The divide doesn’t split neatly by party. Even with a DFL-dominated legislature, anti-abortion and pro-choice numbers are close, as many greater Minnesota DFLers side with Republicans on the issue. Perhaps no other issue could cause a DFLer to break ranks and vote against the re-election of House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, but that’s what happened last week when DFL Rep. Mary Ellen Otremba from Long Prairie was the lone DFL objector because Kelliher is pro-choice and Otremba anti-abortion.

Pro-choice advocates see an opportunity this year to promote family-planning programs. Anti-abortion groups look to stop taxpayer funds for such initiatives and put controversial bills up for a vote.

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life launches its legislative agenda each year at the March for Life at the Capitol on the anniversary of the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion. Each year the event brings out big-name politicians. Last year featured Republican U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann. Democratic Reps. James Oberstar and Collin Peterson often send letters of support that are read to the gathered crowd. It’s rare that Gov. Tim Pawlenty doesn’t make an appearance.

This year, MCCL has an agenda that includes protecting Positive Alternatives, a state-funded program that helps women with unintended pregnancies find alternatives to abortion. The group says that the program has helped reduce the rate of abortion in the state. Supporters fear its funding might be cut in order to close the state’s budget deficit.

With little possibility of moving out of DFL-dominated committees, several other MCCL initiatives serve a different purpose: to embarrass pro-choice legislators in swing districts. A ban on saline abortions tops their agenda. This rarely used abortion technique has fallen out of favor with most physicians and constitutes 0.8 percent of procedures in the United States.

The bill to ban the procedure, which was introduced last session, didn’t make it out of committee. But the MCCL often cites votes against it, either in committee or if it makes it to a floor vote, in its campaign literature.

MCCL representatives declined to talk with the Minnesota Independent about the group’s legislative agenda or their take on what the session has in store for the anti-abortion movement.

On its Web site, the group claimed it had achieved “nearly all pro-life” goals in the 2008 elections, increasing the number of state legislators opposed to abortion and defeating pro-choice legislators.

Tim Stanley, senior director of government and public affairs for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, explained the strategy behind a bill such as a saline abortion ban:

“They use these to try and make legislators look bad. That’s been their agenda for some time. They offer these bills that have no chance of passing and then use the votes against opponents.”

And, despite a strong year for progressive voters, the strategy worked.

“They ran campaigns against [Rep.] Ken Tschumper [DFL-La Crescent] and [Rep.] Shelley Madore [DFL-Apple Valley] saying they took ‘19 votes to kill babies,’” said Stanley. “They make it difficult for people in close legislative districts.”

The MCCL Web site says the group targeted Tschumper and Madore because of their efforts to de-fund Positive Alternatives.

With a looming budget battle, fiscal issues will take priority in the politics of abortion. Planned Parenthood hopes to save the Prevention First Initiative, a state-funded program that provides family planning services as a tool to prevent abortion and unintended pregnancy. It’s a program signed into law in 2007 by Pawlenty, who is a strong supporter of MCCL.

“I give the governor credit for that one,” said Stanley. “I think the governor recognizes that you save money in the long term when you make an investment to prevent unintended pregnancy.” Stanley said programs like Prevention First save $4 in social services costs for every dollar spent.

With a budget battle in which leaders say “everything is on the table,” Stanley hopes to keep the program going. He says that 86 percent of the families and individuals have low incomes and are able to take advantage of the program at little or no cost.

For both sides, the Legislature is close. The Senate has a more pro-choice lean, while the House is closer with several DFLers whose commitment to either side is questionable and whose votes could make the difference. In short, the politics of abortion will remains highly contested in St. Paul.

The Minnesota school is in the midst of a showdown between free speech advocates who are right-wing Christians and school administrators who want disruption-free classrooms. Court systems nationwide have seen heightened caseloads in recent years as religious right groups fight for students to wear anti-gay and anti-abortion messaging under the mantra of religious freedom.

The student, known only as K.B. in the lawsuit, planned to wear an anti-abortion shirt every school day in the month of April, but school officials repeatedly asked him to turn the shirts inside out and to refrain from wearing them at school. The shirts were purchased from the American Life League, which calls itself a Roman Catholic pro-life group.

K.B.’s shirts read, “Abortion… growing, growing, gone,” “What part of abortion don’t you understand?” and “Never Known – Not Forgotten: 47,000,000 babies aborted 1973-2008.” Other shirts available from American Life League include “The Pill Kills,” “America’s Hidden Holocaust” and “Planned Parenthood Kills Babies” — certainly controversial and potentially classroom disruptive.

K.B.’s mother, Jeanne Ibbitson, is a single parent who describes herself as a devout Christian.

“He shouldn’t have lost his reputation as a good kid,” Ibbitson told the Pioneer Press. “He shouldn’t be known as the kid who is constantly going to the office. They look at him as defiant now. I applaud him. He is really shy. And it’s scary to stand up to people in authority, unless you’re a defiant kid, which he’s not. It was hard for him to get up every day and put the T-shirt on and go to school to try and carry on his mission for the month.”

The family is seeking “unspecified compensatory and punitive damages” for “irreparable damages” caused by school officials’ actions. The suit has been filed in U. S. District Court for the District of Minnesota.

The courts have set a precedent in cases involving Christian students wearing T-shirts that could potentially incite classroom disruption. Positive messaging is preferred. Last year, a suburban Chicago school won a court case when a student wore a T-shirt that read “Be Happy, Not Gay.” The student sued on the basis of free speech and religious expression but lost. The school said it would have allowed positive messages such as “Be Happy, Be Straight,” and the court agreed that positive speech wouldn’t construed as disruptive.

Davis is running on the hopes that Minneapolitans find Rep. Keith Ellison of the DFL “too liberal.” Davis White might need to revisit the various voting blocs in the district.

Despite the district’s large number of immigrants, Davis White firmly advocates for border fences, says that “legal immigrants must assimilate into our culture rather than try to retain an old one” and advocates that English be the official language of the United States.

She’s staunchly pro-life in a pro-choice state. Polls consistently show that Minnesotans identify themselves as pro-choice, and the people of Minneapolis and the first-ring suburbs that constitute the 5th are undoubtedly more pro-choice than the state as a whole.

She strongly opposes rights for same-sex couples, saying, “That’s the way of God.”

The 5th is home to one of the largest concentrations of same-sex couples in the country. It’s also ranked 10th in the nation (out of 435) in gay, lesbian and bisexual population size with an estimated 42,124 eligible voters.

“With my background there’s nowhere in Minneapolis I can’t go and be comfortable,” Davis White told Minnpost. Has she been to the Gay 90s?

While 2007 was a year of big news in reproductive health, it wasn’t a year of much progress.

In 2007, we heard good news that sex education can delay sexual activity and worrisome findings that abortions are up in Minnesota and that the teen birth rate is up across the country. But when it comes to action on reproductive health issues this year, we’ve heard almost nothing. The state legislature took a pass on an effort to expand comprehensive sex education, and the U.S. Congress continues to dither about whether to extend or end abstinence-based programs. It will be at least 2008 before the news reflects any policy shifts resulting from the big reproductive health news of 2007.

Still, 2007 did set the table for policy change, and it’s worth taking a look back at the stories we covered throughout the year.Sex Education

In March, there was good news for proponents of comprehensive sex education. The Minnesota Organization of Adolescent Pregnancy, Prevention and Parenting (MOAPPP) released a poll showing that 77 percent of Minnesota parents supported a comprehensive sex education curriculum.  The polling did not wow the state legislature, however, as it eventually dropped a provision that would have mandated comprehensive sex education programs, out of fear of a veto by Gov. Tim Pawlenty, R-Minn.

July brought the National Abstinence Clearinghouse’s (NAC) annual convention to St. Paul.  NAC President Leslee Unruh said that she had chosen St. Paul to “get people back to their roots,” as Minnesota was an early hotbed of the abstinence-based education (ABE) movement.  In a press conference given at the start of the event, the NAC’s brain trust evinced concern about possible funding cuts for ABE, prompting Unruh to declare that “This message is not going away. The message is good — with or without federal dollars.” As of the end of the year, whether Democrats in Congress will cut funding to ABE programs is still an open question.

In September, Minnesotans got good news about sex education. The University of Minnesota was rated the best school in America at keeping its students informed about sex.  In an interview with Minnesota Monitor, Emily Matson, the student co-chair of the U of M’s Sexual Health Awareness and Disease Education program, said, “There are students who come from an abstinence-only sex education or none at all. We teach these students the skills and base knowledge they need to be able to go out into the world and make better sexual decisions.”

Finally, December brought the news that sex education was helpful in delaying sexual activity.  Sarah Stoesz, the President of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS) said, “The CDC’s study backs up what Planned Parenthood has known for decades: When we give teenagers the tools to make responsible decisions about their health, they step up to the challenge.”

But Leslee Unruh, President of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse, disagreed. “The report, due out in January, does not distinguish between teens who were given contraceptive-based education and those who attended abstinence education classes,” she said.  “Sexual activity was delayed, but in response to which message?”

Reproductive Health and Abortion

In February, the Minnesota Family Council came out against a bill in the state legislature that would have mandated vaccination for the human papilloma virus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease that can be a precursor to cervical cancer in women.  Tom Pritchard, the head of the Minnesota Family Council, objected to the vaccination, saying in an interview with WCCO that it was “targeting very young girls” and could lead to earlier sexual activity. Ultimately, the bill did not pass, not so much because of the Family Council’s objections, but because of concerns about mandating a vaccine that had just received the approval of the Food and Drug Administration.

July brought the sobering news that Minnesota’s abortion rate had risen for the first time in four years.  In an interview with Minnesota Monitor, Sara Stoesz, the President of PPMNS, said that it was too early to determine if the increase represented a trend. “It could be that the decline we saw over the past three years has bottomed out, and it can’t go lower. It could be a statistical blip, or it could be the result of something in the external environment,” she said.

But the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL) thought they knew the cause of the increase. In a strange statement, MCCL executive director Scott Fischbach said, “Planned Parenthood has learned how to take advantage of teenagers and young women by marketing its brand and building relationships to create future abortion customers.”

“The spike occurred the same year Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota opened two suburban ‘express’ mall stores targeting young women with scented oils, candles and referrals to its St. Paul abortion center.”

Stoesz said Fischbach’s statement was nothing but “wild allegations,” and said that whatever the cause of the increase, she “doubt[ed] it indicates an increased preference for abortion.”

July also saw a rare moment of agreement between pro-choice and anti-abortion activists, when the Supreme Court of Minnesota threw out convictions against two anti-abortion activists.  Despite being on the opposite side of the issue, PPMNS media relations director Kathi Di Nicola said that her organization supported the ruling. “We support and fight for First Amendment rights.  This case is about that,” she said. And Joe Scheidler, national director of the Pro-Life Action League, said the ruling was a “big victory for pro-life activists” in a posting on his organization’s website.

In August, Jim Sedlak, head of the anti-abortion group STOPP International, called on group members to “spend time spreading the pro-life message at [Planned Parenthood] express clinics,” including those in Minnesota.  That brought a rare rebuke from the MCCL; in a statement given to Minnesota Monitor, William Poehler, communications associate for the organization, said flatly, “MCCL will not be involved in any protest at Planned Parenthood’s PLAN express clinics.”

A month later, MCCL went on their annual fall tour.  At the start of October, I went to one of their meetings to report what the anti-abortion set was arguing against these days, unfortunately, I was kicked out of the meeting for being a journalist.  According to MCCL staffer Andrea Rau, the meeting was “open to the public, but not to the press.”  How the press differs from the public was not explained.

Later that month, PPMNS President Sarah Stoesz and Steve Sviggum, the commissioner of Labor and Industry and a former Republican leader in the Minnesota legislature, joined together at the Humphrey Institute to discuss the impact of the ongoing effort to prevent South Dakota from banning abortion.  Stoesz credited her organization’s willingness to take their case to South Dakota’s voters with changing minds. “People in that state now see and can publicly talk about abortion in shades of gray, rather than in shades of black and white,” she said. “The conversation was difficult, it was painful, I do not want to go through it again anytime soon, but ultimately, we learned a lot from it.”

Sviggum agreed that it was important to come together, but his proposed middle ground — “come together to say reasonably, come together for life of the mother, health of the mother, but not partial-birth or for birth control” — did not persuade Stoesz.

The year closed on another discouraging note, this time on the national front, with the revelation that the national teen birth rate had increased for the first time since 1991.  Di Nicola, speaking for PPMNS, said teens “need the right information to make responsible, healthy decisions. We have a preventable public health problem in this country — at last count an estimated 750,000 American teens will become pregnant this year, and nearly four million will contract a sexually transmitted infection. Honest, accurate sexuality education is part of a common-sense solution to a serious issue.”

But Leslee Unruh of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse said, “The CDC, big Pharma and others should take responsibility [for] the teen pregnancy numbers.”  She added, “The CDC has promoted and aligned themselves with the contraceptive-only message; wrapping teen pregnancies in latex has failed and is unscientific. America’s teens are failing at the contraceptive message; condoms don’t work.”

“I want to be the president to appoint the justice that is the final vote we need to overturn Roe v. Wade and end this night of wrong,” said Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., expressing a deep antipathy toward abortion that was shared by everyone on stage and many in the crowd.

“Life begins at conception,” echoed Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas.  Paul called on other candidates to support his “Sanctity of Life Act,” that which would strip federal courts of the right to review lawsuits related to reproductive health.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., pledged to appoint only anti-abortion justices to the Supreme Court.  “If a judicial candidate can look at a sonogram of an unborn child and not see evidence of a valuable human life, I will not appoint him to the bench,” he said.

Read moreRep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., agreed with Hunter, saying, “All of us would appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade.”  He said when it came to appointing judges and justices, “There will be a litmus test.”

Businessman John Cox said that, “This issue tears this country apart, and it shouldn’t.”  He said he was staunchly against abortion and called for judges to “only interpret the law.”

Ambassador Alan Keyes, who ran unsuccessfully for Senate against Barack Obama in 2004, said he would “issue an executive order…to protect life in the womb.”  And he called on Republicans to support a right-to-life amendment to the Constitution, saying, “It’s simple, it’s clear, it must be done.”

Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas took a shot at the candidate who did not attend, saying, “It’s obvious that all of us on this stage are pro-life. I also think it’s obvious why there are four empty podiums here tonight.”

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson all declined to attend the debate.

Candidates expressed general opposition to family planning programs.  In a “lighning “lightning round” of questions, all candidates said they would defund Planned Parenthood and would allow federal funding to go only to organizations that “neither perform nor promote abortion.”  All candidates also expressed opposition to universal health care and supported a ban on federal funding of school programs that teach that homosexuality is normal. 

Candidates also were unanimous in their support of expanding abstinence-based education funding, and all expressed opposition to treaties, such as the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, that “could be used to support abortion as a human right.”

The film by Jim Winkle screened earlier this year. 

In a previous interview with Minnesota Monitor, Winkle said that he made the film  to “find out where [sex ed] fails in the legislative process.”

“France, England and the rest of Europe has an abortion rate about a quarter of America’s, and they have comprehensive sex ed starting in fifth grade,” he said.

The screening will be at the Riverview Theater in Minneapolis, at 5:30 p.m. on Thursday, Sept. 20.  Admission is free.

In a brief statement given to Minnesota Monitor, William Poehler, a communications associate for MCCL, said simply that “MCCL will not be involved in any protest at Planned Parenthood’s PLAN express clinics.”

more insideIn an article posted on LifeNews, an anti-abortion webmagazine, Sedlak wrote that “Planned Parenthood is using these express clinics to increase its baby killing business,” and noted that the express clinics, which are generally located in malls, are not as secure as Planned Parenthood clinics that provide abortion services.

“In many ways, demonstrating at PP express sites should be easier than other PP facilities. There are no fences around the property, no locked doors and no deathscorts [sic],” wrote Sedlak.  “These are retail establishments built to welcome the general public. And, of course, YOU are part of the general public.”

Sedlak added, “Our tactics in demonstrating will be a bit different. Rather than printed signs, our demonstrations will consist of pro-life T-shirts and literature in pocketbooks or back pockets. You could walk into Planned Parenthood wearing one of our PP Kills Babies T-shirts. You could also wear the same shirt outside the store or wear it while walking around the mall. When people ask why you are there, explain about Planned Parenthood and hand them a brochure.”

Sarah Stoesz, president of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, said that she wasn’t surprised groups were “tr[ying] to deny women access to birth control.”

In a statement given to Minnesota Monitor, Stoesz said that her organization was already working to reduce abortion.

“Our Express Care clinics are one way in which we provide convenient and affordable access to birth control for women in our community.  Greater access to birth control for women reduces the rate of unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion,” she said.  Stoesz added, “Planned Parenthood Express clinics accomplish what irresponsible rhetoric never will, they provide women with practical ways to avoid unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion.”

With the Supreme Court issuing a recent ruling upholding a ban on intact dilation and extraction, also known as “partial birth” abortion, and recent battles over access to emergency contraception, the influence of the next president on issues of reproductive health should be significant.  With that in mind, we’ve sat down and talked to local activists on both sides of the abortion debate about what they’re looking for in a candidate and whether candidates like Giuliani and Romney represent a concern or an opportunity.  This is the first in a series of stories about what leaders in the abortion rights/anti-abortion arena are thinking as we close in on one year before the election.

more insideSarah Stoesz, President of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, says that her organization is concerned about more than abortion rights.

