Hon. Christopher H. Smith of New Jersey in the House of Representatives
Autor: ---- Fuente: Congressional Record

II. Equal protection
Articulation: Project to expand the use of equal protection doctrine to protect women’s access to abortion and contraception. This includes: (1) reversing decisions indicating that pregnancy and abortion discrimination are not sex discrimination; and (2) developing the fundamental rights strand of equal protection to prevent singling out of abortion and abortion patients from rest of medicine for the imposition of special burdens. Positives: (1) This is an area of law that we could do more with. (2) Because this area of law is not yet firmly established in the abortion arena, we don’t have to overcome lots of precedent to be able to make progress. (3) Equal protection claims get us out from under some of the proof difficulties we have with undue burden claims. (4) This project is more accessible to the public than the undue burden project. (5) This project gives us a way to talk about abortion in terms of fairness and discrimination principles, which are appealing and understandable to the public. (6) This issue is important to our goal of ensuring access to abortion. (7) This project might be able to be combined with the undue burden project.
Negatives: None articulated other than the potential for bad outcomes, which exists with all five possible projects, and the fact that federal courts have not yet been receptive to equal protection arguments where they have been advanced.
Possible Elements: (1) Legal research and writing as to (a) abortion as sex discrimination; (b) abortion discrimination under the fundamental rights strand; and (c) analyze sodomy and death penalty cases to see how courts and litigants have relied on evolving societal norms and social science evidence. (2) Analysis of how equal protection jurisprudence has evolved in other areas. (3) Public education to talk about abortion laws (and other obstacles to repro health care) as both discrimination against women and unfair discrimination against abortion. (4) Look to expand the litigation areas in which we push equal protection claims and state ERA claims (e.g. contraceptive equity, challenges to abortion restrictions as applied to medical abortion). (5) Analysis of the kinds of factual development we should do in cases in which we bring equal protection claims. (6) Development of studies helpful to our equal protection claims such as (a) study comparing the morbidity and mortality of abortion with that for other office surgeries; (b) study establishing that other health care decisions women make are comparable to the abortion decision in relevant respects. (7) Develop strategies for advancing legislation that would add to women’s protections against sex discrimination in health care (e.g. establishing that disparate impact on pregnant women is sex discrimination).

III. Undue burden
Articulation: Project to limit the’application of the undue burden standard and to increase its ‘‘bite’’ so as to bring it as close to strict scrutiny as possible. This includes: (1) limiting the application of the undue burden standard (e.g. requiring a health exception and service of a legitimate state interest regardless of burdens); (2) developing meaningful purpose prong challenges; and (3) developing case law establishing some burdens as undue.
Positives: (1) The law in this area is not yet fully developed so we have some more room to make progress than we do in other areas. (2) Progress in this area would positively affect all our abortion cases. (3) This issue is important to our goal of ensuring access to abortion.
Negatives: (1) This project is difficult to support through public education or media (since it is so legally-focused). (2) These kinds of cases are very resource-intensive. (3) Successes in these factually-intense cases can be difficult to apply more broadly.
Possible Elements: (1) Analysis of federal courts’ application of the undue burden standard and assessment of where they have improperly articulated the standard. (2) Legal research and writing regarding (a) how the standard should be interpreted; an (b) areas where we can try to limit application of the standard (e.g., with health exceptions, lack of legitimate state interest). (3) Analysis of which types of abortion restrictions actually have the effect of imposing the greatest burdens. (4) Obtain studies demonstrating the effects of those most burdensome laws. (5) Litigation challenging those most burdensome laws in favorable circuits.

IV. Funding
Articulation: A project to overturn Harris v. McRae by building upstate court opinions, state legislation and factual bases to compel the Supreme Court to overrule its prior decision as it did in Lawrence v. Texas with respect to Bowers v. Hardwick. The strategy would be to show that the law and social standards have evolved since Harris v. McRae in recognition of the fact that, for poor women, access to public funding for abortion is part of their constitutional right positives: Funding is one of our priority issues, and the Harris decision has had a very significant on women’s access to abortion.
Negatives: Unlike what happened with sodomy laws, we are not going to be able to get an expansion of abortion funding rights in the states: we are running out of state courts to rule in our favor on the funding issue, and in most states we have no chance of getting the legislature to act in our favor.

V. First amendment
Articulation: Project to enhance reproductive rights through the development of first amendment theories in areas like specialty license plates and biased counseling.
Positives: (1) We could try to develop this area of law, in which we have had some success; (2) restrictions that are imposed on speech about abortion, and preferences given to antiabortion speech, undermine the right by contributing to an anti-choice public dialogue about our issue.
Negatives: (1) First amendment theories have limited application to restrictions on reproductive rights; (2) this area does not
lend itself as well to a ‘‘campaign.’’

This group met to discuss ‘‘other litigation’’ that CRR might pursue in addition to areas in our current docket. We focused on three main areas: (1) contraception; (2) women of color; and (3) misleading information. These topics were discussed at the initial strategic planning meeting of the domestic program. For each of these topics, we considered some of the possible ways that we might pursue work in these areas; the positives and negatives of pursuing these strategies; and possible elements pursuing these issues might entail.

I. Contraception
Articulation: The Center’s commitment to reproductive rights includes a woman’s right to control if and when she becomes pregnant. We considered possible ways that we may be able to expand our work in the area of contraception, including potentially focusing on: (a) funding restrictions (e.g., restrictions in Medicaid, Title X, and in abstinence-only programs); (b) government restrictions, both on a macro and micro level (e.g., statutes and or regulations; police harassment of sex workers by destroying condoms; school policies that prohibit condom distribution); (c) Title VII and Title IX cases, expanding the Title VII precedents into the university setting; and (d) women of color’s specific concerns in this area (e.g., steering towards certain methods; unique access issues; and implications in sentencing).
Positives: (1) This is an area in which the Center has had a long-standing commitment and it would affirm that commitment to litigate issues affecting access to contraception. (2) Work in this area could have a significant impact on the lives of women. (3) Increasing access to contraception is much less controversial than abortion. This could be potentially significant to donors, press, public, and courts. (4) Expanding our work in this area would undercut the criticism that we are solely an abortion-rights organization.
Negatives: (1) It is difficult to find legal theories to pursue many of the areas identified. (2) In those areas where legal theories are clearly articulated (e.g., Title VII and Title IX), it is difficult to find women willing to be plaintiffs and there are many groups pursuing these goals.
Possible Elements: (1) Research and assess whether there are viable legal avenues to pursue in this area; (2) In those areas where there are well-articulated viable legal avenues, assess whether or how much resources the Center should direct in light of other groups’ commitment to these issues; (3) Collaborate with groups that are working more directly with these issues to see if we can educate ourselves to possible litigation opportunities; (4) Assess whether there are non-litigation opportunities and consider if this is an area we would consider directing resources.

