Page 1

table of contents introduction ................................................................................................................ 3 hypothesis/thesis statement ....................................................................................... 7 my process ................................................................................................................11 the birth of reproductive rights ....................................................................................25 legislation ...................................................................................................................33 voices outside of congress .........................................................................................37 using art and activism..................................................................................................43 the mandatory choice: a thesis exhibition ...................................................................49 booth 1 .......................................................................................................................................55

booth 2 .......................................................................................................................................59 booth 3 ....................................................................................................................................... 63 booth 4 .......................................................................................................................................67 feedback .....................................................................................................................................75

conclusion ..................................................................................................................79 works cited .................................................................................................................84


Women in the United States are being treated like children every day, as Congress members are drafting up bills to retract a woman’s right to choose what to do upon realizing that she’s pregnant. These constant attacks on reproductive rights are politicians’ way of saying that they don’t trust women, and that women cannot make these moral decisions independently. We are constantly seeing and hearing about different politicians writing bills with the goal to limit the reproductive rights of women, and retract their bodily autonomy. The legalization of abortion in the 1970’s case of Roe vs. Wade allowed women to take a huge step forward in gaining rights that they deserve. By allowing bills that strip these rights to pass, we are taking significant steps back in time to when women were considered second-class citizens and were treated like children who were unable to make this very cumbersome moral decision for themselves. With a government run primarily by rich white men and while there is no logical place for religion in the United States government


women should be provided with every health benefit available by medicine today and more importantly, should not have their bodies controlled by anyone but themselves. The ideological pro-life advocates fight who to make sure women do not retain this right and frame their argument through the lens of their particular structure of beliefs falls on deaf ears. Furthermore, religious discussion has no place in politics. As President Barack Obama stated The Audacity of Hope: What our deliberative, pluralistic democracy does demand is that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals must be subject to argument and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons and seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or invoke God’s will and expect that argument to carry the day. If I want others to listen to me, then I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. (Obama, 219.)

Like a vegan who wishes that the entire world would stop eating animal products, to think that by outlawing abortion would result in no more abortions is highly unlikely if not complete wishful thinking. The compromise vegans make is the effort put forward to see that companies that use animals for food or clothing kill them in the most humane and painless ways possible as opposed to how they are treated on factory farms. Regardless of one’s personal stance on reproductive rights, people will continue to have sex, women will continue to get pregnant, and will continue to get abortions as a result of unwanted pregnancies, poverty and a multitude of other reasons. Regardless of abortion being illegal, women will feel the desperation to get abortions illegally. It will continue to happen but the difference will be that women who get these abortions illegally will suffer many more consequences than the emotional trauma of an abortion. This is an issue that not only affects American women today, but also future

generations and needs to be addressed now. It is only by bringing this issue to the attention of the general public and by making the issue relatable to both women and men that voices will be raised and action will be taken to ensure that these human rights are not revoked.


hypothesis statement

The war on women must stop and it starts with educating Americans on how abortion is a cumbersome issue that affects all individuals.Through the medium of interactive design, passive pro-choicers can personalize this issue regardless of sex, socioeconomic status, ethnicity, religion or sexual preference and make it relatable to women in their life. With this personalization, Americans will consider a candidate’s stance on abortion in the 2012 election for president of the United States. Passive pro-choicers are individuals who, when asked what their stance is on abortion, will respond with ‘pro-choice.’ However, do they ever think about it when not being asked? Does this topic and where candidates stand on it affect their vote? It can, and it should. These passive pro-choicers can be educated on what is actually happening to reproductive rights in the United States today, the restrictions women face and most importantly that all Americans, regardless of socioeconomic status, sex, ethnicity, gender, religion or sexual orientation, are affected. Through interactive design, participants will read three personal stories of women living in different parts of the United States. After reading each individual story, participants will be confronted with the issue as to whether or not they feel that the outcome for each individual is fair based on her story and the restrictions to abortion services in her particular state. Finally, users will be forced to look at a live female and vote as to whether or not she, as an individual, should have these reproductive rights. The goal of this design is to open the participants’

eyes and ears to this issue, personalize it, and associate the topic with the important females in their life, as opposed to merely associating the topic of abortion with women in general. Communications design is an incredibly useful field and tool for branching the gaps between people, places, ideas and concepts. By expanding on interactive design in the design field, design will enter a new area of education via direct user experience and personalization. Undoubtedly, be it in this particular study or in life in general, experience is the greatest teacher. By creating this interaction for users we, as designers, can raise awareness and education for many avenues that need and/ or deserve the attention. Additionally, with this design applicable to both sexes I am hopeful that men will begin to feel a sense of connection or at the very least sympathy to the issue. Using design as an education tool can only further elevate the design field as a respectable and highly influential career path, and further demonstrate the need and usefulness of its presence in the working world.


my process

Admittedly, choosing the topic of reproductive rights did not come to me from Day One. I’d been considering what topic to pursue since I first began my Masters at Pratt, and especially upon taking Directed Research in the spring of 2010. I thought about pursuing topics that are lighter in terms of controversy, but that’s just not me. I observed, read and really thought about different topics that irk me, that I think are problematic and quite frankly, topics that make me irate. In Directed Research I thought about women and how their bodies are used in advertising, which ultimately led to my research on teenage girls today and how their body image and self-esteem are affected by what they see in the media. Then I moved on to consider how these advertisements create and push particular gender roles in American society. Why did the men always have to clearly be rolling in dough with fancy cars and the women stood by passively, consumed with looking younger and thinner while keeping their eye solely on what the man had financially to offer? All of these roles were, and still are, ludicrous to me. What I find to be even more frustrating is that I know far too many people


who buy into it! Clearly, this is a topic that I would still would like to pursue some day. Another topic I considered was some type of networking tool for transgendered youth, and for the parents of these individuals. I was inspired and interested in this topic as a result of a project I completed in the Fall 2010 semester in my Type II class. Our assignment was to take any piece of NYC life (i.e. restaurants that only serve raw food, a particular neighborhood, the cupcakery fad, etc.) and using interviews, photos, research and of course typography, tell a story about that topic. I chose drag, and produced a book at the end of the semester that I have to say is my proudest accomplishment since attending Pratt. It was an incredibly eye opening experience to meet these queens and learn about who they were behind the makeup. While I loved that project and it served as inspiration, the attack on women has been like one bomb going off after another in the last year. The legislation that pushed me over the edge and convinced me to pursue women’s reproductive rights was called The Redefine of Rape, written by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ.) Under this legislation, abortion coverage would only be provided to

