Their intent was to come up with this report that would somehow justify the ban on all abortions," Looby sighed. "I mean, it was a well-orchestrated, well-planned process.
- SD PP's Kate Looby referring to the SD legislature's Task Force on Abortion

In 1991, Feminists for Life's amicus brief in Bray v Alexandria Women's Health Clinic held a seance of 19th century feminist icons to produce them as witnesses against 20th, now 21st, century women's right to an abortion and in support of violent clinic protester Michael Bray. His wife Jayne was recruited to petition the case on his behalf and attempted to cloak this support of violence in terms of feminism and women's rights. The puppeteering of early feminists like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton was dishonest history at worst (aided by Marvin Olasky) and horrid scholarship at best.

FFL intervened in that matter to prevent women who seek abortions from being determined a "class" by the Court, and thus, clinic violence (and Op Rescue) being made to pay for class animus. Hey, they said. Feminists have always been against abortion and ain't we women? In the same breath they said clinic violence has nothing to do with women, except to save them from their own regrets. John Roberts, then Solicitor General, now Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, agreed. FFL then made a two-decade cottage industry out of dividing and conquering women and ramping up pseudo-scientific efforts that would make stripping women of their rights a winning 'prowoman' strategy for religious ideology. John Roberts waited.

In the long and winding road from Bray to the 8th Circuit Ct. of Appeals decision last week in Planned Parenthood v Rounds, et al., arising out of South Dakota, we've been put through some headspinning and conflated polemics by antiabortion activists and lawyers and legislators. In a law review published recently, after the Supreme Court's funky rulings in Gonzales v Carhart but prior to the 8th Circuit opinion, Ronald Turner says of the "women's regret" strategy

Positing the postabortion syndrome in books and articles; determinedly adhering to the theory in the face of the opposition of scientists and established organizations and others; filing amicus briefs calling judicial attention to antiabortion advocates’ concerns about “women’s regret” and postabortion psychological and other problems; obtaining express recognition of those concerns in a published opinion by a federal appellate court judge; playing an active and prominent role in South Dakota’s study of and effort to outlaw abortion: all of these actions were part of a committed and perseverant campaign to rewrite the narrative and to change the terms of the abortion-rights debate. This sustained politico-legal movement has now achieved one of the desired objectives of the antiabortion position—the Supreme Court’s placement of its imprimatur on the “women’s regret” rationale.

Ironically, just as Catholic lawyers and FFL had argued in Bray that women seeking abortions don't represent a "class", 15 years later in Carhart II, where the issue was the so-called partial birth abortion procedure, Turner notes that Justice Kennedy (one of the 5 Catholic Justices for the alarming majority opinion)

states that “some women” (we are not told what percentage or how many) regret their decision to have a “partial-birth” abortion, but when this rationale is proffered as a justification for the total ban of the at-issue procedure, the operative meaning of “some women” is, in effect, “all women.” Thus, because “some women” (a few? many? most?) may later regret their decision, no woman may consider and make her own decision about the safer or safest procedure with the lower or lowest medical and health risks given her particular circumstances and medical needs. Kennedy’s approach to and discussion of the issue erases the “woman-decision-protective” right and places in its stead a “women-protective” regret rationale... .

Enter PP v Rounds, et al., the "et al." being Harold Cassidy, Abstinence Clearinghouse queen Leslee Unruh and her interests in SD's 'crisis pregnancy centers'. The 2005 Informed Consent Act of the SD legislature is at issue in this matter - the Ct. of Appeals only decided the challenge to the preliminary injunction in the recent ruling and the rest now goes back to the District Court in Rapid City. Still, the damage has been done, first with Kennedy's bizarre opinion in Carhart and now with the 8th Circuit majority voting in favor of the ideological findings of the farcical SD Task Force on Abortion and the weird science of David Reardon, who first urged antichoicers to support Feminists for Life because it would 'divide the enemy' and drive the "women's regrets" legislative strategy.

If you're not concerned yet consider a few of the remarks from the dissenting opinion in PP v Rounds:

___The provisions of this Act go far beyond the informed consent laws which have been upheld by the Supreme Court and the courts of appeal against constitutional challenges.12 The unique features in the Act include the extent of its interference with the doctor patient relationship, the nature of the information it forces the attending physician to transmit to the woman patient, the requirement that doctors certify that their patient has understood the state's messages, and the provision that any question raised by a woman be attached to her personal and permanent medical record.

