We know who republicans are fighting for: the wealthy and the Christian right-wing. That unholy alliance was formed to help Reagan get elected and was such a resounding success that despite seeming to be totally at odds, the two groups have gone on to be famous lovers.
On the Democratic side, we try to do the right thing, but we get so damned confused. We want to win -- not for our own gratification of course, but because that's the only way we can do good. It is easy to manipulate us by accusing us of, gee, almost anything; just toss out an attack and watch us scurry around in confused agitation, like a disturbed ant hill.
It is with some amusement that I have been observing David Brooks, who of late has determined to advise Dems on how to best succeed. In a recent column he suggests that on gun control we blue people should be more empathetic towards those red folks, and let them take the lead. In another special piece of mansplaining entitled "The Abortion Memo", he tells us that if we don't do some compromising on abortion restrictions, then we are letting Donald Trump win. And, after all, going along with something like the twenty week abortion ban doesn't affect all that many women.
Democrat Conor Lamb just won a special election in a district that had belonged to Trump not too long ago. In the wake of which, as described in a brilliant article by Charlie Pierce, David Brooks obfuscates into a win as a result of a move toward the center. Pierce says, "This attempt to drag Conor Lamb into David Brooks' Cloud Cuckoo Land of Responsible Centrism is simply a load."
From the White House we have the brute-in-chief, who is always happy to tell "Schumer and Pelosi" what they need to do to make their party happy.
Enough from the republican chorus. It takes second guessing from our own party and candidates' advisors to really put a damper on that whole liberty and justice for all thing. If you plan on running for office on a truly progressive agenda, you are going to be facing a whole lot of squishy Democratic opinions about why you can't do that and win. You are just going to have to hide those lefty beliefs, embrace those on the other side, and make some compromises.
What it all comes down to, this compromise business, is who we Democrats agree to throw under the bus in our race to the finish line. And there are so very many Americans and issues to choose from.
For example, we might support Dreamers. In fact, Dreamers are very popular. But we might just want to be a little more agreeable about closing that Mexican border. We could beef up security, spend more money on patrol agents and build just a little bit of a wall. (And let's not make a big deal out of all those families being deported, and especially about the children being separated from their parents. Oh, and let's not get into defending sanctuary cities; that's just too messy.)
How about that Muslim ban? We know it's a bad idea to close our borders, and it's not just the melting pot, "give me your tired, your poor" thing. It's bad for business. But the courts are fighting it out. (And if our candidates make too big a deal out of it, it is just going to scare those Christians on the other side.)
Teachers. We have heard our democratic candidates say all the same safe words about teachers. It is so important that we praise teachers for their important hard work that there is even a website with "Words to Thank a Teacher." (But we don't want to get into what it would cost to pay a teacher what they are worth, or provide them the environment and supplies and support that they need to do their jobs better and with less stress.) In fact, one of our own SC Democratic candidates for governor is these days saying we should get rid of 1/3 of our teachers.
Which brings us to an even more explosive four-letter-word: Unions. (Oh, please don't let anyone ask about unions, please, please, please, please. Because then I'll have to say I support unions, but people who don't "believe in them" shouldn't have to pay for them, and then union members will get angry at me and then...)
Taxes. The republicans have long ago taken ownership of the phrase "lower taxes and better government services." The fact that republicans that lower taxes invariably cut needed services doesn't seem to dispel the magic of the promise. But does it? Maybe candidates that fearlessly talk about the cost of inadequate taxation... (If I talk about taxes, I'll be called a tax and spend Democrat, so maybe I just won't say anything.)
Women's health care. Health care. Abortion. If you recall, back during the Obamacare "debate," big republican donors paid for a huge astroturf campaign, much like the Russian trolls spurred in 2016, revving up the American people with fears that the government was going to kill their grandmas with their death panels, and the government was going to spy on their doctor appointments. They even gave them bag lunches and put them on buses en route to protests. Well, women are dying from inadequate access to health care, and our government wants to tell our doctors what they can say to us about our reproductive health and dictate and monitor our care. Texas has closed so many clinics that over recent years the maternal mortality rate has been likened to that of a third world country. The highest in the nation, they had no recourse but to... re-interpret the data. Still the highest mortality rate in the country, but not as high as they thought. (But I'll be very careful not to sound as though I'm "pro-abortion." And make sure that I agree with the sanctity of life, and just get back to saying mothers and babies need better health care. And hope nobody notices.)
AND guns. Maybe our Democratic politicians could stop prefacing every statement on gun control with, "I believe in the Second Amendment" or by telling us how old they were when they first went hunting with their daddy. The numbers of shootings in this country, mass and otherwise, is obscene. We can all agree that we have to do something about it. We can take a tough stand against the NRA when it comes to bump stocks and AR-15's and background checks, because poll after poll has shown that this is supported by the vast majority of Americans. (But stay away from registering guns, or making laws about safe use; we sure don't want anyone to think we are planning on restricting their God-given -- I mean constitutional -- right to carry a gun.)
Oh, I could go on. There are so many minefields, and so much opportunity for republican opponents to attack us Democrats for taking a stand. And so much potential for in-fighting. But there are minority rights and individual rights and constitutional rights being eroded, and we are the ones who must turn that tide.
If we don't stand up for every single one who is affected by those issues, if we are willing to sell out one woman who may at some future time need a third-trimester abortion, or ignore one immigrant whose family is being torn apart, if we allow our unions to be undermined and our workers underpaid and unprotected, we are not who we claim to be.
A smart candidate in Trump's failed America should be able to explain why it is good for us all to welcome immigrants, support women's reproductive rights, and restrict access to guns. We should also be able to explain the difference between responsible taxation and burdening the middle class.
Yes, voters are often tempted to follow the shiny object: the biggest mouth, the most brazen promises. But we have had special elections this year where fearless candidates fought against the lies and the fearmongering, and they have won.
Don't let anyone convince you that the way to victory is through caution. Let us not throw anyone or any group under the bus in the cause of victory. Not this year.
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label abortion. Show all posts
Monday, March 19, 2018
Friday, February 9, 2018
Being Pro-Life
Last week I read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood for the first time. It was published in 1985, and found itself suddenly on the best seller list after the election of Donald Trump. In this dystopian future, corporate greed and science run amok have caused massive infertility. Religious extremists have banned pornography and forced those women who are capable to breed for the higher class of women who are infertile. Ironically, Mary McCarthy reviewed it in the Times in 1986 and found it "powerless to scare." I imagine if I had read it in '85 it would have made me angry. Now that I am older and have an adult daughter, in the era of Trump when every day results in another horrific attack on liberties, it made me enormously sad.
At the same time, I happened upon an essay by Gloria Steinem from 1980 entitled, "If Hitler Were Alive, Whose Side Would He Be On?" Gains by women in the Weimar Republic, increased freedom to work and access to abortion, were immediately eradicated by Hitler. In the U.S. in 1973, Roe v. Wade produced an immediate backlash, with the first anti-abortion law, attacking the poor by denying Medicaid funding for abortion. We have seen that the anti-abortion movement, which never goes away, becomes more fervent whenever women's rights grow. During the Obama presidency, we saw gains in access to contraception along with victories in the fight for employment equality. The Trump backlash, led by old white men like Lindsey Graham, grows in fervor as the women's rights movement has taken on renewed energy, and the #MeToo movement seeks to hold men responsible for sexual assault and harassment.
So here we are in 2018 with minorities and the poor being attacked by the federal government, from DACA to Muslim immigrants, to attempts to do away with the minimum wage. And front and center are the legislative assaults on women's reproductive rights. Right-wing states' rights advocates are pushing federal twenty-week abortion bans, falsely named "pain-capable." Personhood bills are cropping up like kudzu, along with new and improved twisted bills like "dismemberment abortion ban," which would prohibit second trimester abortions. Be horrified but don't be surprised to learn that Trump appointee Scott Lloyd proposed something called an "abortion reversal" in order to stop a teenage detainee from completing an abortion already in progress.
And conservative darling David Brooks weighed in last week, offering his unsolicited advice to Democrats, suggesting that we go along with the twenty-week abortion ban because it affects so few women and we could trade them for something else we wanted to get done, I assume something more important than those few women wrestling with the tragedy of fetal abnormalities.
Under the heading, With Friends Like These...: Bernie Sanders campaigns for an anti-abortion candidate. And in 2018, we in South Carolina have a Democratic candidate for governor who proposes registering pregnant women "so the state can track their offspring and offer services if their children are not thriving." This in a state that refused Medicaid expansion and wants to enforce work rules for anyone seeking public assistance. I shudder to imagine what "services" would be offered.
I have talked ad nauseum about the twenty-week abortion ban, and its basis in false science. I have ranted about a movement that calls itself "pro-life" but opposes health care for all and gun regulation. A movement that claims to be for the family but cheers on the separation and deportation of immigrants.