women who were victims of “forcible” rape; this would not cover a woman who was date raped, drugged, under the age of 18 or who said “No,” but did not physically fight off her attacker. After the wave of disgust subsided, I found this legislation to be the catalyst of my pursuit of a design solution for women’s reproductive rights. I began to think about my target audience, and who could make the biggest difference. At first I thought the answer was obvious; men. I decided to survey them to see what level of importance they placed on the topic of reproductive rights. Some did, and some did not. However, I was surprised to find that even when I spoke openly with women about it, while they were pro-choice in many cases they seemed somewhat removed from the topic, as if it didn’t effect them beause they had not been in the situation of needing to choose (at least, not that they shared with me.) I chose the population of passive pro-choicers. After presenting my thesis topic at the end of the spring semester, one point was brought up by someone critiquing my presentation; why were these people allowed to write legislation like The Redefine of Rape? How was it that representatives who would write this kind of legislation were being elected? It was then that I realized that

more people need to take this topic into account when deciding who they consider to be the best candidate for their member of Congress and most pertinent as we approach 2012, for the next president of the United States. During the course of my summer research I visited the Bronx Zoo. Upon viewing the gorillas I learned that there is a panel of specialists who determine which of the gorillas can reproduce, with whom, who is put on birth control and many other decisions regarding their reproductive process. I felt this was very interesting and paralleled what goes on with Congress and American women. This served as an inspiration for my final design for my exhibition. In order for people to really take this issue into account, they need to feel connected to it and feel that it does indeed affect them. It’s not one group who is affected by the potential retraction of rights. Any candidate who does not support a woman’s right to choose is sending a very clear message to Americans; that women and their autonomy are not a priority and carry no significance. Americans need to hear this message and vote accordingly.


After deciding on my topic and target audience, I had to think about how I could create a design that was effective in personalizing this topic for people. I tried to think of designs that would require people to each have a piece of a big picture (the gestalt of the design.) I also considered creating an interactive motion sensor that would create the outline of a person (male or female) who was interacting with the design on a screen. On said screen, reproductive organs would be seen on the outline and then have the participant try to gain control of the outline of themselves via movement only to have the program creating this image control where the outline and its organs moved. Essentially, the purpose was to have the participant lose control.

I began to make a list of potential people to interview. I also thought about how viewers could physically create something through each individual having a piece, a profile or something that would all combine in one place and create a joint message. Ultimately, the result would demonstrate what happens when a group of people believe in something, and take part together.


This was one idea I had about an interactive design that involved shoeboxes. While the concept never fully cooked, the basis was that something as simple as a shoebox could be filled with paraphenalia of what people associate with autonomy. These shoeboxes could be decorated and added to by each participant, and once finished it would be passed on to the next person. I also played around with the idea of one word being printed on the side so that once all of them came together, it would reveal an entire sentence, phrase or statement. On a more logistically condusive level, I thought about the same idea regarding postcards that people could send to one another, each adding something new and networking at the same time.

Clearly I bounced back and forth between the digital ideas and the print and/or physical designs. At one point I thought about the concept of “The Chart� that is discussed frequently on the show The L Word. The concept behind this site is that all the lesbians in the show were connected to one another. A user could click on one name, and see all of her connections. I felt this had potential for a networking tool with regard to those who were passionate about reproductive rights. I saw it as similar to a Facebook tool for pro-choice networking except, of course, the layout and design were different. As seen on the right, this site would literally just have names floating in space. As the user placed his/her mouse over a name, it would take the center of the screen (see Shane McCutcheon)and all other names would move around it depending on the level of connection. In an ideal world and relating to my thesis, I envisioned a small profile that would appear next to the name who took center, and if the user wished could click on the profile to see more information about that person on another page. With the means and help in web programming, this is an idea I may pursue some day. 19

Once I began to grasp a concept of possibile interactive design I needed a title from my project. I made a bubble chart for myself with all the possible word associations I made with the terms reproductive rights and prolife agenda. After careful deliberation (and surveying) I decided on The Mandatory Choice.


Over the summer I continued to research for thesis. One day I went to the Bronx Zoo with some friends and learned about the reproductive parameters set out for the gorillas (ii.e. who is permitted to mate, with whom, which females are put on birth control, etc.) I felt this definitely paralleled our current situation with reagrd to reproductive rights and specifically,

abortion. The layout of the gorillas behind the glass was a source of inspiration for my final design. Addtionally, I wanted to have the viewer interact in a way that is very pertinent to this topic; voting. I also used the idea of old voting booths as inspiration for the final design layout.


As previously described, my process in deciding on my thesis topic was anything but a straight shoot. I considered different topics, avenues and issues that I felt would benefit from a design solution. Since beginning my education at Pratt I’ve come to understand (and I’m still working on embracing) the fact that my mind does not work in a linear form. I am constantly thinking about many possibilities and directions I can take my ideas. Both blogging and tweeting provided me with the opportunity to present my ideas to others, and gain feedback, ideas and constructive criticism. Blogging was a great way for me to find information, place it in one area with no particular order, rhyme or reason, and synthesize it piece by piece. I’ve kept up with quite a few blogs and websites that I’ve felt were important in the area of reproductive rights and additionally, that provided me with some solid information. These short lived entries have been instrumental in helping me work in the most productive way possible.

MYbodyMYagenda Twitter has also been a great way for me to get snippits of information as people I’m following post. I’m able to pick and choose what to read as it relates to my thesis. Additionally, friends of mine were kind enough to retweet some of my posts and increased my exposure.


the birth of reproductive rights

Since the beginning of time civilians have used numerous means of (what was thought to be) birth control that did not involve a pill, diaphragm or condom. Hundreds of years ago women in China ingested lead and mercury in the belief that this would control fertility. In the Stone Ages it was unknown where or how babies were formed. Pregnancy was considered a “magical” event so abstinence was never acknowledged as a means of birth control. (Planned Parenthood,1.) During the Middle Ages Europeans believed that fertility could be controlled through the use of the weasel: cutting off its foot and hanging from the neck, or wearing the testicles on the thigh. Other charms believed to increase fertility included: dried out cat livers or cat bone shavings (as long as they were purely black), the anus of a hare or a cloth tied, containing flax lint saturated in menstrual blood. (Planned Parenthood,1.) “Voluntary Motherhood” was a movement spearheaded by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in the 1870s, based