II: Women of Color
Articulation: Laws restricting access to reproductive health services disproportionately affect women of color and women facing economic barriers. Our litigation work on funding bans is an example of our longstanding commitment to this area; however, we need to explore other ways of addressing the needs of this population head-on. While the work of the International Legal Program deals with many of these issues, we realize that the Domestic Legal Program could place more specific emphasis in this arena.
Some of the possible areas of litigation which cross-over with ILP are: (1) women in the criminal justice system; (2) immigration; and (3) trafficking; and (4) safe motherhood/ pregnancy.
Positives: (1) This has always been one of our priority issues; (2) we cannot claim to be serving the reproductive health needs of women in the U.S. if we are ignoring issues specific to women of color; (3) the issue extends beyond abortion; and (4) we may be able to coordinate efforts with the International Legal Program.
Negatives: (1) We are not sure that legal strategies are the most useful strategies to combat reproductive health issues specific to women of color and economically disadvantaged women; (2) we have little experience (and some would say credibility) in this area, other than defense of women being prosecuted for drug use and our Medicaid cases, and, therefore, would first need to take a systematic look at the needs of women confronting racial and economic barriers, and would need to devote the resources to do this properly; (3) cases in this realm might involve non-impact litigation, which we aren’t as accustomed to taking on; and (4) we are a department/organization comprised largely of economically advantaged white women, which undermines our credibility in this area.
Possible Elements: (1) Focus on areas in which we already have some expertise, e.g., treatment of pregnant women who use drugs or abuse alcohol, women in prisons and funding issues. (2) Identify other areas in which specific issues facing women with economic and social barriers could be remedied or addressed through legal strategies, e.g., issues facing immigrants and migrant workers, and safe motherhood/pregnancy issues. (3) Work in partnership and build relationships with other groups working on issues affecting the health of women of color. (4) Identify legal strategies.

III. Misleading Information
Articulation: This area includes the following issues, which we believe contain misleading information by definition, or often incorporate misleading information: (1) abstinence- only education; (2) abortion/breast cancer link; (3) crisis pregnancy centers (‘‘CPC’s’’); and projects by anti organizations such as Life Dynamics Inc. (‘‘LDI’’) that distribute misleading information. The most noteworthy project by LDI was their campaign to public schools indicating that a school, or school employee, could be legally liable for distributing reproductive health information to students.
Positives: (1) Distribution of misleading information regarding reproductive health care can have devastating effects and undermines our goal of enabling women to be knowledgeable and obtain safe and medically appropriate reproductive health care; (2) this has been a more recent and successful campaign by the antis, both to the public and in the courts; (3) outing the antis as liars would undermine their credibility; (4) although several medical and health people and groups, as well as legislators, are outraged by these tactics, there hasn’t been much success in countering these attacks; thus, we could stand out on these issues. In fact, we are the only group with significant experience litigating (and refuting) the claims of an abortion- breast cancer link.
Negatives: (1) We have struggled for years without much success to try to develop legal theories to attack these issues proactively; (2) we think that there might be viable nonconstitutional legal theories, but we are not experts in some of those areas and therefore don’t even know of the existence of some avenues; (3) cases in this realm might involve non-impact litigation, which we aren’t as accustomed to taking on; (4) individual cases in this area often are seen as less important than the impact litigation facing us and, therefore, fall through the cracks; (5) LDI has been quite careful to try to stay within legal bounds with their misleading attacks.
Possible Elements: (1) Decide if this area is a priority for us and determine if that depends on whether we can litigate in the area or not. If so, proceed to the following elements; (2) Brainstorm regarding litigation versus non-litigation tactics; (3) Do fact research on types of misleading information and then prioritize potential attacks on the different types of dissemination; (4) Do legal research in obvious areas with which we are familiar—i.e., First Amendment entanglement/establishment clause
(see license plate cases and the Gibbons case in E.D. La.); (5) Determine how to familiarize ourselves with other areas of law that we’re not so familiar with—including business torts such as interference with business, torts, false advertising —both currently and how to keep abreast of changes in the area (have a law firm do a CLE for us and be our consultant on such matters?) (6) If lawsuits are a viable option, decide how to proceed with them (alone? With a law firm?). What are our criteria for project and site selection? Do we have ‘‘clients’’? Are they our NGO partners? Women in need? UN agencies? Sister organizations in the US/Europe? How can we make these ‘‘clients’’ more a part of our strategic planning and priority setting?

