Anti-abortion and pro-choice demonstrators argue in front of the Supreme Court during the March for Life January 24, 2011 in Washington, DC.

This week marks the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. That’s a long time—back when contraception meant counting days and pregnant teenage girls were forced to give birth, 40 years was more than two generations.

Forty years means that an issue our grandmothers thought they’d resolved remains on the front burner of American politics, not just unsettled but consistently under attack.

For two generations, women’s politics in America has been defined and limited by this single, Neanderthaloid issue that has absolutely no place in the political discourse of a modern, post-industrial, civilized nation. The threat of illegalizing abortion (and restricting access to and means of birth control) eclipses every other issue of great importance to women—equal pay, gender parity in politics and boardrooms, issues of workplace fairness, employee flextime and affordable child care.

This anniversary is not something to celebrate. It’s time to ask where we went wrong, and how can we put this issue behind us forever. The difficult truth is, the war on abortion benefits Democrats politically, and drums up millions for pro-choice organizations. What’s less clear is whether the Democrats or pro-choice groups have a plan to defend abortion rights on the state level, where they’re under fiercest assault.

According to a Planned Parenthood report, we have just emerged from the two worst years on record for state legislation against women’s reproductive health care. A thousand pieces of anti-choice legislation were introduced after the tea party swept the 2010 elections. Between 2011 and 2012, 136 of them passed. Just to name a few:

• In Mississippi, the state’s last abortion clinic will probably be shuttered because of a new law requiring doctors to have hospital admitting privileges, which hospitals are afraid to grant in the rabidly anti-abortion state. And the state just carried out an unannounced inspection.

• Attacking the licensing of ambulatory clinics, Virginia’s Board of Health voted to require all clinics in the state to comply with strict new building codes. The rules mean that many clinics would need expensive upgrades or could be forced to close entirely.

• North Dakota, a state with such a shortage of females that oil roughnecks pay women $3,000 to strip and serve beer in their houses, is expected to outlaw abortion again.

• In 2011, the Texas legislature defunded family planning by $73 million, meaning that 63 clinics closed, throwing 160,000 Texas women out on the street as far as health care goes.

Some 87 percent of U.S. counties have no abortion provider, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Doctors who do perform these procedures operate in an atmosphere of fear, in which only the most ideologically committed dare to continue. Average gynecologists were scared off long ago. Why on earth would one risk the fate of a Dr. George Tiller, or even contend with restrictive red tape, when one can just deliver babies for a living?

The direct beneficiaries of the right-to-life successes are not embryos and fetuses, but Barack Obama, reinaugurated two days before the Roe anniversary without having to pay women back with a single cabinet seat, and the Democratic Party, which can position itself as pro-woman while doing very little about the other issues we care about.

Also coming out on top are pro-choice organizations like Planned Parenthood, which had a banner year in 2012, pulling in $400,000 in 24 hours after the Susan G. Komen defunding episode in February. Legions of new supporters were identified as the War on Women raged in 2012.

So what’s the plan? I called Planned Parenthood and asked a staff member in Washington whether the group had a coordinated response to the state-level assaults so clearly being organized on the national level by the other side.

What I found was discouraging. Planned Parenthood has representatives in all 50 state capitols, and I applaud them, especially the brave men and women buttonholing jackasses in Baton Rouge. But their primary focus is not on politics, or lobbying, or identifying pro-choice candidates, or marshaling citizen voices to persuade politicians that they will pay for supporting extremist anti-female legislation. (With 70 percent of the population identifying as pro-choice, they can’t be that hard to find.) Without those tools, the pro-choice forces have been and continue to be defensive, not proactive.

The National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) has affiliate staff in 20 states and tracks anti-choice legislation. But, according to spokeswoman Samantha Gordon, there is no national campaign to head off attacks at the state level, apparently because they are not always predictable. “Anti-choice politicians do not campaign on choice-related issues,” Gordon said. “However, once they assume office, many of them push extreme anti-choice legislation that is out of touch with our country’s values and priorities.”

If the War on Women is going to mean anything more than an election-year slogan, the pro-choice organizations and the Democrats must leverage their new supporters and bushels of cash to stand up to the extremist agenda.

They need a state-by-state plan to organize and shut down extremists on the local level, where they are doing their dirty work, in cities like Jackson, Tallahassee, Richmond and Austin. Only then can we focus our resources and attention on what really matters to women: equal pay, flextime for working parents, equal representation in politics and business, and affordable child care.

Forty years. Time’s up.

Porn+Charity

If there was ever a good time to clear up any leftover misconceptions about the word "ironic," this is it. As in: is it ironic that PornHub.com is offering to pay one cent for every 30 unique page views on its "small tits" and "big tits" videos this month to charity?

The answer is no. It's just a nice way to celebrate Breast Cancer Awareness month while at the same time encouraging you to watch more pornography.
BUT:

Is it ironic that the money from said porn site will be going to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, whose founder Nancy Brinker tried earlier this year to stop her organization from giving money to Planned Parenthood because of anti-abortion pressure from GOP donors and the Catholic Church? A group whose ex-VP, former Georgia Secretary of State Nancy Handel, is so conservative that she makes Karl Rove look moderate?