on the belief that wives and their husbands should abstain from sex in order to control the size of their family. Unfortunately, when women abstained from sex in their marriage men strayed to prostitutes, which resulted in the spread of sexually transmitted infections by 1900. Another theory for natural birth control was outercourse (i.e. anything that did not involve masturbation and penile-vaginal intercourse.) However, the Christian church had leaders who taught followers that anything that did not result in procreation (i.e. outercourse) was unnatural. Specifically, Augustine of Hippo (350-430 C.E.), a bishop of the Christian church, instructed Christians that fornication, rape and incest were all natural because they lead to pregnancy. This is yet another example of how women were treated as egg factories and their rights, health and dignity were dismissed for the sake of religion. (Planned Parenthood, 2.) Undoubtedly, this type of belief system still exists today, and remains intertwined in our government. In the colonial era in New England, “bundling” was a form of outercourse that


was encouraged among young people in the stages of courtship. Typically, these courtships evolved over long distances and involved visits between the two parties. Ultimately, one would need to stay overnight and due to a lack of heat and bedrooms, couples that were courting were often put in the same bed with a bundle board placed between them to ensure they would not have intercourse even if they became somewhat intimate. (Planned Parenthood, 3.) In the 1940s and 1950s outercourse peered its head once again in society when “passion pits” became the hip way for teenagers to go to drive-in movies, have outercourse in the back seat of the car and women technically still remained virgins. (Planned Parenthood, 3.) Outercourse soon became a thing of the past when the birth control pill became available to women during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960s. As the AIDS epidemic spun out of control since the 1970s outercourse and courting has been revived once again. The controversy over women’s reproductive rights is not a new topic. Women have been fighting to gain rights, in general, since the 1800s. Margaret Sanger was one of the pioneers in the battle for women’s reproductive rights. Essentially, she is the reason that Planned Parenthood exists and, unless defunded by the federal government which is still in debate, is able to provide Americans with a myriad family planning services. Planned Parenthood has been providing Americans, particularly of low income without health insurance, with mammograms, STD screening, cervical cancer screening and familyplanning counseling. Margaret Sanger worked as a nurse and in 1900 she treated women in some of the worst slums of New York City. She assisted women in labor, where she became painfully aware of the negative impact women suffered as a result of poor health and welfare while they had no access to birth control. She witnessed illness and fatality of women due to unsafe abortions to avoid having more children. By law, Sanger was unable to educate these women on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Eventually she decided to take action and began to educate herself on birth control, began to lobby Congress to allow doctors to prescribe birth control and ultimately overturn the Cornstock Law, which was an


attempt at controlling pornography and resulted in limited access to birth control for women. This law put women at greater risk of potentially risky pregnancies, as Sanger was able to verify. In 1914 Sanger created a magazine called Woman Rebel, which encouraged women to think for themselves and promoted family planning. Under the Cornstock Law this information was illegal to send out via mail. Sanger did it anyway and as a result was charged with obscenity. She fled to England and returned to the United States when the charges were dropped. Upon her return to New York


she founded the National Birth Control League, which later became Planned Parenthood. Margaret Sanger opened a birth control clinic in Brooklyn in 1916. It was promptly shut down and Sanger was planed in a workhouse for 30 days. Upon her release she reopened the clinic in her own home. Her lobbying and hard work paid off; the American Medical Association reversed the Cornstock Law and doctors were permitted to distribute birth control beginning in 1936. Sanger continued the “Voluntary Motherhood” movement and women were given access to birth control as well as education on parenting “under the most safe, humane and dignified conditions.” (Shaw, Susan M., and Janet Lee, 252.) It is unfortunate that while the idea that sparked the movement was a positive one, it was affiliated and combined with Darwin’s theory (‘survival of the fittest’) and eugenics to argue that birth control was necessary for the “unfit” to discontinue reproducing. At the time, the unfit were considered low-income low income and immigrant population as well as the “feeble minded” and criminals. With

this argument, voluntary motherhood won support where it was needed and got the ball rolling. Clearly, Planned Parenthood’s stance has come a long way since the days of its inception. Millions of Americans, regardless of age, sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity or gender have benefited fro the services and resources provided by this organization. Alice Bunker Stockham, MD is another individual who was a historical figure and pioneer in the reproductive rights movement. Stockham was one of the first women to finish

medical school in the United States. Through her work as a doctor she frequently treated patients who were forced into maternity, which she found to be particularly distressing. In 1903 she published Karezza: Ethics of Marriage, in which she discusses the important of a woman’s right to choose. In Chapter 7: FREE MOTHERHOOD, Stockham describes her experience visiting the Naiars, a society in Indian located on the Malabar Coast. She describes them as “intelligent and educated, have good schools and their houses average better than those in other parts if India…the women are the lord of creation…the are called the free women of India.” (Stockham, 35.) In this society women take control of their own lives, choosing their husbands who will ultimately be the father of the children they bear. If a Naiar woman deems a man to be unfit or he demonstrates after time that he isn’t cut out for the responsibility of a husband and/or father, the woman’s wish to sever the ties of matrimony is granted without any infiltration by religion or the government. Karezza is a “mutual relation and it removes

all vestiges of the old idea of man’s dominion over woman. All the pleasure and benefits to be derived are hers as much as his.” (Stockham, 36.) Her research into this society further prove how far more progressive this society is than that of the United States which often takes unmerited credit for being a progressive nation. Particularly, she states the following, which is very striking: Women have demanded and received recognition in every profession and vocation; they have eloquently appealed for the duties and privileges of citizenship. In many states they have been allowed through the ballot, a voice in adjusting disputed policies of city and country; they have been given positions of responsibility and emolument; but alas, how seldom are they accorded the freedom of choice for the fulfillment of the inherent and natural function of child-bearing. (Stockham, 38.)

Roe vs. Wade is probably the most well known case in the history of women’s reproductive rights in the United States. This is due to the fact that this case set the precedence for American women since it was called into action in 1973. ‘Jane Roe’, an unmarried woman, wanted to end her pregnancy safely and legally. On January 22, the United States Supreme Court declared its decision in this case overturning the Texas law and for the first time, it was acknowledged that a woman’s right to choose whether or not to terminate her pregnancy was included in the right to privacy. Previously, practically all states outlawed abortion with exception of cases of incest, rape, fetal anomaly and if the woman’s life was at stake as a result of her pregnancy. Roe relinquished this restriction for women and made abortion services safer and more accessible to women in the 1970s through today. (Planned Parenthod, 1) In coming to this decision, the Supreme Court revisited past cases that proved that the government could not interfere with certain decisions regarding procreation, marriage and other facets of family life. For example, in the case Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965), Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut was on trial for distributing contraceptives to married couples. The Supreme Court ruled that making contraceptives available to married couples was infringing upon their right to privacy. By 1972, single people were