__The Act more than likely violates the First Amendment by compelling doctors to communicate the state's ideology since the statutory definition of "human being" incorporates the metaphysical viewpoint that a “human being” is “living . . . from fertilization.”

__ But if "the State's interest is to disseminate an ideology, no matter how acceptable to some, such interest cannot outweigh an individual's First Amendment right to avoid becoming the courier for such message." Wooley, 430 U.S. at 717.

__Under the Act a woman is given a Hobson's choice: either to certify that she understands vague and ideological statements disguised as medical information or to carry her pregnancy to term. But "[a] Hobson's choice, of this sort, is no choice at all." Planned Parenthood of Idaho, Inc. v. Wasden, 376 F. Supp. 2d 1012, 1018 (D.Idaho 2005)

__ Entirely omitted from the advisories ordered by the state is the authoritative information that the patient has a constitutional right to choose to have an abortion. See, e.g., Casey, 505 U.S. at 846.

__Section 7 requires the attending physician to advise the patient in writing that an abortion "terminate[s] the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being" with whom she enjoys an existing constitutionally protected relationship, which ends with an abortion. See §§ 7(1)(b)-(d). The physician must also tell the patient that significant risks of an abortion include depression, suicide, and suicidal ideation. See § 7(1)(e)(i)-(ii). The patient must sign each page of the state's required messages, certifying that she understands them. § 7(1) ¶ 1. Any questions she may ask or explanations she may seek, as well as the physician's responses, must be reduced to writing and placed in the patient's permanent medical record. § 7(1) ¶ 1. After physicians have complied with these requirements, they must then certify their satisfaction that the patient has read the materials and that she "understands the information imparted." § 7(1) ¶ 2. These are unique requirements, unlike those contained in other informed consent laws.

__ Although a state may use its own voice to "show its profound respect" for fetal life, Carhart II, 127 S.Ct. at 1633, nowhere did the Supreme Court authorize a state to commandeer the voice of a physician to disseminate its ideological message.

__The legislative determinations with respect to the state's view that abortion results in significantly increased risks of depression or even suicide are highly questionable in light of medical studies in the United States and abroad which have refuted the theory that women undergoing abortions suffer from long term emotional harm or are more at risk than women who carry their pregnancy to term. A learned commentator has pointed out that the § 7(1)(e) provisions "very likely . . . require physicians to disclose information that is false." See Post, supra, at 961 (emphasis added); see also Carhart II, 127 S.Ct. at 1649 n.7 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting) (citing numerous peer reviewed studies suggesting that no evidence of postabortion syndrome and related depression exists). As a 2006 Congressional report on the subject pointed out, "there is considerable scientific consensus that having an abortion rarely causes significant psychological harm." United States House of Representatives, Minority Staff, Special Investigations Div., Comm. on Gov't Reform, False and Misleading Health Information Provided by Federally Funded Pregnancy Resource Centers at 11 (2006).

Yet another abortion ban will be on the ballot in South Dakota this fall after voters rejected the near total ban in 2006. Leslee Unruh and the YesforLife people claim that the "exceptions" for rape and incest voters "wanted" in 2006 are in the new initiated measure. Sure, if you don't mind wandering through a police state to get a medical procedure. More on that later, I promise. Meanwhile, you can read the ballot measure, Ronald Turner's law review and the 8th Circuit's PP v Rounds ruling over here.

While catching up on weekend reading with Obama here, Obama there and his campaign seizing the reigns everywhere I wondered what we're in for in Denver besides this big ol' Party crooner with two right feet.

With early tunes of R-E-S-P-E-C-T turning postprimary to A-I-P-A-C, who's minding the turntable in Denver and are Dems headed for a Rocky Mountain High this August or just a nasty Party hangover? After years of abysmal party leadership in DC, is this the Dems last chance for love?

Every party has its backdoor action and political parties are, of course, no exception. Some of the hottest action happens in the Platform Committees, state and national, and its happening now but just how do we get a piece?

