Introduction
Background
Why oppose g.a.p?
Various campus revolts
Know the details
Strategy
Media
Debates
Arguments to know
Safety and privacy
A word to the wise:
g.a.p.'s agenda and tactics
Introduction
The following is intended as a sort of do-it-yourself manual for student pro-choice and anti-racist activists who plan to oppose the Genocide Awareness Project on their campuses. While much of it pertains only to the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) and its GAP campaign, some of it may useful for pro-choice groups working on or off campus against other anti-choice groups or individuals.
UBC Students For Choice was formed in response to the news that a campus anti-choice group called Lifeline was going to sponsor the Genocide Awareness Project on our campus. In creating this booklet, our immediate goal is to enable others to use the lessons we learned when GAP arrived at UBC in the fall of 1999. We want to make sure that GAP does not arrive at any campus without meeting a storm of progressive voices in opposition to their hateful message.
Our larger goal is that of the pro-choice movement itself: to protect a woman's right to choose. These two goal are inextricably linked; if women have that right, then those who make the choice to terminate a pregnancy should never have to arrive at school to face the accusation that they are perpetrators of a campaign of genocide comparable to the Holocaust or the genocide in Rwanda.
Top of page
Background
The Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) is a travelling anti-abortion road show, run by the Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform, located in Mission hills, California. Since 1998, about two dozen university campuses in Canada and the United States have been visited by the GAP display. As far as we can tell, CBR consists mainly of lawyer Gregg Cunningham and his wife, a health-care worker who runs a "crisis pregnancy" centre (an anti-choice pregnancy counselling clinic). According to its literature, CBR is a non-profit organization funded by "private individuals who are willing to make financial sacrifices to stop the killing."
On CBR's website (cbr.info.org) it says their mission is to "make it as difficult as possible for people to continue to maintain that an unborn baby is not a baby and abortion is not an act of violence which kills that baby." The GAP display does not directly address the issue of abortion being legal or illegal, and therefore CBR does not address the difficult issue of what has happened in the past when abortion was outlawed (the death and suffering of thousands of women). CBR prefers to talk about the display as a way to open up the debate on abortion, to open up young people's minds about whether or not a women's right to control her own body takes precedence over the life of a foetus.
This enables them to argue that people who oppose GAP are opposing "debate". In fact, the Genocide Awareness Project is not a forum for debate but a brutal visual reminder of how human suffering can be exploited for political ends. It consists of huge 14ft by 16ft signs, which are set up in high-traffic areas of campus, a number of volunteers who stands near the display attempting to engage passing students in conversation about the display, and CBR literature. The images on the signs consist of things like the mutilated bodies of Rwandans face-down in a muddy river, Wounded Knee, the Cambodian Killing Fields, victims of KKK lynching hanging from trees, and Holocaust victims, naked and starving, crowded up against the fence of a concentration camp. Each of these tragedies is compared to the "tragedy" of abortion, with photos of foetal tissue and foetuses at a late stage of development, supposed "victims" of abortion.
The images are horrifying and for students with emotional links to the real genocides portrayed, they are often overwhelming. CBR argues they need to compare abortion to tragedies like the lynching of African Americans with enormous, grotesque images in order to get people's attention; a simple speech or article will not suffice.
But GAP also serves to demonise women who have terminated late pregnancies; they are accused of perpetrating the same kind of crime that Nazis or Pol Pot was responsible for. CBR often attempts to portray itself as righteously angry about the suffering that has been inflicted upon various ethnic or religious groups throughout history. We feel that it is degrading and disrespectful to the memory of those who have died in historical genocides to argue their lives are comparable to that of a developing foetus. CBR likes to talk about how society dehumanises the foetus; we would argue that dehumanisation works both ways.
We would also argue that CBR's intention is to change the minds of young people about women's right to choose, and that they are willing to exploit real suffering in order to achieve the goal of renewed state control over women's bodies.
Top of page
Why Oppose GAP?
CBR relies heavily on the free speech argument; they claim to be promoting healthy and vital debate among students about an important issue. However, we feel strongly that their message is exploitive and abusive, and they should not be able to dominate the debate without a vocal and angry response from the pro-choice community. It is important not to let them convince you that by publicizing them you are giving them what they want. If people do not see the other side of the story, they may be more easily convinced by GAP's bizarre logic. It is also important to keep he pro-choice public awake; the fact that abortion is legal in Canada and the United States does not mean we can become complacent. Access to abortion services is still under attack in both countries.