C. Integrating the Center’s Program Work
The Center’s work in the U.S. and abroad has proceeded on independent tracks (e.g., we have not used the international human rights strategies in the U.S.). Should the new interest by the Supreme Court suggest we should be taking a human rights approach in the U.S.? What would that involve? Are there other ways in which our domestic and international work could be integrated?
Like the other programs at the Center, domestic and international, Communications needs to be strategic. And for Communications to be strategic, the Center must have a clearly articulated goal. So the first question we must ask is, Why communications? What purpose does it serve for the Center? Depending on the organization, Communications strategies vary widely. Here are two examples from two organizations whose Communications programs I directed before coming to the Center.
The Vera Institute of Justice had an entrepreneurial goal. We wanted government officials to hire us to make government justice systems fairer and more efficient. We believed that without actual government investment in the research and projects we piloted, there wouldn’t be the necessary will to change. And we wanted to be known, unlike government bureaucracy, as an organization that got things done. This goal meant that Communications strategy focused on marketing more than advocacy. We developed strong research reports and briefing papers, as well as attractive and forceful ‘‘identity’’ materials (that described what we do). We also established the president and other key staff and colleagues as trusted and authoritative resources. But we kept a very low media profile, with a few exceptions. For example, when we launched our citizens’ jury project, which essentially acted as ombudsman for jurors in New York City courts, Judge Kaye encouraged us to publicize it as much as possible, because we wanted New York City residents to use the service. For the most part, however, we sought less to get our name in the media than, to change the quality of reporting on criminal justice. So we held a seminar for editors and reporters at which they and criminal justice experts exchanged (no holds barred) views on how the media could do a better job and how researchers could help them do it. An adjunct goal of Vera’s was to encourage the next generation of government official or public interest lawyer who might become our partner in future projects or perform pro bono work for us. For example, we invited law firms to propose young partners to attend a series of after-work seminars we held, introducing them to high-level officials in NYC government who could explain how various parts of the justice system worked. The International Women’s Health Coalition had a very different goal: to promote and protect women’s and girls’ reproductive and sexual health and rights. Our strategy focused in inserting a gender perspective into international policies and agreements, either directly through our own staff’s involvement with global entities such as the World Health Organization or, on a country level, through funding and technical assistance to groups trying to change national and regional policy.
Communications developed and provided written and audiovisual ‘‘tools’’ to these groups (case studies of successful programs, how-to manuals, etc.), as well as policy papers, disseminating them widely through our website, and, when possible, publishing in peer-review journals. We also engaged aggressively with the media, partly in order to embarrass the Bush administration for its failure to support the reproductive rights and needs of women globally. This included the development of Bush and Congress Watch fact sheets detailing the actions and appointments of this Administration that held back progress on women’s reproductive rights both domestically and internationally.
Because IWHC also cared about involving the next generation of leadership, we too brought together potential leaders doing cutting edge work from around the world to encourage dialogue and generate momentum for change. Communications sometimes published the results of those dialogues.

In order to develop effective Communications strategies, we must first ask questions like these:
Is our goal to increase our visibility or is it to change how people think about the Center? If it is to become better known, for what and by whom? What is different about the Center now as compared to earlier in its history? What do we want people to understand about how we’ve changed? Is our goal to make people understand reproductive rights as human rights? What is unique about our organization that we want people to know? What people? Do we want to be known as a cutting edge organization that generates innovative ideas, i.e. a think tank for litigation and jurisprudence? Do we have a special role to play to encourage thinking about the proper role of the courts in protecting reproductive rights?

1. Introductions, agenda for workshop, strategic planning overview, rules, and roles [9:00–9:30].
2. Agree on a planning perspective [9:30– 9:45]: What can we accomplish in this political and economic environment? What are appropriate strategic planning horizons for the Center and our issues? e.g. Next 1–2 years; 3–5 years; 5 years plus. How do we combine strategic cost reduction and strategic planning?
3. Identify the Issues Raised During the Strategic Planning Interviews and Staff Workshops [9:45–10:15]. Focus the Work
4. International Legal Program: How can we begin to focus our International Program? [10:15–11:30]: What have we learned in pursuing our 4 key strategies? Accomplishments and outcomes. Shortcomings. What is our Theory of Change guiding our
future program activities? How do we evaluate the effectiveness/sufficiency of existing international norms? What does this evaluation mean for focusing our work, e.g.: Testing international and regional enforcement mechanisms? Timeframe? Selecting priority countries, issues, projects? Morning Break [11:30–11:45].
5. Domestic Legal Program: What are the opportunities and limitations in our agenda? [11:45–1:00] What is the future of traditional abortion jurisprudence? How is our defensive work moving the legal norms forward? What is the importance of our continuing litigation work in other areas? Who else does this work and what gives the Center a competitive advantage? What is a more systematic approach to strengthening the abortion case? What would it mean for CRR? Which issues, e.g. minors and equal protection? Who else do we bring to the table? Lunch [1:00–2:00]. Coordination Across Programs
6. A Global Perspective: How can we better coordinate our International and Domestic programs? [2–2:45] What are the implications for the U.S. as we advocate for International norms? Why don’t we treat the U.S. as a country in the world of nations? Would the distinct programs have more commonality and synergy if the International Program focused on legal and
Human Rights enforcements? How will this coordination change/enhance our domestic and international agendas?
7. Communications: What issues should we consider as we make Communications a more substantive part of the work we do? [2:45–3:30] How should we design a communications program to influence/shape the legal landscape around reproductive rights? How should broader communications strategy integrate our litigation, legislative, research, and advocacy work? How can we shape and frame our messages differently? More aggressively? With more resonance to more constituents? What would a multi-year program look like? Afternoon Break [3:30–3:45] Leadership
8. Leadership: How can the Center use its expertise to exert more leadership? Distinguish ourselves? Become more collaborative? [3:45–4:45] What do we mean by ‘‘leadership’’ and how do we better/more effectively communicate our leadership role and position ourselves as leaders? Can we set the broader agenda for the Reproductive Rights (RR) movement? What will it take to incorporate RR work into a broader Human Rights agenda? What can we learn and apply from other serious disciplines? What does it mean to ‘‘stay on the cutting edge’’? How do we engage the broader public interest bar? Next 3–5 years Wrap-Up and Next Steps [4:45–5:151 Cocktail Reception [5:15–6:15]