How did we EVER allow this movement to get away with calling itself "pro-life" anyway? The evil wordsmiths of the right wing have created fabrications of language that would make George Orwell blush. Paul Ryan's "American Health Care Act" was designed to take health care away from millions of Americans. Whenever you hear a republican talk about "gun safety" you can bet they are going to get behind whatever jackass bill the NRA hands them, and that bill will allow (or require) more guns in public places, across state lines, on college campuses, in elementary schools.
And you can bet that they all call themselves "pro-life."
It is time to take back the label "pro-life."
I am pro-life. I believe women and children -- and men for that matter -- should all have good health care. We live in a country of great wealth, that few of us see. Without leaving the Koch brothers homeless we could increase their taxes and provide health care for all.
I am pro-life. I believe that guns and gun owners should be registered, that background checks should be required. I believe that guns do not belong on the streets, and assault weapons do not belong anywhere outside of a licensed shooting range. I believe that police officers as well as children playing in their front yards or attending school as well as someone drinking in a bar deserve the right to be safe from an unstable individual with a gun.
I am pro-life. I believe that women have the right to decide how to care for their bodies, privately and with the advice of a licensed physician. Period. In a country where "a man's home is his castle" and George Zimmerman was allowed to "stand his ground" and shoot an unarmed teenager and collect his gun on the way out of the courtroom, you are NOT allowed to legislate a woman's contraception or pregnancy. There is not an abortion epidemic; there is an epidemic of violence against women, and attacks on reproductive freedom are part of that assault. There is nothing "Christian" about the "Christian right." They more resemble the Taliban than Christianity.
I am pro-life. I respect the right of women to choose to give birth. I completely respect and admire women who choose to give birth despite fetal abnormalities, or other hardship. It takes a strength I don't have, and nobody has the right to make that decision for the pregnant woman. I do not respect those few who have said that they made a mistake by having an abortion, so they choose to prevent other women from making their mistake. Likewise, if there is a God, she/he made it so that if you choose to have an abortion, you get to do it again when you're ready, so stop talking about all the babies we could have had in the world. If I had not had an abortion in 1973, I would not have my two wonderful children today.
There are a lot of different rationales for being anti-abortion. Those billionaires who fund our right-wing legislators mostly don't really care about abortion; they mostly like the distraction it causes while they pillage and plunder workers and the environment. Lindsey Graham knows it is a dog whistle that will keep his right-wing base from championing a more extreme primary opponent and keep the big donors happy.
Right-wing Christians entertain so many twisted rationales for their beliefs that it would be impossible to generalize. Fact free and projected from their own needs and fears, you can find the Rapture Ready, those that believe pregnancy is God's punishment for sex, and those that believe that the fetus is a little tiny baby with an erection that can pleasure itself and feel pain and that is going to be cut up into pieces with full awareness during an abortion. If that latter image horrifies you, that is exactly its intent.
The anti-abortion movement is mostly powered by those who will keep poor and minority women -- and girls -- from being able to determine their own lives. This is why, despite all the moaning about killing babies, these same people oppose free contraception, accurate sexual and reproductive health education in the schools, and health clinics like Planned Parenthood that provide reproductive care apart from abortion. It is the 21st century rendition of keeping them (us) barefoot and in the kitchen.
And this is not just about women. Smart men know that preventing women from controlling their own reproductive lives can throw an entire family into turmoil. Not able to work to their potential. Inadequate time or finances for the rest of the family. The stress of having to live with a pregnancy; the stress of knowing there are options out there, but you have been prohibited from taking them.
In America, we are prohibiting women from options that are available to the rest of the developed world. In Canada, Justin Trudeau has recently reaffirmed his commitment to reproductive rights, despite conservative protest. When we take part in the phony dialogue about when abortion is acceptable, we are agreeing that women are incapable of determining their own paths.
When I was young, Catholics were taking a lot of crap for their large families, and Prescott Bush worked to support Planned Parenthood; later, George H.W. Bush crusaded in Congress for family planning funding. Back then, they knew that unwanted pregnancies were a drain on resources, but now we have a government that believes it is worth the waste to keep the poor struggling. With government assistance cut down to bare bones, a poor woman won't get contraceptive care, and when she gets pregnant, can't get an abortion, so she -- and her child -- will spend their lives living hand to mouth. They won't be able to hold a job much less keep their children well fed and healthy.
Pro-life? Bullshit. It is time to take it back. Time to say: I am pro-choice because I am pro-life.
It is time to stop drawing lines in the sand for pregnant women to struggle with. It is none of your damned business. Embryos and fetuses are not cute little miniature babies. Viability is the false argument that began it all. It doesn't matter if it is viable if it is inside a woman's body. Late term abortions are rare and occur when there are severe fetal anomalies. Only a woman should make that decision. Using science or religion to create legislation to control a woman is unacceptable. We are not incubators.
If you want to save lives, make gun safety laws, provide health care and good education, make sure the poor all have a roof over their heads. Don't invent an epidemic that doesn't exist so that you can win elections.
For those of you who would like to learn more -- and I hope you do -- here are two excellent books:
Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights by Katha Pollitt
Life's Work: A Moral Argument for Choice by Dr. Willie Parker
At the same time, I happened upon an essay by Gloria Steinem from 1980 entitled, "If Hitler Were Alive, Whose Side Would He Be On?" Gains by women in the Weimar Republic, increased freedom to work and access to abortion, were immediately eradicated by Hitler. In the U.S. in 1973, Roe v. Wade produced an immediate backlash, with the first anti-abortion law, attacking the poor by denying Medicaid funding for abortion. We have seen that the anti-abortion movement, which never goes away, becomes more fervent whenever women's rights grow. During the Obama presidency, we saw gains in access to contraception along with victories in the fight for employment equality. The Trump backlash, led by old white men like Lindsey Graham, grows in fervor as the women's rights movement has taken on renewed energy, and the #MeToo movement seeks to hold men responsible for sexual assault and harassment.
So here we are in 2018 with minorities and the poor being attacked by the federal government, from DACA to Muslim immigrants, to attempts to do away with the minimum wage. And front and center are the legislative assaults on women's reproductive rights. Right-wing states' rights advocates are pushing federal twenty-week abortion bans, falsely named "pain-capable." Personhood bills are cropping up like kudzu, along with new and improved twisted bills like "dismemberment abortion ban," which would prohibit second trimester abortions. Be horrified but don't be surprised to learn that Trump appointee Scott Lloyd proposed something called an "abortion reversal" in order to stop a teenage detainee from completing an abortion already in progress.
And conservative darling David Brooks weighed in last week, offering his unsolicited advice to Democrats, suggesting that we go along with the twenty-week abortion ban because it affects so few women and we could trade them for something else we wanted to get done, I assume something more important than those few women wrestling with the tragedy of fetal abnormalities.
Under the heading, With Friends Like These...: Bernie Sanders campaigns for an anti-abortion candidate. And in 2018, we in South Carolina have a Democratic candidate for governor who proposes registering pregnant women "so the state can track their offspring and offer services if their children are not thriving." This in a state that refused Medicaid expansion and wants to enforce work rules for anyone seeking public assistance. I shudder to imagine what "services" would be offered.
I have talked ad nauseum about the twenty-week abortion ban, and its basis in false science. I have ranted about a movement that calls itself "pro-life" but opposes health care for all and gun regulation. A movement that claims to be for the family but cheers on the separation and deportation of immigrants.
How did we EVER allow this movement to get away with calling itself "pro-life" anyway? The evil wordsmiths of the right wing have created fabrications of language that would make George Orwell blush. Paul Ryan's "American Health Care Act" was designed to take health care away from millions of Americans. Whenever you hear a republican talk about "gun safety" you can bet they are going to get behind whatever jackass bill the NRA hands them, and that bill will allow (or require) more guns in public places, across state lines, on college campuses, in elementary schools.
And you can bet that they all call themselves "pro-life."
It is time to take back the label "pro-life."
I am pro-life. I believe women and children -- and men for that matter -- should all have good health care. We live in a country of great wealth, that few of us see. Without leaving the Koch brothers homeless we could increase their taxes and provide health care for all.
I am pro-life. I believe that guns and gun owners should be registered, that background checks should be required. I believe that guns do not belong on the streets, and assault weapons do not belong anywhere outside of a licensed shooting range. I believe that police officers as well as children playing in their front yards or attending school as well as someone drinking in a bar deserve the right to be safe from an unstable individual with a gun.