also included and provided with contraceptives. It’s virtually impossible to explore the history of Women’s Reproductive Rights without mentioning Gloria Steinem and her enormous contribution to feminism. Ms. Steinem is an accomplished writer, editor and feminist activist. In addition, she has given lectures upon lectures at various locations in the United States and all over the world. For over 40 years she has explored issues of equality included but not limited to gender roles, caste systems (specifically with regard to sex and race) and child abuse as the beginning point of violence, non-violent conflict resolution, “the cultures of indigenous peoples, and organizing across boundaries for peace and justice.” Steinem helped to found New York magazine in 1968, and has been published in a slew of publications such as Esquire and The New York Times Magazine. She served as an editor for Ms. magazine, which she co-founded in 1972, for fifteen years and continues to act as a consultant for the magazine. With Steinem’s help, Ms. joined forces with the Feminist Majority Foundation and was published. Also, Ms. Steinem produced a documentary for HBO that focuses on child abuse. She has written many best selling books, and has taken many roles in a multitude of women’s groups ( In an interview with Marianne Schnall via, Steinem has said the following on women’s reproductive rights: “Female bodies are still the battleground, whether that means restricting freedom, birth control and safe abortion in order to turn them into factories, or abandoning female infants because females are less valuable for everything other than reproduction. If you add up all the forms of gynocide, from female infanticide and genital mutilation to so-called honor crimes, sex trafficking, and domestic abuse, everything, we lose about 6 million humans every year just because they were born female. That’s a holocaust every year. It makes sense that reproductive freedom is still the biggest issue – because the reason females got in this jam in the first place was because the patriarchalstate or religion or family wanted to control reproduction…” (Schnall, 5 Dec. 2006.)

In 2005 Steinem took part in a short film entitled I Had An Abortion by Gillian Aldrich and Jennifer Baumgardner. This film consisted of 10 interviews with women, of all age ranges


and economic backgrounds, who had an abortion at some point in their life. These women span multiple generations and points in history when they had an aborition, including before Roe v. Wade. Gloria Steinem’s words, actions and convictions fed the feminist movement and shaped the views and beliefs of many women today. She continues to serve as a role model for young women and men worldwide. Steinem sums up her unapologetic decision to have an abortion when she was in her early twenties:

I did not see any way that I could possibly give birth to someone else, and also give birth to myself. It just was impossible. So there was not one moment, not one milisecond of thinking that it would be a good idea to have this child.�


( Gloria Steinem, I Had An Abortion, 2005.)


President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, which in addition to other things, provides an opportunity for health care exchanges to aid individuals and small businesses in the purchase of private health insurance plans at the state level. A health insurance “exchange” is a new concept with the goal of creating a better organized and competitive market for health insurance by presenting options of plans, creating shared rules in terms of offers and prices of insurance, and providing the information to help Americans better understand their options. A goal in creating the exchange is to provide coverage to those currently uninsured and assisting with changes to the insurance market, particularly for those who independently buy insurance. Although these exchanges will not be available for citizens until 2014, some states wasted no time in putting laws into effect that would restrict access to abortion. Currently, certain states already have laws in effect that restrict abortion coverage via private insurance coverage. Moving forward these restrictions will also apply to plans sold on the exchange. Frequently, abortion has been banned in the coverage of public employees where public funds are “used to insure employees.” January 2011 was a challenging and discouraging month for Pro-Choice supporters. On January 7 Rep. Pence (R-IN) introduced H.R.217 (Abortion Provider Prohibition Act) which would eliminate federal funding for organizations providing family-planning services, one of them being abortion. This legislation was particularly aimed at Planned Parenthood. On Jan. 20, 2011 H.R. 3 (No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act) was introduced in the House by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ). (, January 2011.) In conjunction with the Hyde Amendment, H.R. 3 would have devastating effects for many people in terms of health care. The Hyde Amendment, which affects only federal spending, was introduced in 1976, three years after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion without any restrictions. Representative Henry Hyde (R – IL) wrote this bill to limit federal funding for abortion care, and specified what services for abortion are covered under Medicaid.


“Medicaid is a joint federal-state program that provides the nation’s low-income population with basic health and long-term care coverage. Medicaid is the largest health care program in the United States, and covers more than 50 million people. Under Medicaid states receive federal matching funds to provide health care for low-income individuals.” (National Abortion Federation, April 2006.)

Since then there have been constant debates about what, regarding abortion care, should be federally funded. Briefly, this coverage applied to cases of rape, incest, life-endangerment and physical health damage to the woman. In 1979 the exception of physical health was excluded, as was rape and incest in 1981. Congress has since rewritten the provision in September of 1993, including Medicaid funding for abortions as a result of rape, incest or life endangerment. Under H.R. 3, employers offering health insurance to their staff that covers abortion services would be denied tax credits and benefits. Additionally, H.R.3 would also deny abortion coverage for women whose chronic health conditions (i.e. heart disease, diabetes) might worsen as a result of pregnancy. Finally, women would be denied abortion coverage if pregnant with a fetus with a condition that would make it unable to survive outside the womb. Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) also introduced H.R.358 (Protect Life Act) the same day. Under this act hospitals are permitted to refrain from providing abortion services due to religious beliefs, and refuse to perform emergency abortions based on individual morals regardless of whether or not a woman’s life is on the line. Federal law requires hospitals receiving funding from Medicare or Medicaid to provide emergency treatment to all patients regardless of their ability to pay. If a hospital is unable to perform the emergency treatment it is required that the patient be sent to another hospital or facility that can. H.R.358 would eliminate all those regulations. Currently, almost 95% of private health insurance plans cover services for abortion ( As of March 1, 2011 the following states have placed limits on abortion coverage: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia.

It’s important to note that while Congress members are trying to take away funding for abortion access and organizations like Planned Parenthood, a majority of the states where these bills are being pushed are not states that mandate sex education for teens. Of the 18 aforementioned states, only 5 (Kentucky, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina and Tennessee) are mandated by law to teach sex education to students: 8 (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, and Virginia) are not mandated to teach students about sex education, 2 (Missouri & Oklahoma) are mandated to teach HIV education but not sex education, and Nebraska and North Dakota were unknown. Clearly, it doesn’t seem fair that teens are not educated on topics like sex education and then denied abortions when they make the ill informed decision of having unprotected sex. Furthermore, it makes no logical sense to “educate” youth on HIV and not include the piece about the physical ways in which this deadly disease can be contracted. As of March 30, 2011 a bill passed by the House, causing women in Kansas to face more difficulty in obtaining a legal abortion. According to the Topeka Capital-Journal, this bill “grants state regulators freedom to make unannounced inspections at clinics and sets rules on housekeeping, personnel, follow-up visits, evaluation of patients, equipment and recovery rooms.” (Carpenter.) Gov. Sam Brownback (R – KS) was responsible for this bill, stating that there was a necessity to expand the “culture of life” in Kansas. It is believed that the Senate will provide enough support for the bill to fully pass. On Tuesday, March 29, the House sent Brownback a bill limiting abortions to the 21st week mark under the belief that a fetus can feel pain at that point in development. Additionally, a mandate was sent to Brownback that a female under the age of 18 inform her parents and is granted permission for an abortion. During discussion of this bill on the House floor, two areas of concern were brought to everyone’s attention by Rep. Barbara Bollier (R-Mission Hills): physicians performing approved abortions are granted privileges at the closest hospital to said clinic within 30 miles. Additionally, women who are prescribed the morning after pill are mandated to take it in the presence of a