(The following program descriptions focus on our core legal program. We have not included descriptions of our state and federal programs as well as our ongoing counsel to providers and patients.) Domestic Legal Program. Our core strategy domestically is the use of high-impact litigation to secure the highest constitutional protections for women’s reproductive rights. Our domestic staff attorneys are among the most senior and experienced reproductive rights litigators in the country. With 21 cases in 13 states—on issues ranging from abortion bans to funding restrictions to forced parental involvement laws—we have the largest and most diverse docket of any pro-choice organization in the United States. The Center has won two landmark cases before the United States Supreme Court: Stenberg v. Carhart (striking down Nebraska’s so-called ‘‘partial-birth abortion’’ ban as an unconstitutional violation of Roe v. Wade) and Ferguson v. City of Charleston (affirming the right to confidential medical are and informed consent by striking down drug-testing scheme targeting poor women of color). In addition, we have: Secured and restored Medicaid funds for low-income women seeking abortions, with victories in 14 states; Successfully fought ‘‘partial birth abortion’’ bans and other access restrictions, with victories in 16 states; and Challenged parental consent and notification laws, with victories in 5 states. International Legal Program. The Center’s international program works to establish reproductive rights as human rights by using international law and legal mechanisms to advance legal norms and secure women’s access to quality reproductive health care globally. We are the world’s only organization of international human rights lawyers that focus exclusively and extensively on reproductive rights. Nearly all of our international legal advisors come from the regions we cover; all have honed their skills at top law schools, legal organizations and national- level NGO’s before joining the Center. At the heart of our international work is a commitment to building a global network for reproductive rights legal advocacy by building the capacity of NGO’s to use international human rights laws and mechanisms to advance reproductive rights. The Center’s international program implements four key strategies: Researching and reporting on national laws, policies and judicial decisions; Advocating in international and regional human rights fora; Documenting reproductive rights violations in fact-finding reports; and Training NGO’s and lawyers through legal fellowships and visiting attorney programs, workshops, published and online resources and other technical assistance. Key accomplishments under these strategies include: Conceptualizing and publishing the Women
of the World (WOW) series. Non-governmental organizations must be able to identify national and regional legal obstacles to
furthering reproductive rights in order to craft effective advocacy strategies for removing them. No comprehensive listing of laws and policies existed, however, until the Center launched the WOW series in 1996. Researched and written with partner NGOs, these regional reports document the laws and policies of 50 nations. They cover a range of issues, including: health, abortion, population and family planning, contraception, safe motherhood and women’s legal status. To date, we have completed four regional reports: Anglophone Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, Francophone Africa, and East Central Europe. Publishing Bodies On Trial, which documents a significant gap between reproductive rights law and judicial interpretation in five Latin American countries. The Center’s 150-page report serves as a resource not only in Latin America and the Caribbean but in other regions where advocates are evaluating potential litigation strategies to advance reproductive rights.
Filing groundbreaking legal cases in the Inter-American human rights system and in the UN Human Rights Committee, with two successful settlements to date to ensure that Peru’s government abides by international agreements and its existing reproductive rights-related laws. Securing favorable interpretations of international human rights law from UN and regional human rights bodies, and documenting the increasingly progressive jurisprudence of the UN Treaty-Monitoring bodies in our 300-page report, Bringing Rights to Bear.
Investigating reproductive rights violations in over seven countries, including two reports on Chile and El Salvador that highlighted the role of criminal abortion laws in maternal mortality and two reports that generated significant public pressure to reform criminal abortion laws in Nepal and to safeguard women’s rights to informed consent in Slovakia.
Providing technical assistance and capacity to use legal strategies to advance reproductive rights to over 100 organizations in over 45 countries, including training over 16 lawyers in reproductive rights advocacy at our New York office for periods of at least three months. Launching the Safe Pregnancy Project, a series of fact-finding reports that document laws and policies contributing to maternal mortality in select countries, and make recommendations for change. Our first report, on Mali, was released in February 2003 and presented at the landmark Amanitare Conference in South Africa in March. Advancing adolescents’ access to reproductive health services through reporting, factfinding and legal advocacy. Our WOW reports specifically isolate legal and policy barriers to adolescents’ reproductive and sexual health and rights. Our analysis of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is a definitive resource for advocates and key UN staff alike, as is our fact-finding report, State of Denial, on the inadequate legal and policy protections of adolescents’ access to services and information in Zimbabwe. Establishing our website as the go-to online resource for international reproductive rights legal advocacy. In the past year, advocates in over 150 countries downloaded over 250,000 Center publications.

In August, September, and October of 2003, Nancy Raybin and Elizabeth Lowell of Raybin Associates conducted some 18 strategic planning interviews with members of the Center’s Board of Directors (10), representatives of long-term institutional funders (5), and colleagues at other organizations concerned with reproductive rights (3). (We did not discuss funding opportunities with any specificity during these conversations because these issues were being addressed in separate Development Assessment interviews by Miller/Rollins.) We also interviewed members of the management team and other Center staff and facilitated several brainstorming sessions with Center staff of both the Domestic Program and the International Program. All of these (continuing) conversations, either face-toface or by telephone (when geography or schedule did not permit a personal meeting), focused on creating a vision and future strategies for the Center. Raybin Associates’ work intentionally did not focus on internal management and organization, as that had been the subject of fairly recent strategic planning work. A ‘‘white paper,’’ prepared by President Nancy Northup, was sent to each study participant prior to the interview. Some interviewees read the material, some did not, and several Trustees felt that they did not know enough to comment intelligently on the issues and questions raised in the paper. In most instances, they deferred on issues of strategy to Center staff, whom they trust to define and set the direction for the future. Board members unequivocally welcomed the Center’s new Director and praised the staff’s legal expertise.
The remarks below are both a synthesis and summary of what we learned in our interviews with Trustees, funders, and colleagues. There is no input here from the staff workshops. We have separated the comments made by Trustees from those made by funders and colleagues. A copy of our Interview Guideline is appended; it is important to note that some participants’ lack of knowledge meant that many of our questions were not addressed.