I am pro-life. I believe that women have the right to decide how to care for their bodies, privately and with the advice of a licensed physician. Period. In a country where "a man's home is his castle" and George Zimmerman was allowed to "stand his ground" and shoot an unarmed teenager and collect his gun on the way out of the courtroom, you are NOT allowed to legislate a woman's contraception or pregnancy. There is not an abortion epidemic; there is an epidemic of violence against women, and attacks on reproductive freedom are part of that assault. There is nothing "Christian" about the "Christian right." They more resemble the Taliban than Christianity.
I am pro-life. I respect the right of women to choose to give birth. I completely respect and admire women who choose to give birth despite fetal abnormalities, or other hardship. It takes a strength I don't have, and nobody has the right to make that decision for the pregnant woman. I do not respect those few who have said that they made a mistake by having an abortion, so they choose to prevent other women from making their mistake. Likewise, if there is a God, she/he made it so that if you choose to have an abortion, you get to do it again when you're ready, so stop talking about all the babies we could have had in the world. If I had not had an abortion in 1973, I would not have my two wonderful children today.
There are a lot of different rationales for being anti-abortion. Those billionaires who fund our right-wing legislators mostly don't really care about abortion; they mostly like the distraction it causes while they pillage and plunder workers and the environment. Lindsey Graham knows it is a dog whistle that will keep his right-wing base from championing a more extreme primary opponent and keep the big donors happy.
Right-wing Christians entertain so many twisted rationales for their beliefs that it would be impossible to generalize. Fact free and projected from their own needs and fears, you can find the Rapture Ready, those that believe pregnancy is God's punishment for sex, and those that believe that the fetus is a little tiny baby with an erection that can pleasure itself and feel pain and that is going to be cut up into pieces with full awareness during an abortion. If that latter image horrifies you, that is exactly its intent.
The anti-abortion movement is mostly powered by those who will keep poor and minority women -- and girls -- from being able to determine their own lives. This is why, despite all the moaning about killing babies, these same people oppose free contraception, accurate sexual and reproductive health education in the schools, and health clinics like Planned Parenthood that provide reproductive care apart from abortion. It is the 21st century rendition of keeping them (us) barefoot and in the kitchen.
And this is not just about women. Smart men know that preventing women from controlling their own reproductive lives can throw an entire family into turmoil. Not able to work to their potential. Inadequate time or finances for the rest of the family. The stress of having to live with a pregnancy; the stress of knowing there are options out there, but you have been prohibited from taking them.
In America, we are prohibiting women from options that are available to the rest of the developed world. In Canada, Justin Trudeau has recently reaffirmed his commitment to reproductive rights, despite conservative protest. When we take part in the phony dialogue about when abortion is acceptable, we are agreeing that women are incapable of determining their own paths.
When I was young, Catholics were taking a lot of crap for their large families, and Prescott Bush worked to support Planned Parenthood; later, George H.W. Bush crusaded in Congress for family planning funding. Back then, they knew that unwanted pregnancies were a drain on resources, but now we have a government that believes it is worth the waste to keep the poor struggling. With government assistance cut down to bare bones, a poor woman won't get contraceptive care, and when she gets pregnant, can't get an abortion, so she -- and her child -- will spend their lives living hand to mouth. They won't be able to hold a job much less keep their children well fed and healthy.
Pro-life? Bullshit. It is time to take it back. Time to say: I am pro-choice because I am pro-life.
It is time to stop drawing lines in the sand for pregnant women to struggle with. It is none of your damned business. Embryos and fetuses are not cute little miniature babies. Viability is the false argument that began it all. It doesn't matter if it is viable if it is inside a woman's body. Late term abortions are rare and occur when there are severe fetal anomalies. Only a woman should make that decision. Using science or religion to create legislation to control a woman is unacceptable. We are not incubators.
If you want to save lives, make gun safety laws, provide health care and good education, make sure the poor all have a roof over their heads. Don't invent an epidemic that doesn't exist so that you can win elections.
For those of you who would like to learn more -- and I hope you do -- here are two excellent books:
Pro: Reclaiming Abortion Rights by Katha Pollitt
Thursday, August 3, 2017
With Friends Like These...
It has been tough enough fighting the forces of evil lately. But just in the past couple of days we have been hit upside the head by our own Democratic Party. Multiple times. Let me just regale you with three items in the news. Hang on to your hats, friends.
My hero, John Lewis, just last year led a sit-in in the House of Representatives, to protest the refusal of republican leadership to allow a vote on gun control legislation.
You may recall that, during the Memorial after the horrific shooting in Charleston, a call for gun control received a standing ovation -- except for Tim Scott and Nikki Haley, notably sitting front and center. Scott receives the complete support of the NRA, with an "A" rating.
I haven't lived in South Carolina long (in southern time: only 18 years). But Tim Scott and I go back to when I was working at my beloved Charleston County Public Library and he was on County Council. In the economic destruction of the Bush years, here in Charleston, Tim Scott voted to drastically cut funding for our award-winning library. The library that teachers in a perennially exhausted school system used to provide the best books to their students, the library that provided an amazing collection to those of us who would never have had that kind of access to literature and science -- Tim Scott voted to slash the budget.
And last week, Tim Scott sat smiling broadly next to Donald Trump as he bloviated about how he was going to get the Senate to pass the health care bill. And then Scott voted to do Trump's bidding and take health care away from millions of Americans.
That Tim Scott, that is the person who John Lewis has just awarded the John Lewis--Amo Houghton Leadership Award for Faith and Leadership. Okay, I understand that this is an award given by a group that is committed to non-partisanship. And I know it is hard these days to find a republican that hasn't compromised himself to hell to follow the leaders of his party. But Tim Scott??? Yes, he will go on about his faith at the drop of a hat. But there isn't a damn way you can call him a leader.
And then yesterday I learned that the DCCC had formalized its desperate need to seek the support of the Trump voter by stating that they would support candidates who were anti-abortion.
I imagine that wimpy Tom Perez is hiding behind Bernie Sanders on that one. Bernie, you may recall, failed us big time when he threw his support behind anti-abortion mayoral candidate Heath Mello in April. Let me clarify my take on this. Bernie Sanders had the clout to offer to support Mello if he changed his position on reproductive rights. Mello didn't have to say he "believed" in abortion; it would have been enough to say that he supported a woman's right to make her own choice. But he did not. Despite appeals from women and women's groups, Bernie stood firm in throwing women under the bus to support an otherwise progressive candidate.
So, with Bernie's transgression as inspiration, the Democrats went on a highly suspect Democratic "listening tour." Suspect because it doesn't appear the Democrats are listening to anybody but their own fearful conservative leaders. Hillary may have won the popular vote by three million, obscenely gerrymandered voting districts and horrendous voter suppression laws may have resulted in Dems winning the vote and losing Congress, but to our Democratic leaders, what we need to do is compromise our values in order to win. The Democratic Party is like an abused spouse, promising ever more vehemently to behave each time they are struck.
Compare and contrast this to the republican party, which has maintained their leadership by promising to derail the programs that best serve their constituents. The difference? They really, really believe in what they stand for. Tom Perez and the DCCC, not so much. It has been nice to see the recent squabbles among republicans when faced with the psychotic behavior of the head of their party, but don't forget, only three republicans voted against the despicable Senate health care bill.
And with Democrats supporting anti-choice candidates, who will they compromise next? Look around folks, because all of us have our vulnerabilities. LGBTQ, affirmative action, gun control, unions.... basically, all the groups that the Democratic Party is supposed to protect and represent. The sad thing about this, other than leaving us all hanging out to dry, is that it won't work. Bigotry-lite will never have the appeal of outright right-wing bigotry. And the thing about the Democratic Party is that they are just aware enough of what they are doing to be embarrassed by it. They will never stand strong no matter what they say they stand for, and then they will still be attacked for being Harvard/Goldman Sachs elites. And when that happens, they will blush and deny it.
With the "listening tour" party sorely in need of a hearing aid, I have taken to firing back at fund-raising emails, saying that there is no way on this still-green earth that I will throw money down that toilet. I do try to say it in a more civilized manner. The other thing I do, and I encourage y'all to do both, is tweet @WhicheverDemIsBeingAWuss to let them know you won't support them unless they shape up. And then send your money and your support to all those great candidates who stand up for all of us. The DCCC may have forgotten what the Women's March and Indivisible are all about, but we remember, and we will continue to stand together.
And speaking of standing together, I glanced at Twitter today and saw one from Bakari Sellers that wasn't really shocking as much as saddening. So I replied.
Here in Bakari's state of South Carolina, the Democratic Party just passed over a highly qualified, politically active and successful woman (white) to go out of state to choose a white man to lead the party, which was at the time being led by a black man.
But you don't have to be a white woman to be passed over by Democrats. In 2014, Joyce Dickerson ran in a primary for US Senator against newly appointed Tim Scott. She was told by our own Jim Clyburn that she should step aside and let the two men fight out the primary. Well, with her powerful voice and message, she won the primary, but you wouldn't know it by the help and support she got from her party.
