "It's very strange, then, that when [the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)] filed a Freedom of Information Act request back in 2014 seeking these complaints we received none of them." She adds, "That's why today we filed a lawsuit under FOIA to get all documents related to complaints against Catholic hospitals." Amiri explains that there likely "are other complaints that we don't know about yet," given the increasing numberof Catholic hospitals -- with one in six hospital beds in 2016 in a hospital that operates under the directives -- and an increase in the number of women coming forward about their experiencing being denied medically appropriate care at such facilities. "The government's answer to [this] lawsuit will tell us precisely what they know" about this problem, Amiri continues, adding that ACLU "expect[s] them to help fix this problem and use federal law to protect women." She writes, "Hospitals violate the law when they refuse to provide emergency medical care or provide information about a patient's condition." She calls on the federal government to "systematically investigate Catholic hospitals and hold them accountable." She concludes, "No woman should rush to the hospital and fear for her life because of religious rules that force hospitals to turn patients away without providing the proper care" (Amiri, "Speak Freely," American Civil Liberties Union, 5/24).
ANTIABORTION-RIGHTS MOVEMENT:
"Samantha Bee's history lesson on the pro-life movement reveals its outrageous origins," Amée LaTour, Bustle: "In 2016, the 'pro-life' movement and the religious right are almost synonymous," but the groups were not always unified, LaTour writes. She explains, "In fact, [the religious right] wasn't even a part of the [antiabortion-rights] movement when it exploded onto the political scene after the famous Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade ruled abortion to be a federally-protected matter of privacy." She cites a recent episode of "Full Frontal with Samantha Bee" that "explained the origins of the religious right and its involvement in the issue of abortion" and how the religious right was brought on board "by the will of conservative activists." LaTour writes, "[Paul] Weyrich, founder of the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation, teamed up with preacher and Bible college founder [Jerry] Falwell to unite members of various Christian sects into one big voting bloc by getting them all on the same page regarding certain conservative policy goals," one of which was abortion. In the episode, LaTour writes, Bee features Randall Balmer, a professor of religion, who explained the decision-making process: "[T]here was a conference call between [conservative] leaders, during which someone said, 'How about abortion?'" LaTour notes that with help from filmmaker Frank Schaffer, they began releasing inflammatory and misleading videos about abortion care and abortion providers. The videos, according to Schaffer, were slow to drum up support against abortion among evangelicals, but "[t]ides changed when former Representative Jack Kemp [R-N.Y.] got 50 of his fellow [conservative] congressmen to see a film and take on the cause." LaTour concludes, "And thus was the religious right born -- not a natural birth (ironically) spurred by Roe v. Wade, but a politically-motivated creation of conservatives" (LaTour, Bustle, 5/24).
What others are saying about the antiabortion-rights movement: ~ "Anti-abortion groups are now sending targeted smartphone ads to women in abortion clinics," Cauterucci, Slate's "XX Factor."
CRIMINALIZING PREGNANCY:
"Abortion rights at stake: Purvi Patel and the fate of pregnant women in Indiana," Eesha Pandit, Salon: "[On] Monday, the Indiana State Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in the feticide and child neglect conviction of Indiana resident, Purvi Patel" who "is facing 20 years in prison," Pandit writes. Pandit notes that during oral arguments, "Patel's attorney, Lawrence Marshall, co-founder of the Center on Wrongful Convictions and a professor at Stanford University," argued that "the state is trying to have it both ways, by using these mutually exclusive charges to prop each other up." She continues, "This, [Marshall] argued, makes for an insufficient argument in each charge, and unjust and unfair conviction of Patel." Pandit points to "[o]ne notable exchange during the hearing [that] focused on what exactly constituted a legitimate feticide charge," noting that the "court's ruling on this matter has wide implications for abortion care in the state, and in other states that have or are considering similar feticide laws." According to Pandit, the "judges pushed back" on the state's argument that the state feticide law "implies that any person who causes the death of a fetus, including the woman herself, is subject to a feticide charge." The judges, Pandit wrote, said under "such a broad reading a woman's conduct such as smoking or drinking while pregnant, not to mention any other actions not expressly exempt by the legislature, could make her a criminal if her pregnancy didn't result in a healthy and viable baby." Pandit writes, "The implications of such a reading of the law are staggering. Women who have abortions or miscarriages could be subject to prosecution if any of their conduct can be interpreted as endangerment -- even conduct they might not know to be dangerous." She cites Farah Diaz-Tello, senior staff attorney at National Advocates for Pregnant Women, who explained that such laws did not specifically exempt pregnant women because they were enacted "'before jailing people who have abortions or pregnancy losses was even considered as possibility.'" Pandit also points to Miriam Yeung, executive director of the National Asian Pacific American Women's Forum, who touched on the lawsuit's racial undertones. Yeung noted, "Prosecutors painted Purvi Patel as a monster and included racially tinged rationale," such as doctors' descriptions of Patel's "'flat affect.'" Pandit writes, "If we open up the application of feticide laws to such dubious evidence of guilt, every pregnant person in Indiana could be subject to jail time if their pregnancy does not result in a healthy birth" (Pandit, Salon, 5/25).
What others are saying about criminalizing pregnancy:
~ "Woman sentenced to 20 years for having an abortion appeals her ruling," Jacqui Germain, Feministing.