Differentiating the Center
Most Trustees noted that what differentiates the Center is its law and legal work. They noted ‘‘expertise around Reproductive
Rights (RR) and Human Rights (HR),’’ ‘‘brilliant, focused, sophisticated lawyers who can fight and win,’’ and ‘‘who work on the ‘cutting edge.’ ’’ One Trustee noted that it is the only organization working on the legal and human rights aspects of RR, but most felt at a loss to speak concisely and specifically about what the Center does that makes it different from other ‘‘players’’ in the field Trustees also cited international work as a unique aspect of the Center, but were unclear as to the specifics of this work. Funders and Colleagues could, and did, give definition to the international role. They talked about the Center’s role in ‘‘linking groups of people trying to advance women’s issues globally,’’ how the Center helps ‘‘to define and challenge national legal systems,’’ and how ‘‘finely-honed the legalistic work’’ is. One funder declared, however, that the legalistic often comes at the expense of economic and social justice—and gave a stark example of a Somali woman.
While one funder noted that the Center is unique because of its strong commitment to RR, two others noted: ‘‘other organizations are also grappling with these issues.’’ ‘‘The Center should place itself within the range of another groups which do similar work. . . . It is not enough to assert you are unique—you must describe why.’’ ‘‘The Center is not unique in litigation; both Planned Parenthood and the ACLU also litigate: How are the client base and issues different and has the Center deliberately developed their expertise accordingly . . . or has it just happened?’’ One colleague asked about how the
Center views itself: ‘‘as a litigating organization or as a broader advocacy group?’’
Articulating a broad vision for the next five years
Trustees hold the Center’s staff in extremely high regard. Their level of respect and trust is extraordinary. Most Trustees would largely defer to staff in setting the vision for the future and determining the direction. Having said that, most believe that the domestic focus should still be on abortion. Several Trustees mentioned that they would also like to see work in the related areas of Emergency Contraception (EC), contraceptive equity and comprehensive sex education, including work with adolescents. Most Trustees think that the image and reputation of the Center needs clarifying and heightening and that collaboration with other RR and HR groups would help to improve the Center’s visibility as well as move the agenda(s) forward. Funders and colleagues believe strongly that the broad vision for the next five years must be ‘‘ruthlessly prioritized.’’ ‘‘Their approach should be outcomes-oriented. It’s not good enough just to research, write a present. Engineer backwards from what they ant to see happen.’’ ‘‘I understand the causal model of theory of change; spell it out for us; define the outcome you expect . . . not just winning decisions.’’ Most see this as requiring more sharing of expertise. Indeed, partnering with other organizations, both domestic and international, was a strong and recurrent theme in all of their comments.
Nepal and Slovakia were cited as examples. where the Center had identified local groups with which to work and had been successful. Acknowledging that the Center cannot do it all, ‘‘after the outcomes are defined, then the Center needs to determine who best to work with locally.’’ ‘‘Greater collaboration must be a defining characteristic of the Center’s future work.’’ In speaking about the international program, one colleague suggested that ‘‘publicly shaming a country, so that it is coerced in doing the right thing (the Amnesty International model) will not work around Reproductive Rights. If, however, the ILP saw itself as a midwife to the global choice movement that would be a longer-term, albeit less glamorous vision.’’
Funders and colleagues also envision the need for continuing emphasis on Reproductive Rights. ‘‘We must ‘stay the course.’ ’’ Several commented: ‘‘the Center must continue as the legal reference point for policy implications and shaping thinking and monitoring.’’ Most called for a more proactive stance identifying and analyzing trends—and potential backlash. ‘‘This is a real need—an one that the Center could fill. They need to tell the rest of us what’s coming down the pike.’’ Added another: ‘‘The Center needs to think through the leadership role it can play . . . there is a gap at the national level, which the Center could fill.’’ They would also like to see the Center ‘‘provide new and useful information and training’’ and ‘‘more paper for colleagues and constituents.’’ ‘‘We should get something every three to six months from the Center about what’s happening in the field.’ ‘But, there is so much information reaching people in the RR arena that if the Center were to spend time better packaging and abbreviating materials, it would get more mileage out of its work.’’ ‘‘Electronic newsletters are effective.’’ Several funders proposed a serious analysis of Roe v. Wade soon to ascertain the roadblocks lying ahead and the best options for addressing them. None thought that Roe v. Wade would fall, but that it ‘‘might be left out there, hanging all by itself . . . Then what? We need to think that through now.’’ ‘‘What happens after PBA? If we win? If we lose? The legal win should not become the public relations loss. There must be a strategy for this.’’
Involving and energizing constituents
Trustees, finders and colleagues agree that shaping the Center’s focus and making it more easily articulated will help constituents become more involved. ‘‘If we comprehend it ourselves and can explain it to others, we are more likely to activate people.’’ Trustees noted: ‘‘our inability to clearly articulate makes us poor ambassadors for the cause.’’ Trustees would also like to see a succinct list of successes, both domestic and international, with a timeline, and an explanation of the impact and practicality of these successes. A visual of what has been accomplished in RR—since the Center’s founding would help to bring home the ‘‘so what factor’’—‘‘So what difference have we made?’’ Funders and colleagues emphasize that consistent partnering with other groups will strengthen the Center’s overall visibility, present constituents with the bigger picture and bigger numbers, thereby offering more assurance - ‘‘there’s some safety in numbers.’’ They stress that the Center should take the time now to identify who those long-term partners might be, both domestic and international, and if relationships do not now exist, begin to build them. They further cautioned that in all collaboration the ‘‘emphasis should be on the success of the work rather than the credit.’’ ‘‘The need to be the dominant partner can sap energy and good will.’’