And just this year our state party put their thumb on the scale of the special election for US House seat for District 5. They unabashedly backed a rich white guy over a young black woman. And they had help from a bunch of big-name out-of-state Democrats. Wasn't a day I could check my email or visit Facebook without seeing that white guy's face or a fund-raising email from Robby Mook or Daniel Barash -- again, before the primary. And yet, that woman who ran without national or state support had a strong message and strong community support; in a three-way race, she got some 22 percent of the vote.
So let's not inject a white woman bias into this debate, okay?
Here is the thing. The republicans have been able to pit us against each other for decades. We have all been victimized by an unfettered capitalist system run by rich white men. Republicans in the positions of greatest power don't really give a damn about abortion or even the threat of terrorism -- you only have to look at how blase they have been at Trump regime's national security transgressions to know saving the nation is not what they are all about. What they care about is power, maintaining and growing that power. And they do that by making people scared and angry -- at each other.
And boy-o, Dems are an easy target. We are still fighting over Bernie versus Hillary. And when we argue over who has been the most victimized, they score an easy win.
So, let me say again, let's not do that. And let's tell the Democratic Party that they had better stick by ALL of us. And let's keep supporting our great progressive candidates. We have proven that we don't need the Democratic Party if we have the community. And with our social network, our community is the entire country. And these days, much of the world is behind us.
Women marched together, not for one cause or another, but for all of us who are suffering from the callousness and greed of the wealthy and powerful. And men marched too. You could march with us even if you were anti-abortion -- you just couldn't march for that with us, because that would have gone against the whole reason for the march. This is about all the individual rights and freedoms that are being systematically taken away. Jefferson Sessions might don his white hood and come after Muslims today, but tomorrow he will find time to go after sick people who use marijuana to ease the pain, and the day after that he will get to interment camps for Mexicans, and then young women using birth control, and yes, Bakari, affirmative action.
The Democratic Party needs to be reminded what they say they stand for: individual rights and freedom for all. We don't need a party to get behind a great candidate, but we can get their attention and refocus them on who they claim to be.
Shock #1
My hero, John Lewis, just last year led a sit-in in the House of Representatives, to protest the refusal of republican leadership to allow a vote on gun control legislation.
You may recall that, during the Memorial after the horrific shooting in Charleston, a call for gun control received a standing ovation -- except for Tim Scott and Nikki Haley, notably sitting front and center. Scott receives the complete support of the NRA, with an "A" rating.
I haven't lived in South Carolina long (in southern time: only 18 years). But Tim Scott and I go back to when I was working at my beloved Charleston County Public Library and he was on County Council. In the economic destruction of the Bush years, here in Charleston, Tim Scott voted to drastically cut funding for our award-winning library. The library that teachers in a perennially exhausted school system used to provide the best books to their students, the library that provided an amazing collection to those of us who would never have had that kind of access to literature and science -- Tim Scott voted to slash the budget.
And last week, Tim Scott sat smiling broadly next to Donald Trump as he bloviated about how he was going to get the Senate to pass the health care bill. And then Scott voted to do Trump's bidding and take health care away from millions of Americans.
That Tim Scott, that is the person who John Lewis has just awarded the John Lewis--Amo Houghton Leadership Award for Faith and Leadership. Okay, I understand that this is an award given by a group that is committed to non-partisanship. And I know it is hard these days to find a republican that hasn't compromised himself to hell to follow the leaders of his party. But Tim Scott??? Yes, he will go on about his faith at the drop of a hat. But there isn't a damn way you can call him a leader.
Shock #2
And then yesterday I learned that the DCCC had formalized its desperate need to seek the support of the Trump voter by stating that they would support candidates who were anti-abortion.
I imagine that wimpy Tom Perez is hiding behind Bernie Sanders on that one. Bernie, you may recall, failed us big time when he threw his support behind anti-abortion mayoral candidate Heath Mello in April. Let me clarify my take on this. Bernie Sanders had the clout to offer to support Mello if he changed his position on reproductive rights. Mello didn't have to say he "believed" in abortion; it would have been enough to say that he supported a woman's right to make her own choice. But he did not. Despite appeals from women and women's groups, Bernie stood firm in throwing women under the bus to support an otherwise progressive candidate.
So, with Bernie's transgression as inspiration, the Democrats went on a highly suspect Democratic "listening tour." Suspect because it doesn't appear the Democrats are listening to anybody but their own fearful conservative leaders. Hillary may have won the popular vote by three million, obscenely gerrymandered voting districts and horrendous voter suppression laws may have resulted in Dems winning the vote and losing Congress, but to our Democratic leaders, what we need to do is compromise our values in order to win. The Democratic Party is like an abused spouse, promising ever more vehemently to behave each time they are struck.
Compare and contrast this to the republican party, which has maintained their leadership by promising to derail the programs that best serve their constituents. The difference? They really, really believe in what they stand for. Tom Perez and the DCCC, not so much. It has been nice to see the recent squabbles among republicans when faced with the psychotic behavior of the head of their party, but don't forget, only three republicans voted against the despicable Senate health care bill.
And with Democrats supporting anti-choice candidates, who will they compromise next? Look around folks, because all of us have our vulnerabilities. LGBTQ, affirmative action, gun control, unions.... basically, all the groups that the Democratic Party is supposed to protect and represent. The sad thing about this, other than leaving us all hanging out to dry, is that it won't work. Bigotry-lite will never have the appeal of outright right-wing bigotry. And the thing about the Democratic Party is that they are just aware enough of what they are doing to be embarrassed by it. They will never stand strong no matter what they say they stand for, and then they will still be attacked for being Harvard/Goldman Sachs elites. And when that happens, they will blush and deny it.
With the "listening tour" party sorely in need of a hearing aid, I have taken to firing back at fund-raising emails, saying that there is no way on this still-green earth that I will throw money down that toilet. I do try to say it in a more civilized manner. The other thing I do, and I encourage y'all to do both, is tweet @WhicheverDemIsBeingAWuss to let them know you won't support them unless they shape up. And then send your money and your support to all those great candidates who stand up for all of us. The DCCC may have forgotten what the Women's March and Indivisible are all about, but we remember, and we will continue to stand together.
Shock #3
But you don't have to be a white woman to be passed over by Democrats. In 2014, Joyce Dickerson ran in a primary for US Senator against newly appointed Tim Scott. She was told by our own Jim Clyburn that she should step aside and let the two men fight out the primary. Well, with her powerful voice and message, she won the primary, but you wouldn't know it by the help and support she got from her party.
And just this year our state party put their thumb on the scale of the special election for US House seat for District 5. They unabashedly backed a rich white guy over a young black woman. And they had help from a bunch of big-name out-of-state Democrats. Wasn't a day I could check my email or visit Facebook without seeing that white guy's face or a fund-raising email from Robby Mook or Daniel Barash -- again, before the primary. And yet, that woman who ran without national or state support had a strong message and strong community support; in a three-way race, she got some 22 percent of the vote.
So let's not inject a white woman bias into this debate, okay?
Here is the thing. The republicans have been able to pit us against each other for decades. We have all been victimized by an unfettered capitalist system run by rich white men. Republicans in the positions of greatest power don't really give a damn about abortion or even the threat of terrorism -- you only have to look at how blase they have been at Trump regime's national security transgressions to know saving the nation is not what they are all about. What they care about is power, maintaining and growing that power. And they do that by making people scared and angry -- at each other.
And boy-o, Dems are an easy target. We are still fighting over Bernie versus Hillary. And when we argue over who has been the most victimized, they score an easy win.
So, let me say again, let's not do that. And let's tell the Democratic Party that they had better stick by ALL of us. And let's keep supporting our great progressive candidates. We have proven that we don't need the Democratic Party if we have the community. And with our social network, our community is the entire country. And these days, much of the world is behind us.
Women marched together, not for one cause or another, but for all of us who are suffering from the callousness and greed of the wealthy and powerful. And men marched too. You could march with us even if you were anti-abortion -- you just couldn't march for that with us, because that would have gone against the whole reason for the march. This is about all the individual rights and freedoms that are being systematically taken away. Jefferson Sessions might don his white hood and come after Muslims today, but tomorrow he will find time to go after sick people who use marijuana to ease the pain, and the day after that he will get to interment camps for Mexicans, and then young women using birth control, and yes, Bakari, affirmative action.
The Democratic Party needs to be reminded what they say they stand for: individual rights and freedom for all. We don't need a party to get behind a great candidate, but we can get their attention and refocus them on who they claim to be.
