Although she accuses Segal of making the same mistake that Diamond made, does not Werner unwittingly reenact Diamond’s self-defeating and divisive spectacle right here? By hyperbolically distorting the truth without doing her homework and/or communicating in good faith with Segal—a crucial ally for progressives—before posting publicly, Werner, like Diamond, expands the divisive mess that Diamond, AS a leader of PPRI, created. This risks the very alliances necessary to legislate progressive change.

The main problem with Werner’s response above, however, is not the posturing, but the failure to grasp the importance of Segal’s own deliberation over the bill: When Werner writes, “the real situation here is what is happening outside Planned Parenthoods all across this country … 35 feet, 50 feet, 150 feet, whatever,” she, like Diamond, collapses the difference between 35 and 150 feet. To occlude that difference is to express a dangerously naive disregard for civil liberties and the right to protest.

It sounds like this is what Segal was trying to quietly contend with when he was slanderously attacked by Diamond and, in her name, PPRI. Sounds like a chauvinist tactic of intimidation, to me.

In order to truly “get down to business,” or, in this case, build a healthy progressive movement and the working majority required to pass progressive laws, we must call Diamond and Werner out for suggesting that a leading progressive legislator (Segal) should either have signed onto a bill in which the proposed buffer was surreptitiously expanded from approx. 30 feet to 100 feet, or that he should have at least hush-hushed such an undemocratic and potentially self-defeating act. Such a bill as the one ultimately propounded by Diamond and PPRI might have served as a damning precedent that could be used to portray progressive leaders and their constituents as undeserving hypocrites when it comes to matters of free speech — one of our most precious political rights.

In closing, as a woman invested in the larger struggle for social justice, I want leadership that is nuanced, cautious, transparent, and democratic. Segal, in this case, has provided it.

Thank both of you for your work.

1-No, I have not heard from the PPRI board relative to this. Nor do I have access to most of the board’s contact information. I do not know the process by which it was decided to have the email sent out. Nor have they relented in any way that’s been made known to me.

2-My posts on these blogs have reached about a fifth as many people as their email reached. And the text of their email remains posted on their website.

3-I had tentatively chosen not to publicize this, and changed my mind after the press (Ian) picked it up and published it. But once it started being covered by third parties, it became even more important for me to respond. And after a certain volume of threatening emails, it becomes understandably difficult to not respond more widely.

4-Yes, it is indeed terrible that women are being harassed. But as somebody who’s been on the losing side of many protests and pickets, I could never endorse a 150-ft barrier. Threats and physical obstruction and contact are illegal. A small buffer might be reasonable. But to shove protesters out of sight and mind is a clear violation of free speech rights.

5-I have not ‘made the same mistake’ Planned Parenthood made. They accused me of ‘playing politics with women’s health.’ I accurately accused them of frivolously accusing me of ‘playing politics with women’s health.’

It is indeed unfortunate for there to be in-fighting among progressives, but I’ve been put in an impossible situation. By mentioning one particular staffer whom I know to have been involved, I have tried to create separation between the individuals responsible for the email and the whole of the organization. No organization, of course, is a monolith.

But as you know, one can’t let oneself be ’swift-boated.’ There’s much more than ‘my bruised ego’ at stake here — my ability to be an effective legislator depends on not having my name sullied by organizations for spurious reasons. When scores of my constituents are misinformed and told that they have reason to hate me, I must respond, and do so immediately. Posting on a couple of blogs lets me counteract some of the harm that’s been done, but will fail to reach thousands of people who’ve been told how terrible I am.

I agree with Beth–you are a thoughtful and deliberative legislator and when your name is attached to something… it means something–but I cannot endorse this post. By publicizing this exchange, you make the same mistake made by Kristina Diamond. It sounds like she, and she alone, is responsible for the events of the past few days. The PPRI board and your colleagues have rallied around you, no? Why not resolve this issue by using your ties to the PPRI board to send a clarifying e-mail to the recipients of Diamond’s original irresponsible note? By widely mocking PPRI on several blogs, you have cast light on a situation that should not be about you. The real situation here is what is happening outside Planned Parenthoods all across this country: women are being harassed and intimidated while exercising their right to choose. 35 feet, 50 feet, 150 feet, whatever. We need to act quickly and deliberately towards a solution that benefits the victims of this situation: women who are being barred from controlling their own bodies and reproductive rights. Katrina Diamond should be censured for her actions. But let’s put our bruised egos aside and get down to business.

Ariel