Assessing progress to date
Most Trustees said that the Center ‘‘does program and strategy well,’’ but they were short on specifics. Most believe that the Center ‘‘litigates well.’’ Backing up this assertion, two Trustees cited the Center’s role in the Nebraska case and its work on Partial Birth Abortion (PBA). Several others referred to its pro-active role around EC. They noted that, despite domestic ‘‘wins,’’ the current political climate undercuts the Center’s work. One Trustee cited progress in Chile and Mexico, which could not have happened without the Center’s activities. All knew that litigation around abortion was a domestic hallmark, but most could not explain the essential components of the international programs. One did, however, single out the ‘‘spectacular WOW reports, their use at the UN and their import to other international organizations working in the RR and HR arena. Another cited the work in Nepal. Funders and colleagues alike felt that ‘‘the Center has moved well since its founding.’’ More familiar with the international component than the Trustees, three mentioned ‘‘fabulous’’ reports . . . but ‘‘want to know what happens next.’’ One said candidly, ‘‘I am unable to assess—it’s been all over the place,’’ but remarked that the Center is most effective bringing attention to the issues.’’ Nearly all founders and colleagues were familiar with and spoke highly of the work in Nepal. ‘‘It demonstrated change processes, the train of intervention, the change itself and needed follow-up.’’ And one referred passionately to the ‘‘practical, hands-on-quantifiable, usable-elsewhere, most effective work in Slovakia.’’ with one exception (who did not think the enter should devote itself to international work at all), funders and colleagues felt that the international program could be more effective by ‘‘working on a country by country basis.’’ ‘‘Legislative debates are needed; they have proven useful and educational elsewhere.’’ One argued for taking more cases internationally through the European Court of Human Rights. And, returning to the issue of collaboration, one funder said that the Center has been least effective internationally ‘‘when it goes off on its own initiatives that are not well-developed with other partners.’’
Measuring success
Trustees, funders and colleagues were unaware of any systematic or specific efforts to measure the Center’s success. All agreed, however, that measurements and benchmarks will be important moving forward. Some said, ‘‘the hard data—what’s quantifiable —is the easy part—number of cases won, number of cases lost.’’ What’s harder, but equally valid is the soft data—the gnalitative—which takes note of ‘‘laws changed (although perhaps not immediately), lives improved, learnings which help the Center in other cases.’’ ‘‘If we lost, did we educate, create a precedent?’’ There was strong consensus overall that as new strategies are developed,they must be evaluated against the Center’s vision.
Substance guiding future strategy
Several Trustees identified the ‘‘shoring up of favorable state constitutions’’ as core to the domestic work ahead. They also want the Center to ‘‘identify trends.’’ Funders and colleagues looked for a more proactive role around the intersection of needs, e.g., RR and HIV/AIDS. Again, they stressed network building (domestically and overseas), collaboration and outcome oriented strategies rather than identifying specific goals, litigation or issues per se (as requested by the interviewer). They also expressed their belief that new leadership at the Center would embrace these tactics.
Domestic and International programs informing each other
Trustees were not sure how the domestic and international programs could inform or better inform each other, but they were
quite insistent that it needs to occur. They do not know the frequency of interchange between the two staffs, although they assume that there is some and that there should be more. Funders and colleagues spoke about thinking collectively with other groups to move the agenda forward, broadening the discussion well beyond the Center staff. A greater awareness of what others are doing nationally and internationally ‘‘can make us all more effective as we focus on what each does best.’’ Most talked of identifying ‘‘cross country issues,’’ where both domestic and international could bring experience and expertise to bear, e.g., medical abortions, access to various forms of contraception, RR and HIV/AIDS. Said one ‘‘be more clear about the connection between global and national. Look at the US impact globally.’’
Race and Ethnic Discrimination as a Program Component
All study participants recognized that minorities and the poor are underserved in RR and HR. How this should factor in to the
Center’s program development, non could specifically say.
Domestic Program
Expanding domestic litigation beyond abortion? The Trustees believe that abortion is still the key issue. But many also think that the Center should ‘‘move beyond’’ and address linked issues. They cited EC, HIV/AIDS, work, with teens, and family planning ‘‘wherever there are legal issues (e.g., women denied prenatal care.)’’ ‘‘If Medicare funding changes, will there be a legal issue there? Is there a legal issue around the misinformation around abortion on the government website?’ Trustees have a deep concern that the image of the Center is ‘‘only around abortion’’ and believe that image must change, so that the public has a greater understanding of the overall impact on women’s lives of what the Center does. One suggested that every time the Center is litigating a case, there be a full explanation of how the case fits into the larger context. One Trustee believes that Roe v. Wade could be overturned and that the Center should begin now to develop strategy. Another said, ‘‘If it is overturned, we’ll know in advance and have time. We need to keep the thought in play, but we can’t focus completely on it.’’ Most felt that Roe itself would remain intact, but several concurred that, given the current political climate, its impact could be gutted. Only two funders commented on Roe v. Wade. One said, ‘‘it’s not going to be overturned, but everything else will be. Therefore, look to work at the state level.’’ Another stated: ‘‘We need a serious analysis of the decision and come out with an opinion whether or not to continue to defend it. There are lots of weaknesses in the legal approach to Roe v. Wade. If it is flawed, we need to come up with a remedy. Is the Center satisfied that it can continue to defend it? Commenting on other issues, one funder commented: ‘‘Look at the things that are winning and advancing. What is the principle that appeals and the legal strategy that can be derived and applies?’’ Asked one colleague: ‘‘Would the Center take up a broader rights issue, e.g., women’s access to the full array of health services and gender choice and what that means for women’s advancement in society? Who is active on college campuses and universities—there is a role here that needs to be filled.’’ Other Strategies To Make Forward Progress in the Courts Most Trustees felt that there was nothing to be learned from the Conservative Right ‘‘because they just play a different game.’’ Another, however, remarked, ‘‘We’re not vocal enough. People pay attention to the loud voices. We have to fight harder, be a little dirtier. Be graphic and show all the roadblocks.’’ Said yet another, ‘‘We should shine a bright light on the U.S. internal policies.’’ There were no specific strategies suggested for succeeding in non-litigation areas, but many Trustees felt that the Center should be thinking in terms of education. ‘‘Young women don’t know what they are losing.’’ ‘‘Abortion is a medical procedure and all medical students who enter the OB/GYN specialty should be required to learn the procedure. Medical school curricula must address this.’’ All agreed that collaboration is a strategy that the Center must use. Law schools, bar associations, universities, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, and the Brookings Institution were suggested as potential partners. Funders and colleagues said: ‘‘Keep fighting.’’ They returned, yet again, to the issue of collaboration and while most did not identify specific partners (‘‘other mainstream human rights groups’’), they urged working together. One quite specifically said ‘‘the Center and the ACLU should work reach out together to clergy, so that there are religious voices for choice—so that we’re not called ‘barbaric, irreligious, immoral’—we need to have the ethical leaders of our society with us at press conferences.’’ Another noted that the ‘‘litigation messages need to be coordinated’’ and went on to say ‘‘litigation alone is not going to carry the day. It’s also how to position and leverage the court cases, so that the Center can do its longterm strategy. It’s very hard to think that way when you’re preparing a brief at 120 mph.’’
International Program
Global, Political, Health-Related Factors Driving Scope and Direction of International Work Most Trustees felt that they did not know enough to comment on the direction of the international work, except to say ‘‘helping NGO’s understand and implement their laws seems appropriate.’’ One with a deeper knowledge of the international scene remarked: ‘‘There’s a need for a catalyst in developing countries. Help the women in Eastern and Central Europe get their laws enforced and that new laws don’t violate basic human rights. The Center can be a catalyst rather than an active litigant.’’ Another said, ‘‘Step up the international work and link it with the domestic. The US domestic policy is affecting international programs, and we need to link with other US organizations and do advocacy, as well as testify how the US is affecting the health of women. We also need to train NGO’s in developing countries to make their concerns known.’’ ‘‘Do more and link more with other HR and RR groups.’’ Funders and colleagues say that ‘‘one size does not fit all’’ and that the Center needs to do a quick assessment on the work already done and make a long-term commitment in a few key places, where they can support and transfer skills to in-country advocates, rather than coming up with an overall rationale.’’ ‘‘Choose litigation where it will work.’’ ‘‘It is more important for the ILP to choose well than it is for domestic—pick certain countries because they’re key priority areas, or long-term relationships, or because—you can leave something behind.’’ ‘‘Make smart political judgments.’’ ‘‘Collaborate with NGO’s.’’ Said one, ‘‘Push the expertise down and out.’’
One interviewee talked at length about the need for developing contacts within the European Union because ‘‘there is no real debate in Europe on abortion and, there is funding available.’’ Noted one colleague, ‘‘All these factors (i.e., global, political, economic and health-related) drive the scope and spectrum of the program, but it is how an issue is seen politically, socially and culturally that makes it a flashpoint and drives the work forward. Something often becomes a symbol and that’s what you work with. The Center needs to be able to jump on these.’’ Balancing Tensions in the Focus and Commitment of Resources Once again, most Trustees felt themselves unequipped to talk about this. One said, however, that the Center ‘‘should select issues such as abortion laws, violence against women, adolescent law, and a more minor role in genital mutilation, where we
are better suited to be the data gatherers.’’ Said another ‘‘select the strategic issues, those that will command attention, linking RR and HR with rights of child/girl. The HR link is education and protection. The Center needs to bring out the whole discriminatory process against groups associated with AIDS and everyone with AIDS.’’ Funders and colleagues noted that the Center cannot work at the ‘‘wholesale’’ (global) level, because the resources are not there. ‘‘Track and report country by country, within he context of all other international agencies working in these countries.’’ Several commented ‘‘it’s not an ‘either/or.’ ’’ Both the human rights approach and the comparative legal approach have merit and must work together. ‘‘One creates an opening and the other backs it up.’’ No one wanted to see the Center locked into mega projects, preferring ‘‘prioritized focus where you can make an impact’’ and staying ‘‘nimble around opportunities.’’ Asked one: ‘‘Has there been a mapping of pro-Choice groups in various, parts of the world, because donors need to know who they are and how the Center can serve as a backstop?’’