Friday, June 16, 2017
The Other Side of Pro-Choice
The other night, I turned off a DVD in frustration after about half an hour. In the movie, a woman had learned that she was pregnant, and she was pissed off. She was distraught, and went on about it as though this pregnancy had just ruined her career and hence, her life. I turned the TV off when I got tired of yelling, "Get an abortion, you idiot." "You know you don't HAVE to have a baby, for god's sake." And, "What the hell is wrong with you???" I was imagining an actual baby being born to this narcissistic stupid woman, and also the damage movies like this did to a woman's right to have an abortion, because it did not even consider that women had an actual choice. I must add that I assumed in the end she had the baby and magically turned into a warm, loving mother, maybe because the title of the movie was, "Mothers and Daughters." I may be wrong, in which case I apologize, but it truly wasn't worth another hour and a half of my life to find out.
On the other side, in one of the plot-lines in the brilliant television series, Shameless, fifteen-or-so year old Debbie intentionally gets pregnant, and battles the insistence of her oldest sister and parental surrogate Fiona to have an abortion. As the baby is lovingly accepted into the family, Debbie realizes that parenting is far more than she thought she wanted or could handle, and that she may have made a big mistake.
In Dr. Willie Parker's dynamic and personal account of the battle for women's right to abortion, he talks about how crucial it is to be sure a woman has actually decided that she wants to have an abortion independently and with certainty. In Life's Work: A Moral Argument for Choice he describes a heartbreaking incident in which he thought a woman had made that decision, only to learn after the procedure, that she had been coerced by her husband.
It's been a few weeks since I read that book, and the description of that incident has stayed with me.
One of the things that we pro-choice advocates tend to ignore is that pro-choice means that women -- and girls -- have the right to choose pregnancy as well as abortion. That is certainly my bias. I was truly fortunate that I never had to face that with my daughter, because it may not have been my shining moment as a parent. I know MY choice would have been for her to have an abortion, regardless of her choice.
We make quite a big deal, we liberals, about how pregnant girls should not be forced by parents to have a baby. About how it can ruin their lives. About how they will be hurt emotionally and financially. We know that raising a child on her own is an extraordinary hardship for most women. It is likely to impair relationships, with family, friends and potential partners. It will interfere with educational opportunity and career goals. The emotional stress of having a baby without adequate support will affect the health and well-being of the baby.
And of course, it just makes sense that they wait to have a baby until they are emotionally and financially ready.
But is that right? If I am to be truly honest here, is it more right to deny a teen the right to have a baby than to deny her the right to an abortion? And what about the pressures from husband, boyfriend, parents on adult women to end a pregnancy?
Let's take care of that latter question first. A woman should be in charge of her own decision regarding a pregnancy. Period. There are social mores, as with some religions, that put the decision in the hands of the husband, most often forcing a woman to bring the pregnancy to term. It may also happen the other way, as Dr. Parker described, in which the spouse has ordered his wife to end the pregnancy, and she complies. Which is why it is so critical that clinics have the ability and training to interview and assess whether the woman has independently chosen an abortion.
Far more difficult is the teenager's choice. Would you let your teenager really choose? When I was pregnant at age twenty there was no conceivable way I would have told my parents. My father, with whom I wasn't speaking on and off since I was fifteen, would certainly have stopped speaking to me. My mother, with many tears and recriminations, would never ever have approved of an abortion. And I would have been totally unable to care for a baby on my own. But had I decided to tell my parents and keep the baby, they surely would have loved it.
Decades later, had my daughter become pregnant, I would have assumed that she would have an abortion. Her teenage years had been rocky enough between she and I; I can only imagine the rage on both our parts as we each fought for what we thought was right. Her life as I wanted it to be would have been over. But her life as she might have wanted it to be....
The irony is that as parents it is up to us to make decisions about our children that affect their well-being. And as they grow older, at some point we lose control over those choices, even though we may know better. They may experiment with drugs and alcohol. They can choose to fail in school, drop out or refuse to go to college, take a low-paying job with no future. They can decide to date or live with someone who has himself made bad choices. And one of the things they may choose, even under our roof, is whether they become pregnant, and whether or not to have a baby.
Because we have needed to be so rabidly engaged in the fight to protect our right to reproductive freedom, i.e. contraception and abortion, we have let the right wing control the other side. We have let them talk about killing babies and how those who are pro-abortion would take away a woman's right to have those babies.
It is time to take this argument away from the anti-choice brigade. Because what they are proposing is not "pro-life" but anti: against both sides of "choice."
Pro-choice should mean certain rights to women and girls who choose to be pregnant. It should mean that the government will provide to them the safety net that will assure the well-being of both mother and child. A pregnancy should not mean hardship and punishment, difficulty finding work or even the need to find work while caring for an infant. Proposing that pregnant women and girls should be required to carry the pregnancy to term without financial security, health care, and emotional support services is not pro-life. It is punishment. Punishment for those who are pregnant, punishment for their families, and punishment for the child to come.
Those who are most rabidly in the anti-abortion league tend to be those who are most determined to cut away any safety net that would actually optimize life. That is why Texas now has the highest maternal death rate in the developed world. In a country that has no problem spending tax dollars on prisons, we are hearing Tea Party idiots like Mick Mulvaney talk about how taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for food stamps. While they are promoting fanciful lies about how abortion kills babies, they are cutting funding for clinics that would provide the care that would save the lives of women, infants and children.
If we honestly believe our stance is "pro-choice" we need to start talking about the right to have babies as well as the right not to. And then we can have the argument on our own terms. That is, that a woman or girl who chooses to be pregnant deserves the support of the government. Health care, housing, child care -- no one who claims to be pro-life should obstruct those rights.
It is time to own this side of women's right to choice.
On the other side, in one of the plot-lines in the brilliant television series, Shameless, fifteen-or-so year old Debbie intentionally gets pregnant, and battles the insistence of her oldest sister and parental surrogate Fiona to have an abortion. As the baby is lovingly accepted into the family, Debbie realizes that parenting is far more than she thought she wanted or could handle, and that she may have made a big mistake.
In Dr. Willie Parker's dynamic and personal account of the battle for women's right to abortion, he talks about how crucial it is to be sure a woman has actually decided that she wants to have an abortion independently and with certainty. In Life's Work: A Moral Argument for Choice he describes a heartbreaking incident in which he thought a woman had made that decision, only to learn after the procedure, that she had been coerced by her husband.
It's been a few weeks since I read that book, and the description of that incident has stayed with me.
One of the things that we pro-choice advocates tend to ignore is that pro-choice means that women -- and girls -- have the right to choose pregnancy as well as abortion. That is certainly my bias. I was truly fortunate that I never had to face that with my daughter, because it may not have been my shining moment as a parent. I know MY choice would have been for her to have an abortion, regardless of her choice.
We make quite a big deal, we liberals, about how pregnant girls should not be forced by parents to have a baby. About how it can ruin their lives. About how they will be hurt emotionally and financially. We know that raising a child on her own is an extraordinary hardship for most women. It is likely to impair relationships, with family, friends and potential partners. It will interfere with educational opportunity and career goals. The emotional stress of having a baby without adequate support will affect the health and well-being of the baby.
And of course, it just makes sense that they wait to have a baby until they are emotionally and financially ready.
But is that right? If I am to be truly honest here, is it more right to deny a teen the right to have a baby than to deny her the right to an abortion? And what about the pressures from husband, boyfriend, parents on adult women to end a pregnancy?
Let's take care of that latter question first. A woman should be in charge of her own decision regarding a pregnancy. Period. There are social mores, as with some religions, that put the decision in the hands of the husband, most often forcing a woman to bring the pregnancy to term. It may also happen the other way, as Dr. Parker described, in which the spouse has ordered his wife to end the pregnancy, and she complies. Which is why it is so critical that clinics have the ability and training to interview and assess whether the woman has independently chosen an abortion.
Far more difficult is the teenager's choice. Would you let your teenager really choose? When I was pregnant at age twenty there was no conceivable way I would have told my parents. My father, with whom I wasn't speaking on and off since I was fifteen, would certainly have stopped speaking to me. My mother, with many tears and recriminations, would never ever have approved of an abortion. And I would have been totally unable to care for a baby on my own. But had I decided to tell my parents and keep the baby, they surely would have loved it.
Decades later, had my daughter become pregnant, I would have assumed that she would have an abortion. Her teenage years had been rocky enough between she and I; I can only imagine the rage on both our parts as we each fought for what we thought was right. Her life as I wanted it to be would have been over. But her life as she might have wanted it to be....
The irony is that as parents it is up to us to make decisions about our children that affect their well-being. And as they grow older, at some point we lose control over those choices, even though we may know better. They may experiment with drugs and alcohol. They can choose to fail in school, drop out or refuse to go to college, take a low-paying job with no future. They can decide to date or live with someone who has himself made bad choices. And one of the things they may choose, even under our roof, is whether they become pregnant, and whether or not to have a baby.