physician, as opposed to in the privacy of their own home. Bollier felt both of these stipulations were unnecessary. According to an interactive map of the United States created by NARAL Pro-Choice, 31 states have had bills introduced that attempt to either limit women’s access to abortion, or unnecessarily force them to be confronted with experiences to sway their decision to have an abortion. The bills in these states include one, some or all of the following: gives “personhood” status to fetus, bans insurance coverage for abortions (private, public or both): bans abortion after 20 weeks: requires a woman to undergo an ultrasound before abortion: bans abortion for race or sex selection. With members of Congress running the country who believe that women should not have autonomy over their reproductive organs it’s no wonder that cases of rape are often not taken seriously in parts of this country; women’s bodies are clearly seen as egg factories that should be governed by those who govern the country. In Cleveland, TX an 11 year-old girl was gang raped by up to 18 males, ranging from ages 14 to 27 shortly before Thanksgiving 2010 in an abandoned trailer home. A friend of the victim, who saw a video of the whole thing, reported the crime to a teacher who ultimately got the police involved. According to the New York Times: “The case has rocked this East Texas community to its core and left many residents… with unanswered questions. Among them is, if the allegations are proved, how could their young men have been drawn into such an act?” (McKinley Jr.)

Drawn into such an act? As if these men were duped into forcing an 11 year-old child to have sex with them? The wording of this particular piece of the article is surprising and disappointing for an established and credentialed source like The New York Times, but what’s more is the reaction from the community regarding this incident; the victim-blaming from members of this community is disgusting and unjustifiable. Some members commented on the way the victim was dressed, claimed that she acted older than she was and that she lied about her age and claiming that she put herself in the position and ultimately got what she deserved. Cases like these that parallel the pro-life belief that women are not meant to have control over their own bodies.


H.R.358 (Protect Life Act)... Under this act hospitals are permitted to refrain from providing abortion services due to religious beliefs, and refuse to perform emergency abortions based on individual morals, regardless of whether or not a woman’s life is on the line.


voices outside of congress

One very important factor that pro-life advocates seem to forget is that a woman’s decision to have an abortion is not a quick and easy decision to make. Furthermore, this cumbersome decision, while it does not result in a baby, still carries its own set of consequences. Initially, the physical discomfort and pain that is accompanied by an abortion is extreme. Regardless of whether a woman has a procedure at a clinic or takes a pill to abort her pregnancy, the physical toll taken on her body is not over as soon as the basic process takes place; it can take up to four days for a woman to feel ‘normal.’ The emotional trauma that exists after the process has been completed is immeasurable and indescribable. Finding a woman who is comfortable enough to admit to having had an abortion and then discussing her experience is hard to find.

and back to New York City for most of high school.) Her answer was abrupt and simple: there was none. She received no sex ed Reno, and upon her return to New York City it was minimal at best. In fact, when Tanya did eventually learn all that she needed to know she thought to herself, I guess I have to go where the white people are to learn this. It’s no wonder she became sexually active at age 13; she had no idea how humans reproduce or the consequences of unsafe sex! This is the case with many young people, and yet sexual education is still not mandated in every state. How does that prepare our youth for those decisions when they are faced with them? And then the GOP does not want to cover their abortion services?

a personal story

academic experience

I was able to interview Tanya, a 22 year old female who has had the unfortunate experience of an abortion not once, but twice. In both instances she confided in me that she was uninsured, made the decision within a month of discovering that she was pregnant and has discovered an entire new outlook on her life and where she wants to be. She became emotional during our discussion, and it has now been 8 months since her last abortion. She revealed to me that even though she knows that she made the right decision, she still thinks about the baby that could have been had she decided to finish her pregnancy. Just the other night Tanya was talking to her boyfriend (and the father), emotional about the fact that she would have been giving birth to her child now had she decided to keep it. Plainly put, “It messes you up, in every sense...” (“Abortion Experience.”) For pro-life activists to insinuate that there are no consequences or that the decision to have an abortion comes with no strings attached is unthinkable.

Reva B. Siegel, Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law at Yale University, wrote Sex Equality Arguments for Reproductive Rights: Their Critical Basis and Evolving Constitutional Expression, in which she very comprehensively and accurately demonstrates how retracting a woman’s autonomy is a blatant misogynist attempt to pigeonhole women into traditional roles. She states in her introduction:

One thing that I asked Tanya was what kind of sex education she received in junior high and high school as she was growing up. (She grew up in New York City, moved to Reno for a few years during early adolescence 38

“Whatever sex role differences in intimate and family relations custom may engender, government may not entrench or aggravate role differences by using law to restrict women’s bodily autonomy and life opportunities in virtue in their sexual or parenting relations in ways that government does not restrict men’s.” (Siegel, 815-816.)

Professor Siegel continues to explain that while having bodily autonomy is crucial for a woman in order to not be treated as a second-class citizen this right also extends out and affects other areas of her life. Siegel explains that having this control permits a woman to also have control over her health and sexual freedom, ability to continue or end relationships, her education and job training, ability to contribute monetarily to her family as well as her ability to settle conflicts that arise between work and family. Under a system that

enforces traditional sex roles she would have a far more difficult time doing so (if she could do it at all.) Professor Siegel proceeds to demonstrate the importance of reproductive rights in that with these rights, women are recognized as independent individuals, competent of making the decision as to when they want to give birth and start a family. She further explains that with this decision-making also comes the decision as to how a woman will devote herself to caring for others. “Vesting women with control over whether and when to give birth breaks with the customary assumption that women exist to care for others…In a symbolic as well as practical sense, then, reproductive rights repudiate customary assumptions about women’s agency and women’s roles.” (Siegel, 819.) What is also essential to acknowledge is that the attempt to retract women’s reproductive rights is an attack not just on women in general, but especially on women of low income. She explains that those who support the sex equality approach do so because these low income women are the most vulnerable and they are the ones who are punished for being sexually active: not the privileged. Furthermore, if these women are forced into having children, they will be supported in no way shape or form by those enforcing those laws and writing the legislation to take away bodily autonomy. In the end, these women are kept at the bottom of the totem pole with no choice and only with a lifetime of struggling, little money and the inability to properly care for children they did not choose to have.

pro-choice men The hypocritical aspect in all this is that the GOP stands firm with regard to no government infiltration into large corporations and private lives and yet they think it’s fully constitutional to meddle in and control the lives of American women. Undoubtedly, there are many citizens out there who may believe in a woman’s right to choose but they don’t do anything about it.

While I have definitely had this discussion with women I know many times, I can not remember a time when I discussed it with a man and he was the one to initiate the conversation. As a result I created an online survey for men to gain some sense of understanding on their stance regarding reproductive rights. I received 54 responses ranging from all ages 18+. Here were the results:

Of the majority who responded pro-choice (in any way, shape or form) only 50.9% of men said they would raise their voices in some way, shape or form to ensure that women have a right to choose (i.e. attend a rally, write a letter to Congress, post information on Facebook, etc.) without being asked by someone else. When the 49.1% of men who answered NO were asked was asked why they would not the responses were evenly distributed between 3 responses: 1) I don’t feel that it affects me. (32%) 2) I don’t know what it’s like to be a woman/ I feel alienated from the issue. (32%) 3) I don’t care one way or the other/ I don’t really think about it that much. (36%)

Those surveyed were also asked if they consider a candidates stance on reproductive rights when voting for public offices: 64.9% said yes, 26.3% said no and 8.8% don’t vote. Albeit understandable why men may feel significantly removed from the topic of pregnancy and reproductive rights, what they should not feel removed from is the rights of the women in their life whom they love.


I think it’s more that I don’t care enough to put that kind of effort into it. I care about a lot of things but I can’t fight all the battles.

This war on women happening in the United States today is a war on the important women in their lives. It is highly unlikely that a man would stand by idlely while his sister, girlfriend, cousin or mother were being physically beaten or raped by someone; why is the situation of reproductive rights any different? In both cases, a woman being stripped of her bodily autonomy and in turn controlled by someone else who is calling the shots. Perhaps because reproductive rights is a verbally debated topic right now men do not perceive it as being invasive, but this is where they are wrong. As a result of this debate and legislation introduced into Congress women are in danger of being confronted in the future with being physically forced to do something that they do not want to do. Men’s voices need to be heard, and to have this happen they need to be confronted with the issue in a way in which they can understand: in a way that demonstrates how this issue is directly linked to the women in their life. As a result, they will feel less alienated from the issue, and more empowered to rail against the these attacks on women.

(Surveyed man, a passive prochoicer.)

There is a great sense of apathy to political issues. The idea being that ‘It will never happen to me’ or ‘I don’t know anyone affected by this.’ This can [be seen] by the three wars that we have going on (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya), and the lack of general awareness by the American public or less a general malaise with the issue of abortion. It has been around for so long, the expectation is that it won’t go away. (Sabella)

using art and activism

During the Great Depression some artists took part in the Federal Art Project (part Works Progress Administration a.k.a. WPA) which was an opportunity for artists to depict the miseries experienced by the poor in the mid-west and rural areas during this time in history. The Great Depression, Suffrage Movement as well as many other points in history used design to promote ideas and challenge the government. These graphics were often known as ‘agitprop’ art (short for agitation propoganda.) In fact, when it comes to national politics there are graphic voices expressed: official and unofficial. The official graphic voice is expressed through the ‘establishment,’ government, leaders and institutions that dictacte systems of control, and define societal values and principles. The official voice, with all its power and money, has a far easier time reaching a broader range of Americans and therefore can be very effective in gaining support. The unofficial voice is considered to be those who question and challenge the official voice: reject the values determined by the official voice: motivates people behind their cause. While the unofficial voice may not have all the resources necessary to reach a wide audience, it has a very real and powerful tool; reaching people on a grassroots level. Only the unofficial graphic voice can really give power to the people, protest to be heard, promote teamwork among the Americans who want change, promote emotional strangth and form small organized groups. This is where so many nonprofits and artists working pro bono come into the picture. Agitprop art is still seen today in cartoons, design, advertising and individually created projects. Using this means of expression and creating a voice disputing government, laws or virtually anything that was felt to be unfair or wrong was very inspiring in creating the images I chose for my exhibit. I wanted to create images that were very intrusive and if possible, made viewers feel uncomfortable when casting their vote.



(b) (a) ‘Suffragettes’ sheet music. Illustration by Reginald Rigby, Britain 1913. (b) Poster: “Votes for Women” by B.M. Boye, USA c.1913.



(c) A photomontage created by John Heartfield, Germany 1932: ‘Adolf the Superman: swallows gold and spouts trash.’ (d) Barbara Kruger’s poster for the 1989 Pro-Choice March on Washington. (e) Gang for ACT UP criticized President Bush’s lack of action on the AIDS crisi while participating in the Gulf War, 1992. (f) ‘Truisms’ t-shirt series by Jenny Holzer, New York City, 1983.




According to David Benzaquen, Political & Legislative Action Coordinator at NARAL Pro-Choice New York, the best means of starting some action is to go grassroots. He also encouraged personalizing the issue so that real people can see that other real people are affected by whatever cause it is that a person may be supporting. For example, ‘Men of Strength’ is a campaign designed by Men Can Stop Rape, a organization that strives to empower men to eliminate violence in cultures, specifically violence against women. MCSR, lauched in 1997, has provided self defense, training workshops and holds strong to their fundamental theories that encourage men to reshape their idea of masculinity. This organizations began at the grassroots level and has made tremendous strides in its 15 years of existence. This is an example of beginning on the very personal level, and building to expand the message that men can make a difference in violence against women. Benzaquen also indicated that it is his observation it is important, when motivating people to take action, that they feel that their contribution is actually making a difference. They need to be able to see clear, measureable changes so that they know they made a difference. This empowerment must be comprehensive. Most likely, those who do ont vote in elections do so because they feel that their vote will not make a difference and that their voice is falling on deaf ears. I looked into the ‘Men of Strength’ campaign and found these posters as a piece of their marketing campaign to be a great example of creating specific situations and stories, many of which are likely relatable to the general male public. One thing that was exceptional about this campaign was the way it addressed the fact that men can also be victims of rape. Furthermore, one of the posters acknowledges gay relationships, and includes them equally as they do with heterosexual relationships.