Most Trustees said that they really did not know enough to comment on the organization and operations. All expressed their
pleasure with new Center leadership. Several voiced concern about the expense of the Washington, DC office and wondered aloud about its role and necessity. Most are concerned about Center communications. They want more and better coverage in the press several commented that there needs to be ‘‘rigorous media training for the main spokespeople.’’ When it came to talking about the Board of Directors itself, the operative word is more. Trustees expressed a desire for: A bigger Board; more people on the Board with money and access to money; more lawyers on the Board; younger people (especially women) on the Board; a few more doctors; and more international representation. They also talked about the need for substantive Board education, more effective and efficient Board Meetings and training in their fund-raising role. Most recognized that they could indeed play a much more active role for the Center and be of greater assistance with education and training than they have been in the past. Funders and colleagues could not comment on the Board, but they spoke highly of staff. One said, ‘‘They are a precious resource with skill and focus and ‘on the attack.’ ’’ Another said, ‘‘Given the importance of collaboration in moving forward, it is the bridging skills that may need strengthening. And, you may need some on-the-ground communications/ community people.’’ Yet another spoke of the need for ‘‘better coverage in the international press.’’ Another suggested that there is ‘‘a role for a broader education program and perhaps putting more resources into advocacy, public education, media.’’ One colleague did suggest that, in terms of structure, the Center needs a working i.e.,
‘‘giving and getting,’’ Board and another entity composed of ‘‘non-traditional allies— Fortune 100 CEO’s, heads of universities, heads of major religious denominations’’ to ,give heft and an ethical imprimatur to its work.

