Planned Parenthood Launches New Effort to Preserve Choice

I am a longtime supporter of Planned Parenthood. In fact, I've been supporting them so long I don't even remember how long I've done so. I think 1989 was when I first started contributing to their efforts. I have been truly shocked at how successful the anti-family, anti-choice groups have been at mobilizing against a woman's right to choose elective abortion. The Republicans gaining control of congress in the mid-90s seems to have inaugurated increasingly successful efforts by these individuals and groups. It is a frightening time.

Planned Parenthood and other pro-choice and family planning organizations have finally begun to recognize that fresh, new strategies to save civilization are called for. While I'm not sure how successful they've been I certainly commend them and their efforts. They have a number of options that are an important part of any strategy: educating voters and encouraging them to be politically active, lobbying efforts, general education among the wider populace and, most importantly, a continual effort to offer family planning services--including abortions--to women in need.

The most recent effort--to which I signed up to participate--is to use my blog to discuss issues pertaining to abortion, choice, anti-choice terrorism, and civil liberty issues. I received my first email from PPFA Action Fund suggesting I highlight the case of an Indiana girl and her mother trying to go to a Planned Parenthood clinic and being confused by a predatory "crisis counseling" center that set up shop next door to the actual clinic in order to confuse women. The "crisis counseling" group took down the girl's information for an appointment at the center next door, never telling her that they weren't affiliated with the clinic. Instead, illustrating their great respect for women and privacy, they used her private information to harass her, her family, and friends at school.

PPFA recommends voters contact their congressmen and women and request the support of H.R. 5052, a bill designed to make it more difficult for Anti-Family Planning organizations to deceptively prey on unsuspecting women. To take action on this issue, you can visit PPFA's website: http://www.ppaction.org/campaign/fake
Their interface makes it incredibly easy to send off a letter of support (or if you really wanted, dissent) of the bill, sponsored by Representative Carolyn Maloney.

This is the story that PPFA has provided to me. They didn't provide any more information to substantiate the story, perhaps for reasons of privacy for the girl and her family, but I really would appreciate more information from them. Maybe providing the name and contact information of the anti-family planning clinic would help. I don't have time to launch into a whole discussion of strategy in this entry, but I think part of their effort must involve framing the issues more successfully. My use of the "anti-family planning" phrase begins to gets at some of the rhetoric that needs to be deployed. But there's a lot to do, and rhetorical strategy and framing are both only two parts of a larger problem. To be continued...

Google and Censorship In China

I just read a great New York Times Magazine article on the subject of censorship in China and how internet companies are working through this complex issue. The author, Clive Thompson, a NY Times contributing author interviews the major Chinese players in search and also muses extensively on the technical and social workings of censorship in China.

I suppose that, as an employee of Google (or a contractor at least), I am potentially biased. (I also can't comment on any internal stuff and only hope I can post about stuff that's entered the public domain without breaking the strictures of non-disclosure agreements.) I think its a great article. Thompson focuses on the actual workings of China's internet market and information consumers and does so in a way that leaves me with impression that Google has made the right choice. Engagement in the Chinese market is better than no engagement at all.

It broaches the topic of censorship, how it works, and what it means to accomodate, self-censor, and fight for change. This is a good discussion to have and much more productive than calling Google a lackey of the Chinese government, or comparable to Nazi collaborators. Thompson quotes Jim Leach, an Iowa Republican who, during the recent congressional hearings, asks "[s]o if this Congress wanted to learn how to censor, we'd go to you." The answer is, of course, yes. Not how to censor but how to work within a regime of censorship. Its a critical distinction, and one I hope more people focus on.

Al Gore Speaks, Is not a Bore, but Is Scary

Ok, I'm a little late getting to this posting, but Al Gore came by Google on the 7th and spoke about global climatic change. Gore was articulate, extremely well-informed, interesting, and witty. He delivered a well-honed presentation that was the basis of the upcoming movie, An Inconvenient Truth. I don't know if I need to see the film now, since he gave such an amazingly detailed and convincing analysis that I find it hard to believe the movie would add much. If you haven't seen the movie, I would recommend it highly. His presentation was chilling, relevant, and extremely engaging.

The synopsis: basically, we're doomed. Or put in a more palatable light: we are doomed if we don't start making the environment a political issue. Gore's most important contribution is not that global warming is a problem, but that there is something that Americans can and must do about it. He points out that the changes in the climate are already so dramatic that the only way to ensure our survival as a species is to take the environment seriously. Most of his presentation is not preaching to stubborn Americans who don't want to give up their Hummers, but rather a simple, logical, presentation of facts.

Only the spectres of disinformation (the Bush Administration, pro-oil industry pundits, and Exxon/Mobil's vast array of well-funded organizations [54, by Gore's count!]) continue to downplay the real threat of global warming to our world. One of my favorite statistics actually touches on the media, another topic of interest to Gore. He pointed out that the scientific community unanimously concurs (and has for the last several years) that human beings are the direct cause of global warming but that somewhere around half of major media articles

I've not always counted myself much of an environmentalist. I mean I send off my letters to my liberal congresspeople every time ANWR drilling proposals come up (which seems like every other week), and I participate in the whole BioGems effort set up by the NRDC. Easy stuff, but that's about it. I'm one of those concerned citizens who does very little beyond feeling guilty about getting my groceries packed in plastic. One strength of Gore's approach was not to make us feel more guilty, but to try to establish some ground for political action. He is interested in some of the things I've been interested in for a long time: the public sphere and a politically responsible and engaged public.

See the movie trailer here.
Ezra Klein's insightful essay on Gore's media savvy ways is worth reading. It is a great compliment to the film.