Because we have needed to be so rabidly engaged in the fight to protect our right to reproductive freedom, i.e. contraception and abortion, we have let the right wing control the other side. We have let them talk about killing babies and how those who are pro-abortion would take away a woman's right to have those babies.
It is time to take this argument away from the anti-choice brigade. Because what they are proposing is not "pro-life" but anti: against both sides of "choice."
Pro-choice should mean certain rights to women and girls who choose to be pregnant. It should mean that the government will provide to them the safety net that will assure the well-being of both mother and child. A pregnancy should not mean hardship and punishment, difficulty finding work or even the need to find work while caring for an infant. Proposing that pregnant women and girls should be required to carry the pregnancy to term without financial security, health care, and emotional support services is not pro-life. It is punishment. Punishment for those who are pregnant, punishment for their families, and punishment for the child to come.
Those who are most rabidly in the anti-abortion league tend to be those who are most determined to cut away any safety net that would actually optimize life. That is why Texas now has the highest maternal death rate in the developed world. In a country that has no problem spending tax dollars on prisons, we are hearing Tea Party idiots like Mick Mulvaney talk about how taxpayers shouldn't have to pay for food stamps. While they are promoting fanciful lies about how abortion kills babies, they are cutting funding for clinics that would provide the care that would save the lives of women, infants and children.
If we honestly believe our stance is "pro-choice" we need to start talking about the right to have babies as well as the right not to. And then we can have the argument on our own terms. That is, that a woman or girl who chooses to be pregnant deserves the support of the government. Health care, housing, child care -- no one who claims to be pro-life should obstruct those rights.
It is time to own this side of women's right to choice.
Monday, June 12, 2017
The Trouble with Abortion
I am just finishing the book, Divided We Stand, by Marjorie J. Spruill. It was a tough book to read, but important. The book exhaustively documents the fight for women's rights versus the fight by right-wing republican women against those rights. I would say it is the never-ending battle between liberals and conservatives, or good and evil, but honestly, it hurts too much to admit it.
It feels to many of us these days like we are losing the war. Whether the war is for science and education, health care, workers' rights, voting rights, minority rights, and of course, women's reproductive rights.
And, as with every battle we are fighting, it comes down to words and communication. Fact versus lies. And the constant planning that goes into that fight.
We don't seem to be very good at the words. And at disseminating them. We are late to the game and always struggling to catch up. We are always defending ourselves, making excuses, equivocating. We Democrats want to get in and work for people, but we aren't very good at convincing them why, or what exactly we are going to do for them.
Abortion is the most difficult battle, because it is not pretty. You can be proud to be gay and proud to be Black. You can brag about being in the forefront of technology and the war on cancer. You can celebrate lives saved since the ACA was enacted. But how do we make abortion a positive?
It took years for the women's movement to wake up and start saying "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion." Meanwhile, the right wing was "pro-life." And we let them get away with being "pro-life," even though they were also, and continue to be, against aid to women and families, affordable health care, a living wage and workers' rights, and pretty much any program that would actually be "pro-life."
And then there are the graphics. I recall, sometime in the 80's, driving on the highway and looking up to see a van with a fetus painted on it and some ugly anti-abortion slogan. We see them on billboards when we drive along southern and mid-western highways. And don't even imagine that the graphics are accurate. In 2012, this photo claiming to be of a 12-week-old fetus circulated around the internet.
Turns out, it was a hand painted resin doll.
It feels to many of us these days like we are losing the war. Whether the war is for science and education, health care, workers' rights, voting rights, minority rights, and of course, women's reproductive rights.
And, as with every battle we are fighting, it comes down to words and communication. Fact versus lies. And the constant planning that goes into that fight.
We don't seem to be very good at the words. And at disseminating them. We are late to the game and always struggling to catch up. We are always defending ourselves, making excuses, equivocating. We Democrats want to get in and work for people, but we aren't very good at convincing them why, or what exactly we are going to do for them.
Abortion is the most difficult battle, because it is not pretty. You can be proud to be gay and proud to be Black. You can brag about being in the forefront of technology and the war on cancer. You can celebrate lives saved since the ACA was enacted. But how do we make abortion a positive?
It took years for the women's movement to wake up and start saying "pro-choice" rather than "pro-abortion." Meanwhile, the right wing was "pro-life." And we let them get away with being "pro-life," even though they were also, and continue to be, against aid to women and families, affordable health care, a living wage and workers' rights, and pretty much any program that would actually be "pro-life."
And then there are the graphics. I recall, sometime in the 80's, driving on the highway and looking up to see a van with a fetus painted on it and some ugly anti-abortion slogan. We see them on billboards when we drive along southern and mid-western highways. And don't even imagine that the graphics are accurate. In 2012, this photo claiming to be of a 12-week-old fetus circulated around the internet.
 |
| From Snopes.com |
If you have had the dubious fortune to attend or hear a legislative session when the wackos have been bussed in, you have no doubt been regaled with how God has given us the gift of life and we have no right to murder his creations. More clever yet is when the right wing can find an actual literate woman who can testify to her choice to have her baby, and how wonderful that has been. Especially when the argument is whether to "save the life" of a "child" with severe, life-threatening deformities.
Our South Carolina lawmakers dragged that one out in 2015, on their way to passing the abhorrent "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act." Not only was the woman testifying that she made the choice against the recommendation of her doctor, but lo! and behold! her teenage daughter was there to testify, as proof of God's intent. And, because our lawmakers are still forced to pretend that there is separation of church and state, this wonderful young woman was there to talk about God her own self. And she wore some sort of pin with a baby and God message for all to see and photograph. It was inspirational.
And then later in the hearing, a woman who chose the late-term abortion of a severely at-risk fetus testified.
At the time, The State carried not only a photo, but video, of the wonderful child. The second woman's testimony was relegated to a couple of statements at the end. And what else was there to do?
Recently, an anti-abortionist argued that she was forced by her boyfriend to have an abortion, and she wanted to make sure that didn't happen to anyone else. So, she argued, she felt it was her obligation to force women to have babies rather than change a system in which a man could force a woman to have an abortion.
An abortion is a right, but it is nothing we want to brag about. And that is the quandary. There is no way we can dress it up, any more than we can dress up cancer. So we have let those who wish to take that right away from us attack us with horrible words, about killing babies, about how fetuses can feel pain, about how they can pleasure themselves in utero, control the issue. They may have no facts to back them up, but, boy howdy! do they have the imagery.
Meanwhile, lately, with the anti-abortion activists stooping to ever lower lows, women -- and men -- are beginning to step up and fight back. More women are coming forward to admit that they have had abortions, there are more important books written on the subject (Pro by Katha Pollitt and Life's Work by Dr. Willie Parker) and young women are getting angry about the efforts to shame and control them. Comedians like Amy Schumer have brought abortion out of the shadows with absolutely outrageous jokes about it.
Fact: Abortion is a safe and minor surgical procedure. Nobody wants to say it for fear of being thought callous, but it is like having a tooth pulled. It becomes a Big Deal when we bring all our emotional baggage to it, which we usually do.
Fact: It may be a minor procedure, but it is not fun, and not a choice we enjoy making, even if the government were to pay for it, which it doesn't. We don't look forward to getting a tooth pulled either.
Fact: Choosing an abortion may be the best option. Or it may not. But as Dr. Willie Parker says, every woman has the right to the facts, and to make the choice herself as best she can.
Fact: As those sanctimonious right wingnuts make it more difficult for women to have an abortion, more women are dying. While Texas legislators keep data about its rise in maternal death rate cloaked in secrecy, it has just been found to have the highest pregnancy related death rate in the developed world. The same people who claim to be "pro-life" are on the forefront of taking away health care. Women who choose to be pregnant are at risk. Women who would get an abortion if they had a real choice are at risk.
Fact: Women are perfectly capable of making decisions about their children. They are also perfectly capable of making decisions about whether to have children. It is ironic that lawmakers on the one hand have decided it is up to them to control women's reproduction because they don't believe women are capable of making the right choice; meanwhile, they wash their hands of anything they might do to help women struggling to raise a child.
Fact: God did not choose to punish women for having abortions. Women who have abortions can get pregnant another time. My two adult children are proof enough that my choices were sound. If I believed in God, I would say that He approved.
Fact: God did not appoint lawmakers to monitor or punish women for their reproductive lives or choices. Really. Lindsey Graham is not more capable of deciding whether my daughter should have a baby than she is.
Fact: Fetuses don't feel pain. They don't masturbate. They don't pray. When we choose to have a baby, we also carry a lot of very romantic sweet notions about that developing fetus, that all has to do with its potential, not what it is. There is nothing romantic or sweet about having a baby without affordable health care, or a baby born that will die minutes later, or having a baby that you are neither emotionally nor financially capable of caring for.