Yes and no. It could be an example of irony, because you would expect a site that traffics in pornography to not donate to a charity being led by women affiliated with organizations that do not support contraceptives, abortions, free health clinics or, in the case of Ms. Handel, gay people.

But Ms. Brinker and Ms. Handel were disgraced right out of their jobs: Ms. Brinker is still the founder and has a management role at Komen's, but no longer makes an obscene amount of money as the nonprofit's CEO, while Ms. Handel is still trying to win this PR battle with a new book, Planned Bullyhood.

So go ahead and join PornHub as it spreads the word about whacking off to a good cause:

The Save the Boobs web page will keep track of the total unique visits for the month so be sure to encourage your red-blooded friends and family (yes, tell your fathers too) to become a hero of the headlamps and a champion of the cha-cha’s! While on the page you can also tweet the link to your social circles.

Together we can give fundraising our breast shot!

And remember: this isn't about politics. It's about breast cancer. And porn that you were probably going to end up looking at anyway. Everyone wins?

That’s the lesson reasonable people will take away from the recent controversy involving the nation’s best-known breast-cancer advocacy group, the Susan G. Komen Foundation. Komen, in an act of political and moral cowardice, announced that it would no longer fund Planned Parenthood’s breast-cancer screenings because the organization has come under relentless attack from antiabortion groups. Planned Parenthood, of course, also provides contraception and abortion services in addition to breast-cancer screenings.

Thanks to the quick action of tens of thousands of women, Komen reversed its decision. That’s a good result, but the controversy itself remains very troubling. Why did such a well-known and admired organization feel the need to defund Planned Parenthood in the first place?

The answer is that antiabortion zealots have poisoned the debate over abortion and contraception, as Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s frightening campaign has demonstrated. In their world, Planned Parenthood is nothing short of evil, and any organization that gives a penny to it is judged to be a coconspirator. Never mind the possibility that women surely will die without access to the organization’s breast-cancer screenings.

The public outrage over Komen’s original decision is heartening, for it shows that some people understand what is happening in this cultural war over abortion and women’s health.

That battle, however, is far from over.

Nancy Brinker is really sorry she'd rather spend money on pink guns than Planned Parenthood

Ms. Brinker's statement came after 22 senators wrote to the foundation admonishing the decision to stop giving money for life-saving mammograms and breast cancer screenings to the non-profit organization because Republicans have linked Planned Parenthood with abortion clinics.

“We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.”

“Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation,” she added. “We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.”

This decision earned praise from the head of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, which must be the most grudging measure of goodwill ever put forth, considering that a) reading between the lines, Ms. Brinker was essentially saying that the foundation will honor the grants in place, and not necessarily donate money in the future, and b)Komen's spends most of its donors' money on promotional items, like pink handguns. Which we can all agree is a much better use of funds than to give it to a service that helps lower-income women obtain affordable health care.

Well that's how democracy works: Abortions for some, pink handguns for the rest!

Nancy Brinker's "Straight Talk" video about cutting off Planned Parenthood funds

Ladies are such a handful...am I right fellas? They are always complaining about their friends being mean, and it's like, if Cynthia is so awful, why do you still hang out with her?

And then your girlfriend goes, "Oh, you just don't understand."

It's the same with members of the nonprofit Planned Parenthood getting all upset because one of its biggest donors--the breast cancer foundation Susan G. Komen for the Cure--is cutting off their funding. (Since as everyone knows, Planned Parenthood is where teenagers go to get abortions and breast cancer.)

But why take away the money now after 6 years of donations, the last of which equaled $700k in grant funding?

It must be all the political pressure. See, everyone thinks that the world's leading breast cancer foundation is cutting off Planned Parenthood (where they traditionally paid for preventative screenings) because the organization was under congressional investigation; with Democrats and Republicans using the women's care facilities as a stand-in for every reproductive rights issue on the table, Congressman Chris Sterns has made it his mission to "investigate" Planned Parenthood.

Of course, the issue may be more personal, as the leader of Planned Parenthood is Democrat activist Cecile Richards, while the founder of Komen for the Cure is Nancy Brinker, who along with her former husband Norman Brinker were two of Ohio's biggest GOP donors. And it's an election year, which again, has the party lines divided along the health care debate harder than its ever been.

Another clue could be found back in October,when a dozen or so Catholic church dioceses openly voiced their discontent for Komen's life-saving charity. One of the reasons they gave (besides the group not being theoretically opposed to stem cell research) was the money going to Planned Parenthood.

And wouldn't you know it, the same day Komen announced its plan to stop giving grant money to the organization, Planned Parenthood put out a national ad condemning the Catholic church for picking on President Obama for his new mandate of contraceptives in his health care plan.

For extra credit, here is Ms. Brinker in 2009 at the Catholic Heath Care Assembly!

