Abortion fund leaders criticize national organizations for strategy, funding decisions

Letter published in The Nation focuses on need to prioritize local concerns

(Taken from the Instagram page of the Tampa Bay Abortion Fund)

Several prominent leaders of abortion funds published a letter recently in a major magazine that criticized the decision-making at the highest levels of the reproductive rights movement. 

The article “National Abortion Rights Groups Have the Wrong Priorities for Our Movement” was published on Aug. 7 in The Nation, a political magazine. The letter described the strategy developed by major leaders as “vague.”

Additionally, there was a focus on shifting priorities to be more immediate. The significant difference was that abortion funds directly address the inability to get an abortion, while national groups are primarily focused on advocating for Democratic candidates. The letter-signers want more of the money donated to those groups to support women who want abortions instead of toward political marketing. 

“Now is not the time to put policy advocacy and wealth hoarding over material support,” the letter concluded. “Now is the time to dig deeper into the work that is happening in our communities.” 

The signatories criticized the Abortion Access Now campaign, which was a 10-year $100 million plan to restore abortion rights by building support for pro-choice lawmakers. Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and Reproductive Freedom for All joined the effort. 

Other points of contention include their desire to expand shield laws for telehealth services, which Planned Parenthood opposed. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the organization's staff had privately lobbied against shield laws in New York, California, and Massachusetts. 

I spent this week speaking to several people who signed the letter. Among them was Destini Spaeth, chair of the Prarie Abortion Fund, a North Dakota nonprofit that helps women in the Midwest get abortions. She told me that they had been devastated by this summer’s cuts to financial support those organizations gave to abortion funds. 

“It just felt like they were really missing the moment at this time,” Spaeth said. 

Leaders of the major groups had said they cut support to those groups because they wouldn’t have been able to make it through the end of the year without doing so. 

“There’s no such thing as long-term sustainability when we're in this crisis right now,” Spaeth said. “I think they're focused on this idea of abortion access in a decade. But the truth is, that's not going to benefit anybody who needs an abortion today.” 

Another leader I spoke to was Macy Haverda, president of the Wild West Access Fund of Nevada. She echoed much of what Spaeth said. She said that national organizations tend to create many programs and service lines when money comes in, which is not something Haverda feels they should have. 

“They could have maybe put some of that back out,” Haverda said. “I think some of them add on these different areas that they could have just given off to another organization. They add in these sorts of organizing service lines. Maybe there are local groups that could have done it better.” 

Kris Lawler, co-chair of the Tampa Bay Abortion Fund, also talked with me about signing the letter. One advantage of local funds over national organizations is that their staff is more aware of the unique challenges faced at the local and state levels. Lawler told me that they can then tailor their advocacy and operations.

“We would love to work together,” Lawler said. “We would love to be able to ensure that our local communities aren't forgotten about, that abortion seekers aren't forgotten.”