So, there are a lot of negatives in the above arguments. But on the other side, we might just want to consider the positives. We who choose abortion do it for selfish reasons. Those reasons may include being able to finish college or take care of other children. We may choose not to have a child we can't afford to support, or have the time to care for. We may not want to have a child because we don't believe we would make good parents. We may want to devote our lives to curing cancer or teaching. We may choose an abortion just because it feels right.
In all those cases, we need to stand up and be proud of our choice. Come out of the closet. God doesn't condemn you, and who cares if Donald Trump does? And we need to protect our words, and work hard to communicate our rights and beliefs. Don't let people who are anti-abortion get away with saying they are pro-life; I guarantee, they are not. Don't let them get away with using terms like "pain-capable" or "partial birth" or "dismemberment abortion," which latter is the most recent step on the slippery slope. Fetuses aren't babies. Women don't carry babies, except on their hips for a couple of years.
I am so proud of the women who are fighting this fight. Many of them could be going about their lives assuming it isn't going to happen to them. Abortion isn't something you grow up looking forward to, and pretty much by definition you don't plan for it. So fighting for that right has to be more than the right to have an abortion. It is about the right to determine our own paths, privately, freely, without government interference. And it is about fighting for that right for all women.
Friday, April 28, 2017
I'm With Wendy
Weary with Trump fatigue, I had the good fortune to hear Wendy Davis speak at the 100 year anniversary celebration of Planned Parenthood last night.
I made my way through the half dozen misfits carrying Defund Planned Parenthood signs (the Post & Courier reported two dozen) into Cannon Green, where the event was held. I would have been more disconcerted by the creepy protesters, but it is pretty much the same small bunch that show up at any event where women are celebrating the fight for freedom, privacy and the right to the best medical care. Someone commented, "Well, this is the south." But back in the 80's, when I lived in Stony Brook, Long Island, there was a small clinic in a strip mall a half mile from my home, where every Saturday morning the local scruffy old men and sad looking women would carry their nasty signs. So, South Carolina, don't be too quick to take all the credit for misogyny.
I had been ruminating for a couple of days about the bizarre turn of events wherein Bernie Sanders threw his support behind an anti-abortion mayoral candidate. Apparently he was right on all the other issues, so Bernie claimed his stance on abortion was less consequential than having his opponent win. Apparently Bernie forgot that he was the politician with clout, that he could have stood up to candidate Mello the way he stood up to the Democratic Party last summer. He didn't mind doing the "my way or the highway" until it came down to women's reproductive rights.
After all, the guy had the support of "the labor movement and environmentalists and Native Americans and the African American community and the Latino community" so of course he would offer his support.
Seems he forgot that 1/2 of all those people are women.
And sadly, women who will fight their hearts out for all people whose rights are being trammeled will forget, or make excuses for, not fighting for our own rights.
Wendy Davis spoke last night about her own coming to awareness of this during her run for governor. Once, upon being asked if she was a feminist, she said no -- she still sounded amazed as she recounted the experience. And later, during the dirty campaign in which her parenting was being dragged through the mud, when she was asked if she thought she was being treated differently because she was a woman... she said no.
And she said we have all done that at some point in our lives. We still suffer the cultural bias that our welfare comes second, that it is our job to take care of everyone else before ourselves. That if we stand up for our rights we are being selfish -- and none of us wants to be selfish.
Imagine Bernie saying he would stand behind a candidate who was right on all the issues except that he thought African Americans should not be entitled to the same education as white children. Or that businesses had a right to not serve members of the LGBT community. Or that immigrants should be required to show proof of citizenship whenever asked.
This whole "big tent" argument is so typical of Democrats, who live with so much insecurity about their identity that you can argue them into a pretzel on just about anything. Suppose someone wants to be a Democrat, holds Democratic values in everything but abortion -- do we keep them out of the party?
OMG, don't be ridiculous people. Anyone can be in the Democratic Party. But we don't have to support a candidate who is against any one of those values. Not if we value our values.
I am thinking of the leaders of the Women's March, who initially agreed to partner with the anti-abortion group New Wave Feminists, and then after backlash, changed their mind. Come to our march, we are all-inclusive, stand with us, but you cannot lead us because your cause is against one group's individual rights.
I am not quite as open-minded. It angers me that a group which purpose is to deny women rights would call itself "Feminist." Just as I was appalled that Susan B. Anthony's name had been taken over into the anti-abortion cause.
And there it is again, that double standard. We would not have welcomed marchers who held signs that were anti-Muslim (pro-Christian freedom), or anti-LGBT (pro-traditional families), but there were signs and banners that heralded "Feminists for Life" and other anti-choice (pro-life) messages.
Ayn Rand said it best (!) when she talked about the importance of selfishness. Of course, she got it screwed up pretty badly when profit and greed came in to play. But taking care of ourselves first is a bit like the announcement the flight attendant makes before take-off. If those oxygen masks come down, you need to put one on yourself before you put them on your kids. Otherwise, you aren't going to be around and functioning to take care of them at all.
Last night, Davis spoke about why everyone needs to support women's right to determine their own reproductive path. When women succeed, when they are free to join the work force, make a living wage and work to their potential -- whenever that happens -- the economy flourishes. Our families flourish. Our democracy flourishes.
And I have to say it. I am not as old as Bernie, but I am getting there, so at the risk of offending any men out there, I will speak my mind. Women are smarter. Women are able to learn more and faster, juggle more important tasks, because they have always had to do that. Unless we are Mitt Romney's wife, we don't get away with just raising the kids. When we work, we work harder, but always having to take care of all those important jobs outside of work. We can squeeze a lot into the day, and do it well. And we can prioritize, and get it right.
We empathize. We don't have to be living on $2 a day, as too many Americans are doing, or live without health care. We can understand what that means to our quality of life, and also how the suffering of others ripples through the rest of America.
What we women need to do now is put that oxygen mask on ourselves before we take care of anyone else. We need to stop letting right wingnuts and christian extremists tie our hands, cut off our ability to live well and then criticize us for not working hard enough to succeed.
What do you get angry about? Really, really angry? Take that anger and personalize it. Don't minimize what it means when our Democratic Party suggests that they can support a candidate who won't fight for us just because he will fight for other groups.
And we need to stop trying to find a rational argument that will convince the anti-abortion bigots that it is their right to determine the path of our lives. The argument is: It is my body, and it is none of your business.
After all, that argument has been working quite well for the NRA, despite all the lives lost because of their perceived right to carry weapons. But that is an argument for another day.
 |
| from Post & Courier |
I had been ruminating for a couple of days about the bizarre turn of events wherein Bernie Sanders threw his support behind an anti-abortion mayoral candidate. Apparently he was right on all the other issues, so Bernie claimed his stance on abortion was less consequential than having his opponent win. Apparently Bernie forgot that he was the politician with clout, that he could have stood up to candidate Mello the way he stood up to the Democratic Party last summer. He didn't mind doing the "my way or the highway" until it came down to women's reproductive rights.
After all, the guy had the support of "the labor movement and environmentalists and Native Americans and the African American community and the Latino community" so of course he would offer his support.
Seems he forgot that 1/2 of all those people are women.
And sadly, women who will fight their hearts out for all people whose rights are being trammeled will forget, or make excuses for, not fighting for our own rights.
Wendy Davis spoke last night about her own coming to awareness of this during her run for governor. Once, upon being asked if she was a feminist, she said no -- she still sounded amazed as she recounted the experience. And later, during the dirty campaign in which her parenting was being dragged through the mud, when she was asked if she thought she was being treated differently because she was a woman... she said no.
And she said we have all done that at some point in our lives. We still suffer the cultural bias that our welfare comes second, that it is our job to take care of everyone else before ourselves. That if we stand up for our rights we are being selfish -- and none of us wants to be selfish.
Imagine Bernie saying he would stand behind a candidate who was right on all the issues except that he thought African Americans should not be entitled to the same education as white children. Or that businesses had a right to not serve members of the LGBT community. Or that immigrants should be required to show proof of citizenship whenever asked.
This whole "big tent" argument is so typical of Democrats, who live with so much insecurity about their identity that you can argue them into a pretzel on just about anything. Suppose someone wants to be a Democrat, holds Democratic values in everything but abortion -- do we keep them out of the party?
OMG, don't be ridiculous people. Anyone can be in the Democratic Party. But we don't have to support a candidate who is against any one of those values. Not if we value our values.
I am thinking of the leaders of the Women's March, who initially agreed to partner with the anti-abortion group New Wave Feminists, and then after backlash, changed their mind. Come to our march, we are all-inclusive, stand with us, but you cannot lead us because your cause is against one group's individual rights.