‎Late yesterday evening, Ms. Brinker released this video on the Komen Facebook page, reiterating that the decision to remove funding from Planned Parenthood had nothing to do with abortions, religion, or politics:

That's almost as unbelievable as the fact that Komen for the Cure actually donated to Planned Parenthood for this long without caving in to pressure from conservative donors and finger-wagging church officials.

After the condom broke, Ms. Benincasa was escorted past protesters by Planned Parenthood's volunteers, who complimented her earrings. "I remember these weird, beautiful hipster angels, who by appealing to my banal, materialistic side were able to get me out of a difficult time." More stories to come, surely, at the benefit!

Bowery Ballroom, 6 Delancey Street, doors open at 7:00pm, performances by Thao with the Get Down Stay Down, Anna Egge, and The Bloodsugars, tickets sold through Ticketmaster.

"At its core it is actually a consumer protection piece of legislation," Speaker Christine Quinn said. "The goal of this bill is to ensure that women are fully informed and not deceived when they are walking into offices that present themselves as medical offices when they are not."

The bill's supporters said that so-called crisis pregnancy centers misrepresent themselves as medical facilities in order to discourage women from seeking other types of medical care, such as by putting scrubs on people who are not licensed doctors. Under the new legislation, centers must disclose if they have a licensed medical provider on site and whether they provide or refer for prenatal care, emergency contraception or abortions. They must also inform women that the Department of Health urges them to consult with a licensed medical provider.

Quinn denied that the legislation is specifically targeting pregnancy centers in order to disrupt the services they provide. Rather, she said that the bill seeks to prevent women from being "manipulated by a political agenda at a time when they are most vulnerable."

Joan Malin, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood New York City, said that pregnancy centers have been aggressively trying to steer pregnant women away from her organization.

"They target our health centers and patients, setting up across the street from our Bronx center and in the same building as our Brooklyn center," Malin said. "They prey upon our patients using deceptive signage and advertising."

Critics of the bill say it restricts their First Amendment rights, pointing to a Baltimore bill that required pregnancy centers to post signs in their waiting rooms and was later struck down in court. Council Member Jessica Lappin rebutted this argument by emphasizing that the bill's purpose was to ensure that women have access to accurate information.

"This measure does not curtail First Amendment rights -- that is not what this is about," she said. "People have a right to believe and say what they think, but not while they're wearing scrubs in an office that looks like a medical facility."

After the conference, Christopher Slattery, the president of EMC Frontline Pregnancy Centers, said that his organization was preparing to file a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order on the bill's "onerous and off-putting" disclosure requirements.

"It's a question of whether it violates my civil rights, and it does," Slattery said, adding that "its premise is built on deceptive lies."

The script says Monserrate was "convicted of domestic abuse against his girlfriend."

Hello, is_____________________ there? Hi, my name is__________________ and I am a volunteer with the Political Committee at Planned Parenthood NYC. We’re not calling to ask for money, we’re just calling to share some information about the special election for State Senate that's happening Tuesday.

The Planned Parenthood Political Committee has endorsed Jose Peralta for State Senate. We urge you to vote for him on Tuesday (March 16th). Peralta has a 100% pro-choice rating. Peralta has stood up time after time on behalf of women and has voted to protect women’s health and rights at every opportunity. On the other hand, his opponent, Hiram Monserrate, has been convicted of domestic abuse against his girlfriend.

Join the other members of your community and say enough is enough. Violence against women has got to stop. The people of Queens deserve a State Senator who will stand up for women’s health – Monserrate has proven he is not that person. Have you decided to vote for Jose Peralta on March 16th?

If yes: Great! To save paper and costs, we communicate mostly via email. We would love to keep you up to date with Planned Parenthood’s political information. Can I have your email address? There is only a few days left until Election Day, Peralta really needs your help getting out the vote. If you are interested in joining his effort please contact his campaign at 718-205-5855. Don’t forget to tell them you are from Planned Parenthood. Have a great evening!

If supporting other candidate: Okay. Thank you. Have a nice evening.

If Undecided: Okay – you’re undecided…Let me share some additional information. Jose Peralta has a proven record of standing up for women. As I mentioned, the Planned Parenthood Political Committee has endorsed him because we know he will continue to be a champion for New York’s women and families. For example, Peralta voted yes on legislation increasing individuals access to emergency contraception (EC), EC in the ER for survivors of rape, and co-sponsored the Healthy Teens Act (legislation that increases access to comprehensive sex education for NY's youth) Would you like to receive more information on Jose Peralta?

If Yes: Great! We communicate mostly via email to save paper and costs. Can I have your email address? If

No: Okay, there is a fact sheet with important information on our website at www.ppnycaction.org . We hope you’ll consider supporting Jose Peralta next Tuesday. Have a nice evening.

The image above characterizes longtime incumbent Republican Serf Maltese as old and out-of-touch, an idea that has become something of a default for Democrats (in this case City Councilman Joe Addabbo) running at all levels this election season.

There's also a Planned Parenthood mailer going out opposing Republican incumbent State Senator Frank Padavan, who is facing a challenge from Jim Gennaro, another City Councilman. (See the mailer).

The two Queens races may be key to determining control of the State Senate, and they're close.