Money for new strategies
Trustees, funders and colleagues alike have no sense of how much money will be needed to finance new strategies. Several Trustees and one funder spoke of redirecting more, if not all, of the unrestricted money into the domestic program. Said one Trustee: ‘‘The ratio should be 6:1 Domestic to International. It’s where we need to focus our efforts.’’ Most Trustees suspect that new strategies will have leaner resources with which to be implemented and therefore, the strategies will have to be ‘‘very focused.’’
Source(s) of money
All study participants concur that the source of future monies will need to be individuals. Funders said ‘‘it’s a tough time for
us. Some have left the population field; some have been affected by the stock market. (We) don’t see much new money and the existing money is shrinking.’’ One funder pointed to a great deal of government funding available in Europe, should the Center choose to involve itself there.
Building capacity
Trustees worry about the age of individual donors. ‘‘This is an area largely funded by donors over 60 years old. Where are the people in their 30’s and 40’s?’’ They see a critical role for the Center’s Board in attracting the next generation of donors who will keep the issues alive and fund them. One colleague noted that ‘‘the Center is way ahead of others in capacity building,’’ and without offering any suggestions, is confident that funding will be found Funders, colleagues and Trustees expressed confidence and hope in the Center’s new leadership and other staff (specifically, Development, Domestic and International Program leaders) to articulate the needs and to identify and solicit the funding necessary to carry the Center forward.
Describe current task, the link to prior strategic planning efforts, and coordination with the development audit Clarify terms, language, jargon Understand Interviewee’s:—Experience and knowledge in this or related fields; and experience with and knowledge about the Center.
Reactions to White Paper Mission and vision
What does the Center do that differentiates it from other organizations and individuals? What have been the Center’s emphases in the ‘‘mission and values’’ statement in the last 5 years? How would you articulate a broad vision for the next 5 years? How will this affect Scope of activities/projects/docket; size; ‘‘Competitive advantage; and Image/reputation, etc.? How will the Center involve and energize both internal and external constituents, in a new and/or expanded vision?
Strategy and Program
How would you assess the Center’s progress to date? What does the Center do well? Less well? Why? What have been the essential components of the domestic and international programs? Where/when has the Center been most effective? Least effective? Where/when should the Center be more proactive? How has the Center measured past success? How should the Center think about and measure future success? What should be the substance guiding the future strategy? Specific goals we should accomplish? (Identify) Projects that we should undertake? (Identify) Substantive issues we should address that we are not addressing now? (Identify) Litigation we should pursue proactively. (Identify) Other. (Identify). How can the international work be more informed by the domestic work, and vice versa? How should the Center’s concern about race and ethnic discrimination factor into program development? Specific (at a level of detail appropriate for the interviewee) Should the Center expand the domestic litigation agenda beyond its primary focus on abortion? Do clients have other issues that we should understand and pursue? If so, what are they? While we have a broad set of abortion cases on our docket, do we run the risk of running out of interesting/effective strategies or losing our fenders’ interest and support Do we need to develop a strategy now if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Are there more important/different issues that we are missing because of our focus on abortion? Does this matter? What other strategies can the Center pursue to make forward progress in the courts? What are the programmatic components of a more comprehensive strategy?. What can be learned from the Conservative Right as they pursue their multi-faceted strategies to change jurisprudence? How can the Center succeed in non-litigation areas, e.g., education and training? With whom can the Center collaborate, e.g., similar legal organizations, advocacy and policybased reproductive rights organizations, law schools, etc.? What are the global political, economic, and health-related factors that drive the scope and direction of the international work? How all of the different strategies required in different parts of the world recognizing that ‘‘one size does not fit all?’’ Given a rapidly changing world, where should the Center focus its work to be most effective and demonstrate results? With whom should the Center collaborate? How should the international program balance tensions in the focus and commitment of resources, e.g., ‘‘Promoting the application of international human rights standards to reproductive rights issues at global and national levels (human rights approach) vs. providing expertise on developing national-level legislation/ policies (comparative legal approach)’’? ‘‘Focusing on certain core issues (abortion, quality of, care, safe pregnancy, etc.) vs. consistent strategies/activities (litigation, documenting violations, legislative reform)’’? ‘‘Wholesale (‘‘global’’) vs. retail (nationallevel) impact’’? ‘‘Locking ourselves into mega-projects vs. nimble and responsive to sudden opportunities.’’
Organization and operations
What are the talents and resources-managerial, legal, programmatic, policy, political, communication, etc-that we need to pursue different strategies? How should the Center shape the organization to support/implement new strategies and take advantage of new staff and Board leadership? What additional structures and systems are needed to support the Center as it grows and evolves? What are the talents, size, and mix of star and Board we need to successfully implement the new strategic plan? What does the transition look like?
Financial implications
(Not intended to be redundant with Development Audit questions.) How much money is needed to finance the new strategies? Could the Center redirect current unrestricted money to more effective new strategies? What is the financial plan to support the new strategy? Where will the money come from to fund our new vision/strategy/plan? Who are the likely donors? What is the timing? What are the appropriate phases? What might we be doing now to build capacity for the future?

General terms
Comparative Law—The study of legal standards from several countries or systems. Customary Law, Customary International Norm—When there is a very consistent pattern among nations on a particular normative issue it is called a customary international law or customary international norm and it attains the force of international law—for example, that countries should outlaw executing mentally incompetent people or prohibit official torture. Fact-finding—A research methodology employed to expose human rights violations, seek accountability from responsible parties, identify and secure a remedy for those whose rights have been violated, and help develop an effective advocacy strategy. Jurisprudence—Law developed by judicial or quasi judicial bodies. NGO—Non-governmental organization. Norms (legal norms, international norms, hard norms, soft norms)—Legal standards, such as constitutional provisions or legislation. Hard norms are binding treaty provisions. Soft norms are the many interpretative and non-binding statements, for example by Treaty Monitoring Bodies; that contribute to an understanding of reproductive rights.

UN and regional instruments and bodies
African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child—Regional human rights treaty protecting the rights of children in Africa. Beijing Conference—1995 United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women: Global conference on women’s human rights. Beijing Platform for Action—Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women: Consensus document adopted by nations participating in the Beijing Conference. Cairo Programme—Programme of Action of the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development: Consensus document adopted by nations participating in the International Conference on Population and Development. CEDAW—Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: International treaty codifying states’ duties to eliminate discrimination against women. CEDAW Committee—Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women: UN body charged with monitoring states’ implementation of CEDAW. Children’s Rights Convention (CRR)—Convention on the Rights of the Child: International treaty upholding the human rights of children. Convention against Racial Discrimination —International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: International treaty upholding individuals’ human rights to be free of discrimination on the basis of race. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Committee—Treaty Monitoring Body that monitors state compliance with the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Covenant. European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms— European treaty upholding the rights of the Universal Human Rights Declaration. IACHR—Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: International body upholding the American Convention on Human Rights. ICCPR—International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: International treaty protecting individuals’ civil and political human rights. ICESCR—International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: International treaty protecting individuals’ economic, social and cultural human rights. ICPD Programme of Action—Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development: Consensus document adopted by nations participating in the International Conference on Population and Development. Treaty Monitoring Bodies (TMBs)—United Nations Treaty Monitoring Bodies refer to the six committees which monitor govern
Haz politica es una publicación que promueve la participación política del ciudadano y su intervención en los asuntos públicos que atañen a la familia con su acción, su opinión y su voto.
Derechos reservados -  Solo: