Reply to comment

As a trade-off for having come into work on Saturday for College Day, I went in late to the office on Monday 9/30/13.  My work initially was fairly simple: unpacking the suitcase that we had used to transport our tabling materials, creating a spreadsheet of the sign-up information we had gathered, and formatting an agenda for a coalition meeting later that day.  Much more interestingly, though, I took notes on a conference call organized by the Ms. Foundation and Raising Women's Voices, in which the presenter introduced and discussed the branding campaign that the two organizations planned to utilize with regard to the Afordable Care Act (ACA), both in open enrollment and beyond. 

Given that women's reproductive health care is one of WOMEN'S WAY's three key issue areas, the ACA was a major point of focus for the organization this summer in the lead-up to open enrollment.  I took notes on conference calls like this at various points over the summer, but this was by far the most interesting that I got to listen to.  Rather than simply rehash the details of the ACA, this call engaged the advocate community present  as partners. 

Key to the presentation was the multiple audiences it sought to address.  While the people listening were only representative of the advocate community, the campaign being intoduced was intended to target both advocates and individual women.  Even more crucially, the campaign made very clear that it was addressing women as consumers themselves, rather than simply pathways to other potential consumers of healthcare - young men, families, children, etc.  Furthermore, while all women are certainly welcomed to the message, the campaign is particularly focused on communicating its message to women of color, immigrant women, and low-income women. 

Looking at this campaign as a feminist endeavor, this is encouraging.  It acknowledges that these women in particular already face some of the greatest hardships, stand to benefit significantly from enrollment, and are among the most in danger of being overlooked as enrollment is advertised; and it does all this while addressing these women as ends in themselves, and not means to others.  

Also of note was a comment from the coalition meeting, of which I attended the last twenty minutes.  In looking forward to campaigning and addressing the ACA, various organizations had to reaffirm the clarification that they were unable to say anything explicit regarding abortion.  At least three coalition members were unable to use the phrase "abortion" in any materials, despite the clear sympathy of individuals in those organizations. 

Personally, this strikes me as an awful choice.  In order to maintain the key services they provide, these organizations are barred from discussing and working with another crucially important issue for women's health.  Having never been placed in the position of making such a decision, I can more easily say that I would insist on the moral high ground and determine to take a clear stance on issues like abortion, rather than acquiesce to the demands of key founders and funders (though in this particular case I don't know the precise details of why each of these organizations were so restricted).  Recognizing that the abilty to provide services to the community is a very real need that should be pursued, it also begs the question of why one would submit to moralistic demands that to all appearances run counter to what the organization stands for.  This is especially so in this case, as these organizations are a part of Raising Women's Voices, which does explicitly advocate for access to abortion, even if not all of the individual organizations within it will use those materials that reference it.