The unbelievable tactical disconnect between political reality--even simple human nature--and the theoretical framework being expressed by NARAL leaders in this diary (and elsewhere) is stark and terrifying.  Their approach is beyond tactically foolish--it is suicidal to the position they claim to stand for.  Rabidly exaggerated and easily disproven claims used to prop up alarmism is the fastest way to lose any public credibility.  

If this is the institution primarily charged with politically defending choice in this country, choice is dead.

Here's the thing -- people may think I'm dismissive (and other male bloggers), but our problem isn't with what these groups are fighting for. I think the Constitutional Amendment to enshrine privacy is brilliant.

Rather, it's clear that all the progressive groups, and that includes the women's stuff, are getting killed right now. We're losing on multiple fronts because we're fighting multiple battles. The right is a cohesive movement. They're united. We're divided. And hence we're losing.

So criticism of these groups is taken as criticism of their goals, when really, it's criticism of their ineffectiveness. We all want the same thing.

Choice has been a winning strategy for decades.  It's only losing because Democrats are moving away from it.

Which is why NARALs faux pas makes total sense : They are living in the past as far as activism is concerned. They're focus is on extracting money and marches for their events; not gardening and tending to a network of activism and influence through the media and political landscape of the country. Theirs is the kind of survivalist activism that expects unconditional allegiance from the grassroots because it is "us against them".

That's the majority of political/activist/single issue groups in a nutshell. Their approach to politics and to doing their critical work hasn't evolved much in the past decade to keep up with the vastly changed political landscape. We are so far in the minority now, and the Republicans have gotten so batshit crazy, that our tactics HAVE to change. That might mean something as simple as changing your litmus test for who gets your endorsement.

Wow. There so much more here to talk about. Great post.

After the loss of 2004, I quit giving money to NARAL.  They have been unable to express themselves in a way that resonates with anyone who isn't already an activist.  

Similarly, but many more years ago, I dumped my membership in NOW for the same reasons.  

I'm tired of rowing in a boat that isn't going anywhere.  

So, for the moment anyway, I'm concentrating my donating and my efforts on trying to actually ELECT pro-choice Democrats.  

--

If I could suggest just a little tweak?

Your analysis of poststructuralism seems spot on to me, and I know it's a bit cheeky of me to suggest to someone who's been in the game longer than I have (I'm just finishing the PhD), but I think you might need to emphasize, for this gang, the political uses of poststructuralist theory. I think for a lot of people, they're going to see it as silly, J. Sokol kind of stuff, or as purely linguistic, pushing words around. Here's are the two primary ways poststructuralism helps me as a political thinker:

• It calls attention to Truth as a something that is largely contingent upon who gets to be listened to. This insight doesn't jettison the reality of, for instance, someone being beaten to death. But it does insist that I wonder who's telling the story and why and insists that I always remember there's no such thing as an innocent, bald recital of the facts.

• It forces me to be deeply suspicious of any foundationalist movement. Nostalgia, the desire for purity, the desire for the homogeneous point of origin, all of these are dangerous, monolithic ways of thinking. We need the freedom of recognizing that people, movements, the polis, are all heterogeneous, that we don't all come from some one, authentic place, and that while we have goals, we don't have a teleology. And any effort to clamp down on that difference is violent.

All in all, I thought this was an eye opening post, so thanks. I just wanted to point out I think we need to be wary of relying on states rights, since Republicans only believe in states rights when the states agree with them.

As for Roberts, I think once he is in, we will be in for far more trouble then just the abortion issue. I think we are probably looking at an incredible erosion of any individual rights and the establishment of a national religion, aka the American Taliban.

I just recently read Killing the Black Body: by Dorothy Roberts.  It is the best and most lucid argument I have yet seen which ties reproductive rights, privacy, race, and the ultimate dignity of individual value together in one place.  It is amazing.

What you get, which the NARAL Legionaires can't because of their long suffering battles, is that the field has moved dramatically.  Choice is a quaint notion compared to the general attacks on privacy that are currently taking place.  In fact, emphasis on choice alone makes it easier, IMO, to take away a woman's right to birth control, consensual sex, rights in marriage vis a vis the husband, etc.  If the issue is fought entirely around the NARAL question of when the state can intrude, then much of the battle is lost.  And please do not get me started on the use of restrictive laws to respond to pornography or other "harmful" information (I once saw huge stickers placed by activists that read "this book promotes violence against women" on a book about herbal cares for menstral cramps and pain).

As The Guy said, the goal of some on the right is pure power -- yes -- but those powerful people are willing to give a bone to their supporters/surrogate fighters/distractoers/whatever -- and that bone is the re-ownership of women's autonomy.

I so appreciate your post because, setting aside the political problems with the mainstream feminist industrial complex of today, real serious shit is coming and we better have a (better) plan to stop it.

 I am still stirred every time I read Kennedy's majority opinion in Lawrence et al. v. Texas, which involved the prosecution of Lawrence and Garner by the State of Texas for adult consensual anal sex. (Link is to wikipedia, I can't get the link to FindLaw to work.) In the opinion, Justice Kennedy forcefully argues that the rights of homosexuals are rights related to dignity (which is a social norm) and liberty (which is an exceptionally well-grounded constitutional norm):

He makes the critical point that the privacy, equality, and dignity rights flow from the liberty interest that the Constitution protects:

There are lots of gems throughout the case, but I'll close with this one, which for me kind of sums it up in the broad, sweeping language that SCOTUS sometimes does so well:

For the record, I do not in any way equate gay rights with choice rights, but Kennedy's doctrine is powerful ammo against a variety of targets.  So if Roe is on the table, let's not forget "liberty."

Having worked with two separate local NARAL groups ... and yes, you'd be hard pressed to tell that they were part of the same organization ... I can say that the lack of "the vision thing" permeates the entire organization. They are operating like it's still 1976. There is no nuance, no media savvy. They are constantly in seige mentality where they should have sloughed of that mindset in the late 70s for a more secure and in control demeanor. So the "seige mentality" has, over the last two decades become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

And their rhetoric should be the "poster child" for bad "framing" (if you'll forgive me the use of this overused term.)

You have no idea how their chronic screw-ups piss me off. This right should indeed be "off the table". Thank the goddess that they weren't around  80+ years ago. I'm sure that if the suffrage movement had their organization, women would have lost the vote decades ago.

The Feminists' job is to assume there is no Truth but suppressed truths. Our job is to pick apart the layers of meaning heaved down society's throat as The Truth. Through this process, we are not only to reveal The Truth as the constructed fallacy it is but, once shattered, recompose it into the many truths and the many stories its 'oneness' suppresses.

I think that is exactly right, but I would expand it to state that it is the Humanists' job to accomplish exactly that. I am a Feminist BECAUSE I am a Humanist, and all of those "Truths" that are commonly accepted serve to stifle and destroy human potential. It has been done most agressively based on racism and misogyny, but so many of those twisted "Truths" diminish us all for the benefit of a ruthless or privileged few.

Thanks for giving me a lot to think about.  

These organizations have to get it together or step aside.