Written on Friday:
I had a crappy day, for having been railroaded by an organization that I (even still) consider an ally. Here’s Ian’s take on the issue at hand, and here’s an old Phoenix article on a similar dynamic.
Basically, Planned Parenthood asked me to sponsor so-called ‘buffer zone’ legislation, banning protesters from an area of a certain radius from PPRI’s clinics. I hadn’t decided against the legislation, but wanted to consult other standard PPRI allies (the ACLU and various state reps) who had refused to support the bill in question, out of First Amendment concerns. I discussed the legislation with PPRI as recently as yesterday, at which point they informed me that they had changed the language so as to EXPAND the buffer, relative to our earlier conversations — from 35 feet, as is the law in Mass, to 100 feet.
I told them that I would get back to them with an answer on Monday, after talking to other reps and advocates about the bill. But to my shock and dismay, around noon today, I began to be bombarded by emails from people who were responding to this disgusting, incendiary, and misleading email, claiming that I was ‘playing politics’ with women’s health, and that I had ‘refused’ to sponsor the legislation. (If only ‘playing politics’ typically meant ‘consulting with the ACLU’.)
As has been made clear by Rep. Art Handy, the House sponsor of the bill, he didn’t even ask me to sign on, or tell me when he was submitting it. Yes, that’s right — the legislation has already been introduced, and I’ve done nothing to block its introduction. For me to sign on would now require Art to pull it, and introduce _another_ version.
(Apart from the free speech considerations, it’s important to note that there’s next to no chance the legislation would pass. And were it to sneak through, it’d certainly be vetoed by our right-wing governor. So while the issue of intimidation of women seeking abortions is very important, this is not the path that will end it.)
As I wrote to Kristina Diamond, who was responsible for the email alert:
As is true of most of your membership, I support both women’s rights and civil liberties. Typically, these two drives overlap. While harassment and intimidation are wrong — and already illegal — erecting a buffer zone of hundreds of feet is awkward in the context of support for First Amendment rights. As you know, supporting free speech is utterly meaningless if one does not support the right to speak of those with whom one disagrees.
It’s unreasonable to:
1) Not alert me to the bill’s introduction;
2) Change the language relative to its initial presentation;
3) Alert me to these facts via an ad hoc conversation in the hallway just yesterday;
4) Accept that I would be in touch early next week with an answer, after conversations with the ACLU and other PPRI allies who have refused to support the bill;
5) Turn around and launch an ’email alert’ against me.Please allow me my few days to deliberate.
The full text of my response is after the jump.
Kristina-
I don’t know exactly how to put this — but I really don’t appreciate the (misinformed) attempts to intimidate me into supporting the buffer zone legislation. As I explained to you yesterday, I am considering signing onto the bill. And while I was told that introduction of the bill was being considered, I was not alerted to the fact that Rep Handy and Sen Miller were certain to introduce it — and neither of them asked me to sign on, nor told me that they were definitively submitting it.
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about the language in question, as evidenced by the lack of support/active opposition by several of your organizational and legislative allies. There’s the civil liberties lens — particularly so because the legislation demands a very wide 100-foot radius that would ban protests from across the street, or on or near privately-owned property in the vicinity of the PPRI building.
(When we first spoke about this legislation, you offered that the buffer zone would be much shorter — the 35 feet or that apply to elections. You have repeatedly told me that the bill is the same as that which passed in Massachusetts, which also established a 35-foot zone. It is not. I find the email campaign against me particularly offensive in light of these changes to the bill, that were not made known to me until yesterday.)
There’s also reason to be concerned that the bill would be counterproductive, relative to the pro-life/pro-choice balance at the state house. And, as we’ve discussed several times, it’s clear that the bill will not pass, and would be vetoed were it somehow to slip through.
I very much understand that introducing legislation can serve as an organizing tool, and am considering the bill’s introduction, in this light. But the fact that you still haven’t met with the Mayor’s office to discuss policing in the area, and enforcement of the various existing laws that are being violated, makes me concerned that the legislation’s introduction wouldn’t serve even that purpose.
As I told you yesterday, I will be in touch early next week with a decision, after I have consulted with those various PPRI allies who have rejected supporting the legislation in question. But threatening emails from your members will not help, and make me worry that you don’t recognize the legitimate concerns raised by this legislation:
As is true of most of your membership, I support both women’s rights and civil liberties. Typically, these two drives overlap. While harassment and intimidation are wrong — and already illegal — erecting a buffer zone of hundreds of feet is awkward in the context of support for First Amendment rights. As you know, supporting free speech is utterly meaningless if one does not support the right to speak of those with whom one disagrees.
It’s unreasonable to:
1) Not alert me to the bill’s introduction;
2) Change the language relative to its initial presentation;
3) Alert me to these facts via an ad hoc conversation in the hallway just yesterday;
4) Accept that I would be in touch early next week with an answer, after conversations with the ACLU and other PPRI allies who have refused to support the bill;
5) Turn around and launch an ’email alert’ against me.
Please allow me my few days to deliberate.
David
no dave-i have no problems that money could solve,but in all seriousness maybe you don’t know as much as you think you do-i am over twice your age and i can learn something new all the time
Re: Werner’s comment
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.
joe, would you be a happier person if a made a withdrawal for you from that trust fund i hear i have?
david-tears?haha-no i didn’t promise to use punctuation-i just acknowledged that i don’t-and don’t try to deny that you accuse people of being racists all the time-hey,i’ve shed tears for men that you wouldn’t make a pimple on their ass on the best day of your life-and they died a lot younger than you but they weren’t coddled children-my youngest is older than you and he’d think i was an idiot for bothering with this,but i really don’t have enough to keep me busy so i enjoy messing around with know it alls like you-i actually know some left wingers who have a brain and common sense and i respect their point of view,but they came to it from hard won experience,like i did my so-called “right wing”attitude -start by thinking WHY the fuckin’ aclu should be the last word on anything-they defend baby rapers-and for that i hope they burn alive,because i don’t know if there’s a hell-have you ever locked up a sexual predator?i have and there is no worse creature on earth-drug dealers and murderers are angels by comparison
The buffer zone is a tough call that requires carefully considering the issues. I suggest a counter-protest against the legislators that didn’t consult the ACLU. Seems like Handy and others took a convenient stance that pandered to this irresponsible group. Screw PPRI! Hope that the national organization will sack Diamond for her slander.
Um… when was that? [He types, computer screen obscured by his tears.] And didn’t you promise to start using punctuation?
now you know how people feel when you smear them as racists you crybaby carpetbagger
I agree with Davey Dave on this one. He was right to defend himself when publically attacked. It would have been irresponsible for him to risk the credibility he brings to the progressive causes he’s involved with. This isn’t about his ego (although, if it were, that’d be understandable), this is about ensuring his continued utility as a voice for different social movements and organizations in the state house.
Other tidbits-
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.’
I disagree pretty deeply, Ariel. People have defended me precisely because I have responded. (And I have not mocked PPRI anywhere, and am surprised that you would assert that I have.) Their email initially went out to 6,000 people, and was subsequently forwarded to many other listservs and individuals. I do not have access to those lists, and therefore cannot respond directly to those to whom it was sent.
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.
David,
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
This just confirms what I already suspected… you are a thoughtful and deliberative legislator and when your name is attached to something… it means something!