The piecemeal approach to women’s rights

I finally got around to reading some of the briefs submitted in Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, the parental notification case that the Supreme Court will hear November 30.
This brief– submitted on behalf of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Break the Cycle, and other groups—- makes the vital point that parental notification is dangerous or impossible for abused and neglected teens. It got me thinking about the politics of anti-violence and repro-rights groups working together.
Anti-violence organizations bring a lot of political weight when they stand up on choice issues (like those presented in Ayotte). And that weight is largely due to the fact that they are perceived to be somewhat neutral in the abortion debate. I can’t decide if this is a good thing. I mean, I don’t want to see anti-violence legislation dragged down because it contains pro-choice positions. But I get frustrated when the DV/sexual assault community isn’t more vocal on these issues.
Take, for example, the lack of an emergency contraception provision in the Health Care Response title of VAWA. Anti-violence groups didn’t want to see the bill bogged down in a polarizing debate on choice, so they didn’t include a national protocol for making EC available to rape victims. (Rep. Carolyn Maloney introduced just such an amendment, but the provision was dropped. VAWA advocates wouldn’t have backed it, anyway.)
I understand there are good reasons for this. Of course I’d rather have a VAWA with no EC provision than have no VAWA at all. And anti-violence groups have found other ways stand up for choice– like submitting court briefs. Still, I wish we didn’t have to compromise at all. Because these issues are intertwined, whether or not it’s politically acceptable to acknowledge that.