The process of building the exhibition was definitely the most stressful piece of the thesis process. No amount of research, tweeting or class time could compare to the stress induced by the construction process. I had my partner as my contractor because the fact is that he has done many jobs in the past that required minor construction jobs like this. I consulted with him to determine the logistics and over the course of a few weekends we shopped for the supplies, assembled the structures and spray painted them.


The day before the exhibition was unveiled, it took about 14 hours to transport the structures and supplies, arrange them, hang curtains and include the signage. No doubt, had this occurred in the gallery of a museum where there were staff members helping it could have been completed in less time. Be that as it may, the end result was definitely a positive one. Professors were given personalized letters, inviting them to view the exhibition.


Upon arrival, viewers in the elevator would see the signage to the left as the elevator doors opened, leaving them on the 7th floor. The poster shown is the same as the graphic image shown at the beginning of this chapter.

Booth 4

Booth 3

Booth 2

A few steps further and the participants were greeted by an individual and this display seen above: golf balls, signs indicating each person to take 4 with them, and to enter the exhibit in pairs.

Booth 1

The setup of the voting booths are shown above as they would be viewed from above the booths themselves. The order in which voters were to enter, view and vote went from right to left.


This photo is a view from the outside of booths 1 and 2 with the back curtain open. While the lights certainly created a silhouette effect, it was not quite as dramatic as the images may show.

This photo is a view from the outside of booths 2 and 3 with the back curtain open.

This is what the voter would see upon entering booth 4; a live woman behind glass, which ideally would be someone he/she knows, but is not completely necessary. The main idea is to link the topic with an individual, as opposed to a mass group of individuals.


booth 1

In booth 1 viewers viewed information on their right (g) and left sides (h), hanging on the curtains that surrounded them. Additionally, on the wooden structure in front, there was a personal story and infographic (i) linked to the image on display (see page right.)




Results: Yes: 92.8% (77 votes) No: 7.2% (6 votes) 58

booth 2


In booth 2 viewers were given information on their right (j) and left sides (k), hanging on the curtains that surrounded them. Additionally, on the wooden structure in front, there was a personal story and infographic (l) linked to the image on display (see page below.)



Change was basically my goal throughout this process and design solution. For the life of me, I cannot imagine why anyone would not want to use design to change something or use it for something less cumbersome.


Results: Yes: 15.7% (13 votes) No: 84.3% (71 votes) 62

booth 3

In booth 3 viewers were given information on their right (m) and left sides (n), hanging on the curtains that surrounded them. Additionally, on the wooden structure in front, there was a personal story and infographic (o) linked to the image on display (see page above.)




Results: Yes: 80.7% (63 votes) No: 19.3% (16 votes) 66

booth 4


In booth 4 viewers who were voting entered the curtain that read ‘bystander.,’ while either the female in the pair or a female assisting with the exhibition went behind a curtain that read ‘objectified’ and was seen on the other side of the glass. Viewers were given information on their right (p) and left sides (q), hanging on the curtains that surrounded them. Additionally, on the wooden structure in front, the viewer was asked to mentally identify the woman, and then given information about the risks she faces (r) (see page above.) The goal was to have the voter associate abortion with an individual, as opposed to a mass group of strangers.




Results: Yes: 9.6% (8 votes) No: 90.4% (75 votes) 74


Throughout the course of 6 hours when the polls were open, over 80 participants attended and voted on what they saw. Admittedly, since this exhibition took place in New York City a more liberal response was expected as the majority of responses once all were tallied up. However, it was encouraging to see that there was no one question in which all voters gave the same response. There were a few professors who attended, including ones who were not teaching on November 16, and came to school to vote. That was especially encouraging. The wording of the questions were chosen strategically so that they could not be easily answered. One goal of this exhibition was not to have all questions that were answered with a “yes” to fall into the liberal category while all “no’s” were conservative or vice versa. The goal was to have individuals think about what they were asked, especially given the specific woman and circumstances in her state. This is precisely what is missing when people do not give much thought to abortion, and the women it effects (i.e. all women.) The most common feedback I received was that people had to read some questions twice to really understand what was being asked of them. I wanted this to be the case because I didn’t want the decision to be easy. I wanted voters to really think about what they were voting on, and feel the weight of the decision they were making both by using a golf ball, and by having to really think about the questions being asked. From the feedback I received, it did no seem as though many voters were frustrated by this, but needed a few extra moments to make the decision. Furthermore, a few voters told me that based on the wording of the questions, it started a conversation about the topic between the two users who went in as a pair. One professor suggested I consider re-wording my questions that determined how voters voted. He said that sometimes he felt it was unclear as to what he was voting on; the question asked based on the information he read, or based on the question itself? As a packaging specialist, I would assume he is constantly aware of wording and how to really create language that can not be


misinterpreted. His message was definitely constructive, and something to consider if the exhibition were to go up again in the future. I ended up talking to another student after she voted in all rooms. I knew her by face, but had never met her before. She took about 10-15 minutes when she was finished to give me her thoughts on the exhibition. She said she liked the interactivity, and seeing a live person. She said it might behoove me to think about including a tangible dollar amount to relate to viewers with regard to statistics, especially if I plan to reach men. For example, she said when giving information about how much unwanted pregnancies cost Americans I could give a number, then follow it up with, “...equivalent to X amount of a particular car” or in that sense tell them what it would cost them to be forced to take care of a child if a woman does not have a choice and is forced to give birth (i.e. a house, X amount of Play Stations) I thought this was definitely coming from more of a marketing concept which is definitely a good idea. I understand what she was saying. However, the fact that men are socialized to value money so much and equate that with power is something that I do not support because a) I think it’s superficial, and b) I see many correlations between this socialization and gender roles, which I also do not support. I suppose I would have to think about which was more important to me; getting through to men who have already been socialized this way by succumbing to this means of communicating, or deciding on a way to communicate that dismisses those rules of socialization, but is still effective. One participant said that he loved the third voting booth image that displayed flesh because it made it more human. Then, he said seeing an actual human being in the last voting booth was even more effective because he’d just seen flesh in an image, and was now seeing flesh on a live and present human being. He said that was very powerful. Suggestions he made were more about the structure of the piece; he said a small, cloth hallway outside of the voting booths (creating a corridor) would be effective because each voter would not leave the entire exhibit until their last vote had been cast, making the

experience continuous. He also suggested making the voting booths slightly more angled so that the booth narrowed as it got closer to the image and voting poll. This would allow the user to focus mentally, and force them to physically focus on what he/she was seeing. Finally, he noticed the words hanging on the curtains of the last voting booth; bystander and objectified. He said I could consider using the word object instead,further stressing how dehumanizing it is when the government tries to take control of such a personal decision. Much of the voters were impressed by the construction and presentation of it all. This was encouraging. I was asked more than once if I were an MFA student which was quite flattering, but deflating at the same time. It is well known that the expectations of the MS students are different from those of the MFA students. After all, the programs and structures of said programs are vastly different (or so I’m told), and with the MFA program being so new there are bound to be limits that are stretched in various directions until the dust settles and a niche is found. This is part of what makes new programs so exciting. However, it is disappointing to think that someone would be surprised to see a higher level of work from an MS student. Whether this is a reflection of the MS students or those who view the work of the MS students is unknown for sure; more than likely, it is a combination of both. Regardless, if the exhibition was inspiring to even one student (MS or MFA) that would be an accomplishment. Essentially, all the feedback was positive. Some made direct compliments to the design and others provided constructive criticism.



“ We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are.

( Anais Nin)

It is clear that any issue that is so heavily related to human rights is often a personal one. Not only are these rights personal in terms of those suffering from any form of oppression, but also in terms of bystanders and how these issues affect people they care about. In general it seems that people only respond to, and feel encouraged to make change, when the issue at hand directly affects their life. Abortion, and a woman’s right to choose is one of these issues: there is no group that is immuned to it. There are no elite members of society who will never need to worry about abortion; it cuts across all ethnicities, religions, sexes, socioeconomic stati, gender and sexual preferences. While I personally find it disappointing that many individuals do not feel compelled to take action solely in the knowledge that injustice is being done and rather only if it directly affects them, there is also power in that knowledge. Through surveying, talking to people and in the responses from voters after viewing booth 4 (i.e. relating the issue to an individual, and not a mass group) it is clear that people do, in fact, see issues like abortion in a different light when they are confronted with the ways in which

it affects them directly, even if it is directly through someone they care about. I’d hoped that linking abortion and the right to choose with a human being present behind the glass would encourage voters to think about this issue in more than just a fleeting thought. Hopefully, in viewing my thesis exhibition even one person will consider abortion and the future candidates’ stance on it as an important factor in their decision making process when the polls open nationally in 2012 for the next president of the United States. Furthermore, I am hopeful that viewers will reframe how they view a government that treats 51% of the population as chidren and dismisses their anatomical rights as a result of a political agenda. This blatant disregard for women and their rights is a direct reflection on how the American society views women and the role of women. It is this that needs to change, and it needs to change now. Often, abortion is a personal, emotional and even taboo issue. Many feel strongly in one way or another about it and for that reason people often don’t want to discuss it or choose to turn a blind eye. It is when people choose to ignore it that society


remains stagnant. It was my goal that this issue be brought to the front burner, examined and considered a vital topic in the voting process. I was pleasantly surprised to be informed that when pairs entered these booths and had to read the information at the same time, discussions arose and positions were challenged. There is so much power in communication, and in the sharing and exchanging of ideas. If nothing else, my design succeeded in opening up that communication. Although that may only be one small step for women’s reproductive rights, I can definitively say that this design was instrumental in pushing one very important thing: progress.


I often feel myself that the government is this huge, untouchable thing, and it is. It's daunting. But they do things, because they are about to take away a woman's right to choose. I really believe they are. They have power and it's time to say something if you don't agree. It's time to act.


(Matthew Broderick,

Works Cited Carpenter, Tim. “House Passes Abortion Regulation Bill.” The Capital Journal, 30 Mar. 2011. Web. Apr. 2011. <>. “Explaining Health Care Reform: What Are Health Insurance Exchanges?” Kaiser Family Foundation, May 2009. Web. Apr. 2011. “Health Insurance Reform and Women.” Feminist Majority Foundation, 6 May 2010. Web. Apr. 2011. <>. “A History of Birth Control.” Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 1 Nov. 2006. Web. 20 Mar. 2011. <>. Keen, Judy. “More State Bills Are Targeting Abortion -” USA Today Nation. USA Today, 6 Apr. 2011. Web. 05 May 2011. <>. McKinley Jr., James C. “Vicious Assault Shakes Texas Town.” The New York Times, 8 Mar. 2011. Web. Apr. 2011. <>. McQuiston, Liz. Graphic Agitation: Social and Political Graphics Since the Sixties. London, Phaidon Press Ltd, 1993. Obama, Barack. The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream. New York: Three Rivers, 2006. Print. “The Official Website of Author and Activist Gloria Steinem - Who Is Gloria?” The Official Website of Author and Activist Gloria Steinem Home. 2009. Web. May 2011. <>. Pitts, Joe. “H.R. 358.” A Bill to Amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 20 Jan. 2011 Web. Apr. 2011. <>. “Public Funding for Abortion: Medicaid and the Hyde Amendment.” National Abortion Federation NAF, 2006. Web. Apr. 2011. <>. “Roe v. Wade: Its History and Impact.” Planned Parenthood. 16 May 2007. Web. Mar. 2011. <>. Sabella, Michael. “Men’s POV Survey for My Thesis - PLEASE Help!” 12 Apr. 2011. E-mail. Schnall, Marianne. “Conversation with Gloria Steinem.” 5 Dec. 2006. Web. May 2011. <>. Shaw, Susan M., and Janet Lee. Women’s Voices, Feminist Visions: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Second ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004. Print. Siegel, Reva B. “Sex Equality Arguments for Reproductive Rights: Their Critical Basis and Evolving Constitutional Expresion.” Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship 56 (2007): 815 -42. Digital Commons. Yale Law School, 1 Jan. 2007. Web. Apr. 2011.


Singh, Susheela, Diedre Wulf, Rubina Hussain, Akinrinola Bankole, and Gilda Sedgh. “Abortion Worldwide: A Decade of Uneven Progress.” Guttmacher Instistute. Guttmacher Institute, 2009. Web. Apr. 2011. <>. Smith, Chris. “GPO Access Online Resources: A-Z Resource List.” U.S. Government Printing Office, 20 Jan. 2011. Web. Apr. 2011. <>. “State Policies in Brief: Restricting Insurances Coverage of Abortion.” Guttmacher Institute, 1 Apr. 2011. Web. Apr. 2011. <>. Stockham, Alice Bunker. “Chapter 7 - FREE MOTHERHOOD | Reuniting.” Reuniting | Healing with Sexual Relationships. Web. 05 May 2011. <>. Tanya*. “Abortion Experience.” Personal interview. 11 Apr. 2011. *Name has been changed to protect interviewee’s privacy.

Image Credits (unless source previously listed) Mahler)

The Mandatory Choice book  

My Thesis book