In 1992 the South Dakota Democrat Party tossed its plank supporting abortion rights. Antichoice delegates didn't outnumber the prochoice, they simply reneged on a deal cut to protect the plank, leaving women furious and signaling a call to socially conservative Democrat candidates that reproductive rights wouldn't be required campaigning. The result ultimately led to Dem state legislators voting with Republicans for a total abortion ban there in 2006. They'd misread their constituencies, though, and voters smacked back, defeating a ballot measure that would have solidified the new law. Repro rights haven't been put back into that state's party platform and the legislature is still passing antichoice legislation but with 8 of 9 prochoice, Dem women winning their primaries this year in SD and another 10 or so on the general election ballot it looks like some are making an end run around a neutered state party - some sixteen years later. And if that's not trivia enough, guess who was co-chair of the SD party in 1992 - none other than key Obama strategist Steve Hildebrand.

And who can forget 1996? Not because Bill Clinton won but because we lost.

Clinton was looking for his second term as President and had thus far kept Republicans' quest to abolish welfare at bay. But then came the Dems' 1996 Platform Committee:

Welfare was one of the few subjects on which the committee was led to rework the platform. As originally drafted, the platform attacked two earlier Republican-drafted welfare bills, which, although similar to the one that the President has said he will sign, were vetoed by him.

Then, after Mr. Clinton's announcement of support last week, committee officials amended the platform's language over the weekend to reflect his new stance, while ignoring the Republicans who wrote the legislation.

''Now,'' the new language says, ''because of the President's leadership and with the support of a majority of the Democrats in Congress, national welfare reform is going to make work and responsibility the law of the land.''

Clinton's Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala's job became overseer not of providing services but stripping them and at least one of her popular employees at HHS resigned.

With these Party hangovers in mind, and our frustrating lack of control over Senate and House Dems on pressing matters like foreign policy, the Pentagon and burgeoning corporate control, how is our national party platform committee shaping up for 2008? Hard telling. If somebody out there knows exactly when and where its meeting, do tell.

Under the Democratic Party's rules, any person may submit a written statement concerning the platform to the Platform Committee at any time prior to the Committee's meeting. In addition, any person may request permission to testify at a public hearing and/or forum. The Platform Committee's Report is usually considered on the second day (Tuesday) of the Convention.

We know who's heading up the Platform Committee and what the 2004 Dem platform was, but just how to influence this most influencial body seems to be a best guarded secret as no contact info for its members is anywhere on the Dem party website or anywhere on the web. Some states are just finishing state conventions that will send 160 or so delegates to join Howard Dean's appointees at the natl. platform meetings in the next few weeks - maybe they get a secret envelope upon being elected telling them where to go and when and what to do next. The rest of us are left wondering if the party is simply going on without us.

Evangelist Tony Campolo knows the secret handshake by now, I'd bet - he's on the Dem Platform Committee and looking forward to working with the '08 CEO of the Dem Convention, Leah Daughtry.

“The language of the Democratic Party will change,” said Tony Campolo, an evangelical pastor who sits on the convention’s platform committee. Campolo added that the best thing about working with Daughtry “is that you don’t have to explain things to her.”

Appending the language of politics (“exit polls,” “voters,” “big tent”) to the language of religion (“values,” “morals,” “Scripture”) is nothing new for Daughtry, who has made it her job to sort through the babble and come up with broad appeal.

General Ricardo Sanchez is also on the Platform Committee. You remember, he was in charge of Abu Ghraib and the invasion of Iraq before he was, uh, a best-selling author. So is retired General Joseph Hoar.

Whether the Convention in Denver will inform the Presidential candidate's marching orders or simply annoint him with a religious revival may well be up to those who shape the platform.

So far the Platform Committee isn't issuing any general admission tickets to this summer's main event even as things are getting just a little sticky under the big tent.

In particular these Iraqi women wanted to draw attention to Section 41 of the new Iraq Constitution, pointing out it gives more power at the table to religious groups than women's equal civil rights. Plus, with the Bush Administration now finangling a new Status of Forces Agreement it only seems right to remind everyone of UN Security Council Resolution 1325, which highlights the need for including women in conflict prevention and peace negotiations.