I am not quite as open-minded. It angers me that a group which purpose is to deny women rights would call itself "Feminist." Just as I was appalled that Susan B. Anthony's name had been taken over into the anti-abortion cause.
And there it is again, that double standard. We would not have welcomed marchers who held signs that were anti-Muslim (pro-Christian freedom), or anti-LGBT (pro-traditional families), but there were signs and banners that heralded "Feminists for Life" and other anti-choice (pro-life) messages.
Ayn Rand said it best (!) when she talked about the importance of selfishness. Of course, she got it screwed up pretty badly when profit and greed came in to play. But taking care of ourselves first is a bit like the announcement the flight attendant makes before take-off. If those oxygen masks come down, you need to put one on yourself before you put them on your kids. Otherwise, you aren't going to be around and functioning to take care of them at all.
Last night, Davis spoke about why everyone needs to support women's right to determine their own reproductive path. When women succeed, when they are free to join the work force, make a living wage and work to their potential -- whenever that happens -- the economy flourishes. Our families flourish. Our democracy flourishes.
And I have to say it. I am not as old as Bernie, but I am getting there, so at the risk of offending any men out there, I will speak my mind. Women are smarter. Women are able to learn more and faster, juggle more important tasks, because they have always had to do that. Unless we are Mitt Romney's wife, we don't get away with just raising the kids. When we work, we work harder, but always having to take care of all those important jobs outside of work. We can squeeze a lot into the day, and do it well. And we can prioritize, and get it right.
We empathize. We don't have to be living on $2 a day, as too many Americans are doing, or live without health care. We can understand what that means to our quality of life, and also how the suffering of others ripples through the rest of America.
What we women need to do now is put that oxygen mask on ourselves before we take care of anyone else. We need to stop letting right wingnuts and christian extremists tie our hands, cut off our ability to live well and then criticize us for not working hard enough to succeed.
What do you get angry about? Really, really angry? Take that anger and personalize it. Don't minimize what it means when our Democratic Party suggests that they can support a candidate who won't fight for us just because he will fight for other groups.
And we need to stop trying to find a rational argument that will convince the anti-abortion bigots that it is their right to determine the path of our lives. The argument is: It is my body, and it is none of your business.
After all, that argument has been working quite well for the NRA, despite all the lives lost because of their perceived right to carry weapons. But that is an argument for another day.
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Playing at the Town Hall
One thing you can say about our own Lindsey Graham is
that he is having a good ole time. I
watched all I could tolerate of his performance at his town hall on April 1,
about a half hour. Of the two of us, he
was the only one really enjoying himself.
He knew he was being televised, and he had a full house,
in a way a captive audience at his mercy.
Which I must say was a pretty clever turnaround after all the
legislators who have been caught as though running red-handed from a crime
scene. Which they pretty much were,
given the horrendous acts they had committed on their constituents over the
past years.
Anyway, the thing about Lindsey is that he does a smooth
transition, back and forth, from a level headed, rational person to a rabid
right wingnut. Likewise, his strut
across the stage and his ready laugh go from charming to a bit maniacal.
What he did on Saturday was maintain control even in the
face of a furious, fed up audience. They
were actually constituents, but he sure made it feel like they were an
audience.
He started off with
Russia. Russia was easy. I could tell he knew he nailed it with the
audience, because we all know that Russia is the bad guy. Trump was another easy one, because by now we
all have shorthand for what we think of him, and we knew he agreed. And that even though he hoped the Senate
could do a sound investigation, the most important thing was not to get in the
way of the FBI.
Once he got us all warmed up he tossed the bucket of cold
water at us. Gorsuch. He’s been playing that tune since the
nomination. Lindsey Graham LOVES Neil
Gorsuch. How could he not? Gorsuch is as slick as they come – as I
learned to say in the South, he cleans up real good. But underneath that well-dressed white haired
dignified suit of armor is an angry, mean control freak. Gorsuch is going to act out every damn thing
Graham can only dream of. He will
consistently rule for corporations, which I don’t even think is the most
important issue for Graham. More
important, he will take down women, dashing any hope for reproductive rights,
worker rights, and basically, self-determination here in the 21st
century.
Because Lindsey truly has a thing about women. He could be reasonable about Obama, but when
it comes to Hillary, his hatred is visceral.
And lately, you can see it in his eyes when he talks about Susan
Rice. Women in power. Competent women.
So when those types of issues come up, that’s when we see
crazy Lindsey. That’s when facts fly out
the window. I believe this is why his
defense of Gorsuch on Saturday was so shrill.
As though he had no idea that the nominee was even more right-wing than
Scalia, he told the group that if they couldn’t see how qualified Gorsuch is
then “you are blinded by your own partisanship.” And that our problem with Gorsuch was
entirely to do with Trump (and not Merrick Garland): “You want to set the election aside because
you can’t accept the results – that’s your problem,” adding, inevitably, that
Trump is being investigated by the FBI, big deal, “so was Hillary Clinton.” And of course, bringing up the made-up “Biden
rule,” as though he has so much respect for Biden’s philosophy that he would
follow him anywhere.
After that things went downhill.
There was the usual “Obamacare is failing,” followed by
the very strange accusation that the ACA “was not designed to get us health
care but to get single payer through the back door.” A truly through-the-looking-glass moment as I
recalled progressives’ anger at Obama, who had not just omitted the possibility
of single-payer altogether, but also did away with a “public option” at the
polite request of the insurance industry.
When that idiocy brought about some loud boos, he laughed
and said, “Good fun! This is better than
going to the Flower Show.” And proceeded
to tell folks that if they like single payer, well, Canada has it. And if we
want his insurance we can join the military, apparently believing that his stint in the military is what makes him deserving of government health care, and not just being an American.
Adding that the VA system is a failure not because it does not have the
funding to streamline and have more doctors, but because it is a monopoly. Ending with a fantastical suggestion for
improving health care with a combination of managed care for people of high
risk (anybody remember the abomination known as managed care?), tax credits,
and allowing sales across state lines.
Done and done. Everybody insured.
About Betsy DeVos:
“She has spent most of her life working on alternatives to failing
schools.” The alternative being taking
money out of public schools to profit private schools.
Around about that time, Graham had a brief attack of
sanity. Regarding social security and
medicare, he offered that those with high incomes, like himself, should pay
more, take less. But then came the trade-off: We should all be willing to raise the retirement and Medicare ages.
Now this has been a bee in Lindsey's bonnet for a very long time. Way back in 2011, I made an ad for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee pleading with Lindsey not to change the social security retirement age. It was actually featured on Keith Olbermann's Countdown; it was my fifteen minutes of fame and a truly proud moment.
Point being, that Lindsey is so out of touch with his constituents that he has no clue how many of us finally retire with aches and pains and actual disabilities at age 62, or force ourselves to work to age 66. He has dismissed us whiners by saying we can just apply for disability, as though his gang of criminals has made it real easy for people who are hurting to cash in. He has no idea how, thanks to folks on his side of the aisle, Medicare has been chipped and hacked at until it requires costly private supplements, another boon for the insurance industry. I don't know how people survived before the pharmaceutical boondoggle known as Medicare Part D, but the way it stands now, with the drug plan, we are all in a position where cutting meds in half or living without them -- or not -- is a real option.
And then there is Planned Parenthood, where Lindsey has his final split from reality. Again, a woman thing. He doesn't much care about facts at this point, saying that the debate about funding "is about providing abortion services."
Lindsey is not an idiot. He knows the government does not pay for abortion services -- although they damn well should -- yet he contends that this is the crux of the issue. And this sometimes rational legislator is willing to not just vote for, but support cutting a truly essential source of women's reproductive health care because they also do abortions. Like his blind spot with Hillary, the thought of women making their own choices about their bodies brings him to near Trump-level irrationality.
And I am just sick to death of having these unmarried old white guys obsessing over control of women's bodies.
But we are indeed left with crazy Uncle Lindsey. He might toss you a quarter, but then you have to listen to him rant about Hillary and abortion if you want to keep it. Unlike the other unmarried right wingnut who "represents" South Carolina in the Senate, at least Lindsey's head clears every once in awhile. Is it good enough?
Graham has fought off challenges from the right. He has lately blown away what the state Democratic Party seemed to think was its best chance, a challenger with the all the right stands on the issues, but one who was outmatched in the ability to take center stage.
Invincible? I'm afraid it would take lots of money and a candidate brimming with personality and chutzpah, who could talk to the folks as though they were having barbecue and beer, and damned, knew what they were going through with that dad-gum gub'mint and was shore gonna fix it. Somebody who could make even a thick-headed southerner admit that they didn't want their nutty next-door neighbor carrying a gun, or their teenage daughter having to have a baby when that nasty boy she was with got her knocked up.
That would surely do it. And there's somebody out there just dying to step up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)