GAP can be opposed on feminist grounds, on anti-racist grounds, and on the grounds that their message is hateful and creates an atmosphere of hatred against women, pro-choice people in general, and abortion providers in particular.
GAP does not allow any room at all for the right of women; women as independent, thinking beings are completely absent from their discussion. When they speak about women, their discourse is dis-empowering. They portray women as weak victims who don't really understand that they are perpetrating genocide: "Post-abortive women are the very women we most need to reach with the truth that abortion is an act of violence which kills a real baby - so they are less likely to do it again."
Either women are childlike and need the protection of people who really understand what is best for them (that is, the anti-choice activists themselves), or they are selfish and choose to ignore the "fact" that they are "murdering a baby". In his pamphlet Why Abortion Is Genocide Gregg Cunningham declares "genocide's participants and defenders are universally ashamed of their behaviour, unless they are sociopathically incapable of humiliation."
CBR, like most anti-choice groups, claims that abortion hurts women. The logic behind their campaign seems to be that it will help women by showing them what a burden of guilt they will bear if they choose to terminate a pregnancy. We believe that the display carries a hateful message: that women who have abortions are guilty of perpetuating genocide. CBR does not help women; they do not campaign for universal childcare, universal health care, a comprehensive social safety net, free education, or other initiatives that might make it easier for women and mothers. Instead, Gregg Cunningham argues that since the standard of living is rising in North America, women who have abortions are selfish and narcissistic. The racist implications of the GAP displays should not be ignored. The strange logic of CBR argues that since Jews and African-Americans were at one time denied personhood but are in fact people, and foetuses are currently denied personhood, therefore foetuses must be people. "Those who murdered Jews and blacks... denied the personhood of their victims just as vehemently as practitioners of abortion deny the personhood of the unborn." ("Why Abortion Is Genocide" by Gregg Cunningham) Those who oppose GAP must also oppose its willingness to turn immense and complex historical tragedies into simple, horrific images, which can be used to challenge the rights of women to decide whether they will carry a pregnancy to term. It is important to address the GAP's exploitation of real suffering and the dehumanisation of Jews, people of colour, and Native Americans by comparing them to developing foetuses. (Cunningham's defence against charges of racism is to declare that these allegations are "beyond bizarre since, at various times, 15-20 of the volunteers who helped us hold our signs were pro-life African Americans.")
A final reason to oppose the Genocide Awareness Project is that the comparison of abortion to genocide also makes a clear connection between the perpetrators of genocide such as Nazis or the KKK and abortion providers. Fatalities in the war against abortion in the United States include Dr. Barnett Slepian of Buffalo, New York; Dr. David Gunn in Pensacola, Florida; Dr. John Britton and his bodyguard in Pensacola; and Dr Wayne Patterson of Mobile, Alabama.
In Canada, on Remembrance Day 1994, Dr. Garson Romalis was shot and wounded in Vancouver; on July 11th, 200, Dr. Romalis was attacked again, this time with a knife. In 1995 Dr. Hugh Short of Ancaster, Ontario was shot in the elbow, and in 1997 Dr. Jack Fainman was shot and wounded in Winnipeg. In addition, dozens of clinics have been bombed or attacked with butyric acid, and threats have been made on the lives of nurses, doctors, receptionists, and pro-choice advocates. The list of victims of anti-choice terrorism in both countries goes on and on.
While CBR declares "more killing is not the solution" its rhetoric undermines this facetious assertion. If abortion is genocide, then abortion providers are its perpetrators. On its website, CBR viciously and repeatedly attacks Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas, who performs late-term abortions. Dr. Tiller was shot in both arms in 1993; CBR's rhetoric, which demonises Dr. Tiller as a mass murderer, and the fact that they neglect to mention the attack, implicitly condones it. Abortion providers are already under threat in North America, and GAP contributes to a rhetorical atmosphere in which to murder or harm an abortion provider can be considered a "justifiable homicide" that "saves babies".
Top of page
Various Campus Revolts
The GAP display has been met with pro-choice counter protests at almost every campus where it has appeared. On at least five campuses, violence and vandalism have occurred, with students attacking the displays or GAP staff members and volunteers. At Ohio State University, about 30 protestors charged the display in an incident that the associated press termed "a riot". A female student at Ohio State was arrested after trying to slash a poster with a knife. At the University of Kansas, an African-American student rammed the display with his truck, and a female Jewish student physically assaulted a GAP staffer. Both were arrested. As CBR Executive Director Gregg Cunningham vowed at one campus, "We will make an example of lawbreakers."
In clear anticipation of such violence, CBR erects barricades to surround the display and shield its staff and volunteers. Incredibly, CBR usually demands that universities supply these steel fences as well as pay for the extraordinary cost of a campus police squad to stand guard. If the university balks at the expense, CBR threatens to sue, as happened at the University of British Columbia. In fact, CBR often announces its willingness to litigate. Indiana University experienced just such a threat simply because it tried to restrict the GAP display on the campus' designated free speech area. And before the group even comes tot he university, it sends a "bully letter" to the administration spelling out CBR's constitutional rights to come on to campus. As Cunningham stated on a Spring 2000 issue of CBR's newsletter In Perspective, "any university which attempts to interfere with the exercise of CBR's first amendment rights will be sued."
Once on campus, CBR gathers evidence for potential lawsuits and criminal investigations by routinely videotaping and photographing students at the display, especially pro-choice protestors. They have even been known to take photos or videos of vehicle license plates. Then, whenever violence or vandalism does occur, CBR also milks favourable publicity out of any negative incident, condemning universities and pro-choice students for trying to restrict CBR's free speech rights.
Top of page
Know the Details
Since CBR is extremely litigious, it is important to be certain of the accuracy of statements made by you or your group about the display, GAP volunteers, and CBR itself. Get your information from primary sources whenever you can, and check your facts if they come by word of mouth. NEVER rely on hearsay. Document your sources, and keep a diary with dates and times of meetings, conversations, etc. Keep all emails you send and receive regarding GAP, and take notes on all phone conversations with university administration, campus security, members of anti-choice groups etc. Be prepared to back up your statements if CBR or anyone else decides to challenge their accuracy.
Look at the website of your campus' anti-choice group; contact them by email, talk to them without revealing you are pro-choice. Find out whether they have links to any other anti-choice groups or to local churches, and try to find out what their upcoming plans are. You can even join the group and pretend to be anti-choice. At UBC, Erin Kaiser contacted the presidents of Lifeline by email, pretending to be "Mary Jane O'Keefe," a young Baptist girl from Red Deer, Alberta, and subsequently joined the group. This is how she found out that Lifeline was planning to sponsor GAP at UBC. Email the Centre for Bioethical Reform. Ask when they're coming to your campus. Pretend to be very excited about their arrival; you can pretend to be anti-choice (you'll want to say 'pro-life'!) or neutral, or part of the student media. They like attention.
Find out where the display will be put up on campus. At UBC, one of the central bones of contention was the proposed location of the display. Students for Choice wanted to ensure students who did not wish to be confronted with the display would be able to avoid it. GAP was determined to put it in a high-traffic location.
Find out which part of the university administration will be negotiating with GAP. Go to all the meetings at which GAP is discussed; demand the right to be there. Remind the university gently that if you aren't part of the bargaining process, they won't know what you are planning to do.
Top of page
Strategy
Create a basic petition that states the following students will oppose the Genocide Awareness Project and will support action against it if it is allowed to set up. The petition should be presented to the people responsible for making the decision about whether GAP comes to campus or not. Civil Disobedience is an option you may choose as well. You can set up large screen around the display so passer-by does not necessarily have to see it. You might also try draping the display itself with a cloth in order to cover it. Circle the display and link arms. Refuse to move. Or you could take it down. If you choose this option, DO NOT DO IT ALONE OR IN A SMALL GROUP. Make it a mass action or do not do it at all. In a group of fifty or more, calmly approach the display, and one by one take a piece of it down. Carry the posters (face down, so that others will not be subjected to them) leaflets, etc. to the campus RCMP detachment and present it to them as hate literature. Be careful not to damage the signs as anti-choicers are often eager to take legal action at the slightest provocation. CAUTION: make sure any action you take is organised, and that group has agreed on what kind of action to take. Ensure that everyone has agreed on a code of conduct. Do NOT touch or threaten anyone associated with the display.
Have a rally to protest the presence of GAP on campus: Poster your campus at least a week beforehand, preferably with a number of different posters. Have a picket/banner making session. This allows participation in the rally, but ensure offensive messages are kept off the signs. The media will photograph the picket signs; ensure the slogans on them are ones that your group is willing to be associated with. Do classroom announcements about your rally in the days leading up to it. Pick the biggest classes. Make schedules for about five or six people to go to as many classes as possible. Choose faculties that will most likely be receptive.
The day of the rally, have a group of people leafleting near the display. Emphasize visually that you are not affiliated with the display (wear pro-choice t-shirts and hold picket signs); people disturbed by the display will avoid taking your leaflet if they think you are with GAP. When we leafleted near the display the second time it came to UBC, we said, "Would you like a pro-choice leaflet?" with emphasis on "pro-choice" as we handed leaflets to passer-by.
Talk to progressive groups that might potentially have money to rent a sound system. This could include your student union, Canadian Federation of Students, unions such as CUPE, your local district labour council, etc. Find out about the university's policy on sound systems such as designated spaces or hours.
Designate marshals - someone responsible for facilitating the accomplishment of the goal of the event. If the goal of the event is to have a peaceful demonstration, marshals will ensure that everyone affiliated with the event is being peaceful, and that no one disrupts the peace. Make sure marshals are trained and clearly identifiable (have them wear an unusual colour, or vests with fluorescent tape).
Press Release - see Media Section.
Speakers. Have one spokesperson from your group, of course, but make sure the speakers represent a diverse group of people. Think about asking some one from your campus' chapter of Medical Students For Choice, a representative of a larger pro-choice group (such as Planned Parenthood), a representative from one of the health care related unions (in order to stress that abortion is a health care issue), a governments official (the media likes MLAs and MPs, but try to ensure that they don't make their speech a campaign speech), someone from the Jewish community and representatives from the other communities whose histories are exploited by the Genocide Awareness Project.
Top of page
Media
Chose a media spokesperson (or two, but not too many) for your group. Make sure other members know to direct the media to these people; if other members speak to the media it should be clear that they are not necessarily speaking on behalf of the group. Appointing a media liaison enables the group to stick to its message box and enables the media to reach a knowledgeable person with up-to-date information and clear arguments whenever they wish to do so.
Create a message box with other members of your group. A message box is the message you want people to get from what you're doing. It should encompass the philosophy of your group and its goals, and the purpose behind your chosen strategy. Make sure that people understand that when speaking to the media, leaving the message box is dangerous because you speak on behalf of the group and everyone in it. Creating a message box also allows you to keep yourself from being forced to talk about things you don't want to talk about. For example, if a reporter asks you "Do you consider a foetus to be a life?" you can choose to say something like, "That's beside the point. The real issue at hand is..." or "What I think is most relevant is..." Don't simply evade the question. This is exactly what makes politicians look silly. Address the question but shift the focus in order to stay within the message box.
A press release is a blueprint for an article. It makes the reporter's job easy, and thus makes it more likely that your story will receive media coverage. At the top of the page, place a short title. Use the big words that go right to the heart of what you're doing, and it will grab the attention of the person reading it (e.g. 'confront' 'graphic' 'exploitation' ...all these might apply to the Genocide Awareness Project).
In the body of the press release put the name of the city first, and then a dash (e.g. 'Vancouver -'). In the first paragraph, sum up the situation: 'The Genocide Awareness Project is arriving at the University of Waterloo on this date at this time.' Then explain briefly what your group will be doing in opposition. If you have speakers, name the biggest name in bold. Make sure that throughout the blurb all names are in bold the first time they are mentioned. In the second and third paragraphs, give background. Explain briefly what GAP is and why you're opposed to it. Don't get too detailed or wordy and make sure to insert quotes from two to three different people, which can easily be picked up by the reporter and inserted into their article. At the bottom of the press release, put down one or two contact names and the organizations they belong to. You might want to pick some one with a cell phone or pager, so that they can respond immediately to media queries. Cultivate a good relationship with the student media on campus. Some of the most progressive people on campus often work for the radio station or the campus newspaper. Keep in contact with the student newspaper, and try to give them the scoop first, before going to larger media. Often, if a story has been covered in student papers, and is clearly an issue on campus, outside media will be more likely to cover it. Let their reporter come to group meetings as long as you are comfortable with them reporting on what you discussed. Get people who are not in the spotlight already (i.e., not your group's media spokesperson) to write letters and opinion pieces about the issue. In dealing with campus radio, try to talk to some one who does a feminist show, some one who deals with issues relating to people of colour or Jewish students, and a news reporter.
There may be a free paper distributed in your community that is always on the lookout for feature stories. These types of papers may have a longer attention span than other media, and may be willing to do a longer story that goes a bit more in-depth into the issue. There may also be local feminist, pro-choice, etc. newsletters - try to get your story into these in order to reach a sympathetic community that might be willing to help.
Be wary of 'Christian' and other religious publications, but be aware that some of these papers may be willing to give you equal space with the anti-choice, and may choose not to misquote you or attempt to put a negative spin on your actions. Most religious people are very pro-choice ...really.
Anything you say can be taken out of context. Only say things that can't be quoted in such a way that they mean something other than what you meant. For example, don't say 'he' or 'they' - always use a specific name or names. Speak in complete sentences, and wait a while before answering a question if you need to do so in order to come up with a good answer; your pause will not make it into the papers, but a hasty and ill-thought-out answer will. When participating in taped TV interviews, take as much time as you need to answer questions (your long pauses will be edited out) but don't ramble (rants are hard to edit). Look at the interviewer, not at the camera. If giving a list, for example a list of why abortion is not genocide, say something like, "There are four reasons why abortion is not genocide. The first is... The second is..." This prevents you from getting lost, and it makes it harder for them to edit you down to a sound bite that might not capture what you are trying to say.
In a live TV interview (before you go on the air) ask the reporter what their spin on the story is, and ask what questions you will be asked. Prepare answers for these specific questions. This applies to print media as well. If you are doing a radio interview, jot down notes - no one can see that you're reading from them. In a radio interview, be sure to put enough emphasis on your speech, because listeners can't get anything from your body language.
Top of page
Debates
Consider doing debates organised by neutral third parties; at UBC members of Students for Choice debated members of Lifeline in a forum organised by the UBC Humanist Club. Your student's union might set up a good debate, or a local radio or TV show. It may be a good chance to get into the media. On the other hand, you have the right to refuse to do something that will make you feel uncomfortable, or which is set up in order to sabotage your group in some way. BC's Pro-Choice Action Network has a policy that its members do not debate with the anti-choice or appear on television or radio with them. If it is not a formal debate with a mediator and strict rules, make sure it is set up so you don't go head to head with your opponent; ask that it be set up so first one person speaks and then another. Otherwise, it becomes like the Jerry Springer show and doesn't get your message across in a positive way. Always demand to be second, so that you can refute your opponent. Do not attempt to avoid informal debates with the public about the issue of free speech. It is important to have that particular debate, and it is important to have a position and to make clear to people why you feel there should be limits on free speech in the case of hateful or abusive images/literature. GAP representatives and other anti-choicers will get on your case about this. Learn to deal with it calmly, and learn to step away from an argument if you feel you have said everything there is to say.
We don't recommend you agree to debate representatives of CBR or GAP. GAP likes to announce when they arrive on campus that they will be holding a public debate in which an "abortion advocate" will debate one of their people; at UBC it was Gregg Cunningham who was to represent their side. No one was willing to debate Mr Cunningham, and so CBR held the "debate" with only one speaker. A group of students For Choice members marched in during his lecture and sat down in the front row, holding coat hangers and picket signs, but refused to say anything. They marched out partway through, but I stayed to hear it out. It consisted of a lecture from Mr Cunningham, a speech by his wife, a showing of a gruesome and misleading propaganda video, and questions from the audience. The audience seemed to consist entirely of anti-choice students and older members of the anti-choice community, except for my friend and I and a reporter from the student paper.
These are not true debates. We believe they are a trap; everything is done on CBR's terms. They've done it many times before and they will do their best to undermine and attack everything you say. Engaging in a debate they have organised lends credence to their presence on campus, because CBR likes to claim that they intend only to spark an intelligent debate about abortion. However, they will attempt to engage you in a debate about things you might find un-debatable (abortion is genocide, a foetus is a baby), which also lends credence to their claims. What you want to talk about is women's rights, access to abortion services, and hate speech. GAP will not make room for this discussion in their "debate".
If you refuse to debate GAP's representatives, distribute leaflets outside the place where it is to be held (they will hold it anyway, and claim that no pro-choice activist was brave enough to debate them) explaining your choice.
Top of page
Arguments to Know
The declaration that abortion is equivalent to genocide is an attempt to make women feel guilty and ashamed of having terminated a pregnancy or of their willingness to do so, and to make men feel self-righteous enough to attempt to prevent women from doing so.
GAP has a poster showing victims of the Nazi Holocaust, lynching victims, and an "aborted" foetus. The captions beneath say "Religious Choice, Racial Choice, and Reproductive Choice." Reproductive choice involves the right to determine one's own future, to control one's own life. It is not about degradation, enslavement, or murder; it is not a choice that involves power over other persons, but over oneself. Cunningham argues, "the inclusiveness with which we extend rights of personhood defines our collective morality." I would argue in response that our collective morality can be defined by our ability to recognise women as persons before they are mothers, as human beings whose lives are their own and should not be under the control of any other individual or group of individuals.
Abortion is not a systemic process of murder in order to "cleanse" an area of an unwanted group, as was the Nazi Holocaust or the slaughter of Native Americans. A foetus is not a child. By using those terms interchangeable, CBR attempts to mislead people into thinking they are the same. Pro-choice advocates do not hate unwanted children; they do not want to get rid of them. Every child that is born has the same right to love and care; this sounds absurdly obvious but Cunningham contends that pro-choice advocates and abortion providers actually engage in the "slaughter of unwanted children". This is blatantly untrue, and we feel it is intended to incite hatred and persecution of women who have abortions and medical professionals who provide them.
To compare abortion to various genocides perpetrated against people of colour and Jews is in our opinion racist and Anti-Semitic because in attempting to raise abortion to the level of genocide in the public imagination, they also attempt to bring genocides down to the level of abortion. In other words, we feel they demean the memory of the victims and those who struggled against their oppressors by reducing their struggle to something that can be compared to a simple and common medical procedure. GAP argues that the lives of men, women and children who lived, fought, loved, and suffered are the same worth as a foetus, the vast majority of which have not existed for more than ten weeks. This is degrading and offensive.
GAP reduces those genocides to a few images, which are exploited to make a point about an unrelated issue. Instead of educating the public about the issues surrounding genocide, and the historical situations that gave rise to them, GAP dumbs it down. It reduces photos of dying Jews and slaughtered Rwandans to nothing more than images, completely detached from the real suffering of the victims and the systems of oppression that led to their deaths. GAP clearly and explicitly exposes women and abortion providers to contempt, anger, and hatred. By arguing that abortion is genocide, GAP states that those who perform abortions and those who have abortions are perpetrators of genocide. To say that women who have abortions are like Nazis, or that abortion providers are like the KKK, is hateful and meant to incite hatred, and potentially, violence. If abortion is murder, then abortion doctors are mass murderers and, according to the anti-choice, deserve the public's hatred and contempt, if not a brutal punishment or even death. First of all, abortion cannot be safe or accessible if it is illegal. Women will continue to have abortions whether or not it is legal, even if it means self-inflicted abortions or abortions at the hands of ill-trained non-professionals. Illegal abortions are expensive (not covered by health plans!) and poor women may not be able to afford them. Desperate women may resort to harsh chemicals, coat hangers, or sticks in attempts to terminate a pregnancy.
Women bear the cost - in emotional and physical trauma, in lost opportunity, and in financial terms - of being forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term. Under no circumstances do men have to face the same burden. The only person who has to deal with all the issues of pregnancy - which relate to employment, health, privacy, and emotional trauma - is the woman herself. To force her to carry a pregnancy to term because it is her duty as a woman is to subject her to some one else's will; it is to sacrifice her humanity (her free will) to some one else's sense of morality. Their right to control their own bodies and futures is essential to women's equality.
Top of page
Safety and Privacy
The following is a discussion of some of the risks involved with making yourself a public figure as a pro-choice activist. Obviously it is not meant to scare you away. There are dangerous and violent people associated with the anti-choice movement, but they are the minority, and they target abortion providers and clinics as a general rule. Any kind of pro-choice activism involves opening yourself up to hostility, and sometimes it can mean making yourself a target for harassment in the workplace, from peers or teachers, from friends and family, and sometimes from strangers.
If you decide to declare publicly what reproductive choices you have made, you open yourself up to personal attacks. Erin was asked repeatedly on a cable television show how she justified her decisions to have an abortion. She was also accused by an anti-choice opponent of referring to her "child" in a poem she had published about her abortion, as if this was an acknowledgement that abortion was murder. You may be asked pointed questions about these aspects of your personal experience, not necessarily by anti-choice activists or bystanders but by journalists as well. Do not feel that you have to respond to questions that make you uncomfortable.