The specter of honor killings is also high on everyone's minds lately, particularly those in Kurdistan, though even Sweden is scrambling to stop its own. The Kurdistan Regional Government in May passed new policy which is rather fascinating in that it denies protection to both soldiers and party members culpable in honor killings and violence against women. Maybe the US military and its contractors should take a look a that. Nevertheless, just a few days after the new policy was announced yet another young Kurdish woman died horrificly, apparently with complicity from public authorities. Some security.

At the end of the day the Iraqi Women's Movement panel was right as far as I can tell, they really didn't get any attention in the Compact and only two sections of the final report even briefly address gender anything; Section 2.7.8 on Gender talks statistics and technicians while the Human Rights section includes one sentence stating the Ministry of Human Rights will conduct research on rural women and monitor violence against them. How long can we keep 'watching'? I wondered. What more is there to know when women in the many hundreds are burned alive before your eyes, often by their own hand, or pelted with rocks on their naked bodies until they simply succumb to death - most often by their own family members, or murdered for protecting their daughters?

2.7.8 Gender

In 2007, a Commission for Women’s Affairs was established within the Office of the Prime Minister. An annual budget has been allocated to support specific programmes promoting the rights of women. COSIT has established a new Gender Statistics Unit. A number of technicians have been contracted to follow up gender indicators and prepare reports and brochures to promote the achievements of women in Iraq.

350 women have attended leadership training workshops and research studies have been undertaken concerning women’s role in government.

Sec. of State Condi Rice headed up the US delegation to the Intl. Compact meeting yet in her remarks didn't mention Iraqi women once. The International Monetary Fund got to say a few words. Latvia was represented! Even the World Bank was there. But in the creation of the multinational Compact on Iraq they sought no input from Iraqi women, apparently, and, truly, had only a few sentences to say about their welfare and safety with no plan to stem the tide of killings, called a 'gender genocide' by some, even against the violent backdrop of an ongoing military occupation.

UNIFEM's gender advisor to Iraq, Dina Zorba, pointed out at the Iraqi womens' news conference that only 1/2 of one percent of all support to Iraq goes to women. Iraqi women, anyway. Here stateside the Independent Women's Forum got a good chunk just for nudging Iraqi women toward free markets and 'personal responsiblity', remember that?

In 2006 Sec. Rice talked up the work IWF/FDD/AIC did/does in Iraq with that original grant money they got in '04 for the Iraqi Women's Democracy Initiative, a State Dept. project originally funded with $10 millionUS. Okay, true, Rice was there to have her back scratched by IWF, too.

In May, over 500 people attended IWF's third annual 'Barbara K. Olson Woman of Valor' dinner in Washington, DC. This year's honoree was Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who stated in her acceptance speech "'[IWF] is an organization that is promoting individual responsibility and economic liberty and democracy and it's making a true difference in the lives of women around the world.And I want to acknowledge the work that this organization has done on Iraq, where the Iraqi Women's Educational Institute, founded just two years ago, has grown into a hopeful force for women's inclusion in the new Iraq."

The Iraqi Women's Democracy Initiative got another $4.5 million from Congress in '06 and is scheduled for another $10 million for '08 - '09. I'm not sure if the same hucksters will be the grantees or not. They're all the same, doesn't really matter what storefront it comes out of, does it? Like playing whack-a-mole. Natl. Endowment for Democracy, IRI, NDI, MEDI, Wilson School crap. Same ol' same ol'. The Velveeta of our foreign policy structure.

If our Government-sponsored goons are going to be paid millions to shape the futures of the women of Iraq against their will shouldn't it at least be required they practise the democracy they preach? FDD's own Tanya Gilly was everywhere in State Dept. press releases touting the needs of Iraqi women prior to the invasion and was subsequently elected to the Iraqi National Assembly representing Kirkuk, where "one of the main hospitals in the city has dealt with a series of cases where no less than 300 women have been killed by violence or abuse in the last eight months."

Gilly wasn't in Sweden with the Iraqi women's contingent. Neither did Sec. Rice try to have Iraqi women heard at the Intl. Compact with Iraq planning session on their future security. Neither did the Independent Women's Forum or Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, home snug in their beds (plotting the free enterprise of Iranian women, I'd presume). The IMF didn't and the World Bank sure as hell didn't (Let them eat micro-loans).

But the Swedish Kvinna till Kvinna Foundation did set a place at the table. Good on them. Maybe we could outsource our next State Dept. to them? I don't see how the Independent Women's Forum could object.