“We want to look at a candidate’s broad committment to reproductive health care,” she says.  “If a candidate supports abortion rights but would not fund greater to access to birth control, that would not be a candidate we would support.”

To that end, Stoesz says Giuliani is likely not a candidate her organization would back.

“Rudy Giuliani with respect to abortion rights has a mixed record.  He was a supporter but backed away.  We need someone who will stand up for reproductive health care.  I don’t know that we trust him on that quite yet.”

Stoesz expressed more satisfaction with the leading candidates on the Democratic side.  Noting that all major candidates were invited to address a recent Planned Parenthood Action Fund forum, Stoesz was disappointed that none of the GOP candidates appeared.

“That didn’t send a very reassuring sign to us,” she said.

She was much happier with Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., who both attended, and with former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., whose wife, Elizabeth Edwards, addressed the forum.

She singled out Clinton for praise, saying she “did come to address the group, and offered clear and unequivocal support of abortion rights.”

Stoesz didn’t foreclose foreclose on the possibility that Giuliani could prove worthy of support.

“We’re keeping an eye on Giuliani,” she said. 

But she said that other Republicans were “strongly” opposed by the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

“It’s one thing to oppose abortion rights, but it’s quite another to oppose birth control,” said Stoesz, noting the general opposition to Plan B contraception by the candidates.

“Every woman deserves every chance to prevent unintended pregnancy,” said Sarah Stoesz, president and CEO of the regional Planned Parenthood, in a statement.

The organization vowed to continue to push for increased awareness of Plan B’s availability.  In the one year it has been available, Planned Parenthood has provided more than 1.2 million doses of the drug.

Plan B is a stronger dose of the same hormones found in typical hormonal birth-control pills.  Pro-life activists have opposed access to Plan B, claiming it is an abortifacient, but Plan B prevents pregnancy in the same manner as hormonal birth control.

Stoesz blasted pro-life organizations for their continued opposition to Plan B.

“Anti-family planning organizations have used scare tactics to launch public misinformation campaigns about EC, when the truth is that this is  a safe and effective way for women to prevent unintended pregnancy,” Stoesz said.

Parents commonly lament that their children are growing up too fast, and I am no exception to that rule.  My daughter starts kindergarten in the fall, and I know that soon enough she’ll be starting middle school, then high school, and then college, and then on into the great world beyond the control of her mother and me.

The National Abstinence Clearinghouse was in town last week.  They were selling the idea that we must studiously avoid teaching our children that they have any choices about sex other than abstinence.  I think they’re well-meaning.  I think they really believe what they’re saying.  And I think they couldn’t be more wrong if they were advocating a ban on sunshine.  I know my daughter is going to be beyond my control someday.  Indeed, at age almost-5, she’s beyond my control at times already.  When she reaches high school, she will have her own life, and while she will undoubtedly make some really bad decisions — as I did — those decisions will have to be hers.  I can’t spend my life monitoring her every move.  It’s not practical, and moreover, it isn’t healthy.  If I declare that 15 is too young for my daughter to face a tough choice, how will she handle the tougher choices at 25?

I’ll make no bones about the fact that I’d prefer my daughter be abstinent through high school, for a variety of reasons, and I’ll tell her those reasons when the time comes.  But I also know the statistics: there’s a 50 percent chance she won’t be. 

And I absolutely won’t tell her to be abstinent until marriage.  For one thing, I wasn’t, and don’t regret my non-abstinence; for another, she won’t be.  Ninety-five percent of Americans engage in premarital sex.  I’m not going to try to get my daughter to shoehorn into the 5 percent who don’t.  She may choose abstinence herself, of course — but I don’t want her educated under the assumption that she’s in the one out of 20 who will.

This is not to run down abstinence — I hope my daughter chooses abstinence in high school and am agnostic as to whether she chooses it before marriage.  But that word, choice, is important.  You see, there are few decisions more personal than those surrounding one’s sexuality.  I am not only without any illusion that my daughter will necessarily make the decisions I would want her to, I am quite certain that she, not me, is the right person to make those decisions, even if she makes the wrong ones.

All I can do is ensure that if she makes a bad decision, the consequence won’t be motherhood, or disease or a surgical abortion.  And the best way to do that is to ensure that she, and any partner she may be with, knows enough about contraception to limit their risk.  It isn’t perfect, and it won’t guarantee happiness to her.  But nothing in life is guaranteed, no matter how much we may want it.  And asking for perfect decisions from our children and refusing to prepare them for imperfection is a recipe for disaster.