CBR has threatened to sue individuals associated with the Pro-Choice Action Network for defamation with regards to a statement they claimed was untrue. Be very careful about what you put in writing - consult with a lawyer if you are unsure of what can be considered defamatory. Make sure you have primary sources to back up what you say - eyewitnesses, documents, etc. CBR may also sue for destruction of property if you attempt to destroy the display; to protect yourself, choose non-destructive methods of protest like draping, sit-ins, or linking arms. Or do not destroy the display but simply remove it. Finally, CBR will readily sue the university itself if the administration tries to prevent GAP from exercising their "free speech rights" in any way, including putting the display in a location they don't like, charging CBR for security costs, or "allowing" violence to occur by not supplying steel barricades to encircle the display.
Members of the anti-choice rarely attack pro-choice activists, but it has happened. However, if you are a medical student who plans to perform abortions you should be aware that by making yourself a publicly pro-choice figure you must be very wary of giving the anti-choice information about yourself that they can use against you later in your career.
Psychological harassment is a real concern. One night Erin experienced phone calls (each from a different payphone, so they couldn't be traced) every half-hour, timed so she couldn't sleep. Obviously you should do your best to keep your personal phone number and address completely private; only give them to people you trust. Ask your roommates to do the same. Dial *57 after harassing calls, which logs the call for police use. If you log three calls from the same number, you can file a complaint with the police. Uttering threats is a crime, but 'hang-ups' are not illegal. Death threats should always be reported to the police, whatever form they come in.
Keep your phone number unlisted; don't post it anywhere public (including press releases - learn from our mistakes!) After pro-choice meetings, rallies, etc, do not go directly home or to work. Go somewhere else, and always go with others. Keep a journal of events with dates and times, and all details you can remember. If nothing else, it will help you keep track of who said what, and what happened when. Refuse all requests to meet with the anti-choice, even in a public place. If you use a hotmail account, set it to accept all information about incoming messages. This makes emails from accounts like jesusweepsforthee@hotmail.com a little less anonymous!
the above materials are ©1999 Pro-Choice Action Network, unless otherwise noted. no unauthorised reproduction allowed.
Top of page
Anti-Choice Genocide Awareness Project: Agenda and Tactics
One of the things it will probably be useful to keep in mind is what goals the Center for Bioethical Reform's "Genocide Awareness Project" has set for itself, and the tactics they have chosen. These people have to be regarded as intelligent, well-organized and well-funded adversaries, with a clear agenda of their own. To defeat them, we have to understand their agenda and tactics in order to develop the most effective responses to isolate, discredit and defeat them.
1. Ultimately, their agenda is a religious fundamentalist one. Though they may try to conceal it, even their public materials make this clear. The CBR's executive director publicly stated in 1993 his support for shepherding: "Shepherding doesn't mean tailoring the truth to accommodate the latest secular fashion. Neither is it mumbling meaningless banality to get pro-lifers off your back. People don't need merely to be told the truth, they need to be convinced to embrace it. The next time you hear a pastor say "our people aren't ready for a message on abortion" or "we don't have a consensus on this", ask respectfully whose job he [sic] thinks it is to get them ready and forge that consensus?" [Greg Cunningham, Center For Bioethical Reform, August 1993, quoted on the Gateway Pregnancy Centers web site, http://www.gateway.org/pastors.htm]
2. Their tactics are geared for deliberate provocation. First, the huge signs they use [reportedly costing up to $900 US each] are obviously designed for this. Their deliberate non-cooperation with university authorities is part of the same modus operandi. Their choice of language is designed to inflame people as well. They WANT confrontation, as creating it is part of their game plan. Their web site at www.cbrinfo.org contains detailed information on CBR campaigns at seven different U.S. universities over the last 18 months. It gives a pretty clear picture of how this group operates on the ground, and some of the assumptions their tactics are based on:
a] the pictures are intended to gross people out. Part of this is to try to convert some of their audience to an anti-choice perspective, but there's more to it than just that. Part of their political subtext is "this is the truth about abortion. The violent response to these pictures shows how much the pro-abort side is a. trying to hide the ugly truth or b. in denial." [there's a whole separate issue about gestational age of the fetuses depicted I won't get into here].
b] they've learned some lessons from the Wobblies. They have designed the campaign so they can portray themselves in a free speech fight, holding up "the truth" against the "politically correct" attempts of universities and student opponents to stifle free speech.
c] they have attempted to insulate themselves from criticism by taking a public position condemning violence against abortion providers [more on this later]. Having done this, they try to provoke a violent response from pro-choicers, either from the organized groups opposing their presence, or where this is not possible, from pissing off individuals and creating incidents with them. Often CBR organizers will be protected by campus or regular police. There have even been reports that where police refuse to intervene, CBR has shown up with hired security guards. They have been very aggressive in pressing charges against anyone involved in an altercation with them.
d] this posture has several aspects to it. First, they want to appear as the injured innocents, and win as much public sympathy as possible. Perhaps even more important, they are trying to undo some of the serious damage that anti-choice violence has done to the credibility of their own movement. At the very least they are trying to blur public opinion by saying "yes we oppose anti-abortion violence but we're also being victimized by pro-abortion violence." Bullshit, obviously, but this is what they're doing and it can have an effect on some people.
e] the travelling CBR GAP campaign is designed to create as much publicity as possible through the media and through creating turmoil on campus, so that CBR itself can move on and the local anti groups that brought them in can consolidate and recruit in the aftermath.
f] wherever they go, CBR cadre appear to take great pains to photograph and video pro-choice opponents. It appears possible that part of their function is also to ID the pro-choice movement and its leaders, presumably for the information of the local anti groups.
3. Any attempt at direct action to shut CBR's display down plays directly into their game plan. Their tactics are expressly designed to provoke this kind of response.
4. CBR's political vulnerabilities lie elsewhere. First is the rhetorical nature of their opposition to anti-abortion violence. Their web site statement is full of pious bullshit, but the proveable fact is that CBR has no reservations whatsoever about associating with and working with elements of the anti-choice movement that call for and organize for the murder of abortion providers. For example, in May 1996 CBR education director Scott Klusendorf signed "A Joint Committment", a declaration opposing "partial-birth abortion". Signing it along with him was Bruce Evan Murch, Northeast Regional Director of the American Coalition of Life Activists [ACLA]. ACLA lost a $107 million dollar lawsuit to Planned Parenthood earlier this year stemming from its threatening activities against abortion providers, including its role in setting up "The Nuremberg Files", an internet-based hit list of abortion providers featuring physicians' pictures, home addresses, licence plate numbers and names of next of kin.
Also signing it were Chris Bell and Joan Andrews Bell, who run the "home for unwed mothers" in Hoboken, New Jersey where James Kopp worked throughout the period he is alleged to have been shooting physicians in the U.S. and Canada. Joan Andrews Bell herself was a featured speaker at the Human Life International conference last spring in Toronto, where she told the Toronto Sun in an April 12, 1999 interview that murdering physicians can be "justifiable homicide".
CBR has adopted exactly the same cynical realpolitik of most of the rest of the "moderate" anti-choice movement. It condemns the murders [politically it has to, after all], while continuing to associate with and organize with those fanatics calling for murder. This is a point of major vulnerability for them.
5. They are similarly vulnerable in the racist and anti-semitic overtones to the way they try to equate the "abortion holocaust" to the Holocaust and the lynching of blacks. It seems undeniable they are particularly and deliberately trying to aggravate and provoke Jewish and black students in order to create the incidents that they politically thrive on. It's no accident they deliberately choose Rosh Hashana (University of Kansas, 1998, UBC 1999] and Yom Kippur as priority dates for their appearances. CBR executive director Greg Cunningham made this clear in a public statement last year: "Abortion is genocide. That's the whole point," Cunningham said. "Frankly, I'm weary of genocide snobs who focus solely on their causes." He refused to make any apologies for the comparison between abortion and the Holocaust." [quoted in Institute for First Amendment Studies, Freedom Writer, December 1998, at http://www.berkshire.net/~ifas/fw/9812/holocaust.html]
6. The CBR is organizing a cold-blooded and premeditated challenge to women's right to choose. Any effective strategy to defeat them must be a considered and deliberate plan to avoid falling into their game plan and to go after their vulnerabilities.
September 24, 1999
Will Offley
Independent Researcher
Former security coordinator at Everywoman's Health Clinic 1988-1995
all the above materials are ©1999 Will Offley, unless otherwise noted.
no unauthorised reproduction allowed.
Top of page