Fear and Loathing

As I've talked among women about the insanity that is called Congress and its anti-abortion, anti-birth control antics, the question has come up, "Why do they hate us?"

I hadn't been able to find an answer; in fact, it seemed that "hate" was too strong a word.  It just didn't fit.  And I think the reason "hate" doesn't fit is because it is tempered considerably with denial.

My days of studying Freud are long gone, and there is a lot of derision for the man, but I believe he was brilliant in conceiving the battles within our minds.  So let me get a little faux-Freudian with this.

The most powerful object in an infant's life of course is its mother.  For a girl child, I think there tends to be more overt intimacy, and later, more overt battles for independence.  For a boy, I believe issues of dependency are far more insidious.

So, unlike with girls, a boy's anger is nearly certain to get convoluted.  Until, as an adult, you have rage that cannot be named.  That denial of rage becomes a need to protect that gets twisted all around to the most destructive forms of control imaginable.  I'm not talking about the obvious overt rage that comes in the form of rape and spousal abuse.  What I'm talking about is something I'm thinking of as "legislative rape."

It's amazing, but maybe not really, that as women become more powerful in business and politics, the push to confine us has become so much greater.  And indirect.  Of course a woman is entitled to the same job as a man, but she doesn't need a law saying she's entitled to the same pay.  And if she wants to work, then she needs to be a man and take responsibility for caring for her children -- she certainly has no right to expect the State to take care of her children for her.

And then there is the ever more abrasive and abusive anti-abortion movement.  I'm not talking about the whackos out there with there placards trying to intimidate women when they are at their most vulnerable.  I'm talking about the whackos elected into the 112th Congress on a "jobs, jobs, jobs" platform, who introduced 44 bills on abortion.  I'm talking about our own South Carolina legislators, who proudly -- and yearly -- introduced "personhood" bills and continue to try to put a monument to "unborn children" out on the State House grounds, which would have it in good company with the Confederate flag.

While these legislators look out for the interest of the "preborn" against us stupid and selfish women, they are also cutting funding to welfare, food stamps, education and health care.  And let us not forget that while they are stamping out abortion, they are also working hard to ban birth control.

That, my friends, is where the rage is evident.  This is not a case of wanting to help a woman through a hard time in bringing a baby into the world.  This is a pure and simple case of punishment.  Punishment for leading a man into sin.  God punishes the woman by getting her pregnant, and folks like SC Senator Lee Bright are going to make damned sure she pays the price.  For the rest of her life.

There is just not enough of calling things by their rightful name.  Men in power acting like they are protecting babies when they are in fact punishing women (and of course the eventual children).  Calling their motivation Christianity rather than "loathing."  And let's once and for all rebrand that "personhood" bill and call it by it's true name:  enforced pregnancy.

Out of the Shadows

I was listening to a panel discuss the difference between public support of gay marriage and women's right to abortion.  It was only in the 90's that the vast majority of Americans polled thought gay marriage should be illegal.  Now those figures are reversed.

Yet the abortion debate continues to be controlled by religious radicals who accuse women who choose to end their pregnancies of murder.  Our own South Carolina is one of those morally backwards states that continue to glut their legislatures with bills for "personhood" or that seek to prevent or punish the medical professionals who would perform that procedure.

What's the difference?

The difference is that the gay community is no longer in the shadows.  In fact, people who are LGBT have become part of a wider community, in their families, their towns, their workplaces.  They were there before, but hidden and shamed.  The difference is that now we know who they are, and they are us.

I discovered here in 2013 that I am not alone in the fact that I have had an abortion.  As I talked to friends and we told our stories of ourselves or friends or family members I became aware of what was missing from our abortion stance:  it was us.

We continue to hide in fear and shame, women who have had abortions, while we defend the "right to choose."  Choose what???  We are even afraid to say "choose to terminate a pregnancy" much less the dreaded word "abortion."  The ammunition this fear gives our rageful opponents is the right to paint us as evil.  We are the whores, the sinners, the murderers.

And we are painted as such because nobody knows who we are.

Like persons who are LGBT and have stepped forward to become part of the larger community, we women who have had abortions need to be unafraid and unashamed.  We need to let people know that those that they hate and condemn are their friends, neighbors, mothers and daughters.

It is easier to put an evil face to a nameless woman.  So if you are tired of hearing yourself described as a sinner or a killer, speak up.  Write letters to your members of Congress or the Statehouse, or letters to the editor.  If that is too large a step to take just yet, tell a friend or a family member.

Because the only way we can fight and win this ugly war is if we are armed with the truth.

Senator Scott reply re: VAWA and my Response

I just received a response to my letter to Senator Scott re:his vote on VAWA (See earlier post).  Following are several points he made: 

"Like you, I believe that domestic abuse is a serious problem in our nation and must be addressed. However, I voted against S. 47 due to concerns with certain provisions of the legislation and accountability issues that were not adequately addressed. As you may know, a recent Government Accountability Office Duplication Report found that the Department of Justice (DOJ) administers more than 250 grant programs to provide crime prevention, law enforcement, and victims' services, totaling approximately $30 billion since 2005. In light of this study, I believe that greater accountability measures are needed to ensure that grant funds reach their intended recipients—victims. Furthermore, I was concerned with the constitutionality of a provision of S. 47 that granted tribal governments' unprecedented civil and criminal jurisdiction over non-Indian offenders on tribal lands."

He goes on to say: 

"While I did not support S. 47, I did however vote in favor of a substitute amendment ... that authorized the same level of funding for VAWA. The amendment also incorporated gender neutral language to ensure an all-inclusive, victim-centered bill and required the DOJ to audit at least 10% of the grantees each year to establish greater accountability."
 

Here's my reply which I will be sending my snail mail.

Dear Senator Scott, 

Thank you for your response to my letter of February 26th re: the Violence Against Women Act. I have a few comments about your concerns on this issue.

With reference to the GAO's report on duplication of funding in the Justice Department, that department, in response to the report, stated, "using funding from multiple grant programs may be necessary to fully implement law enforcement projects in light of limited local and federal resources." (GAO-12-342SP)
 

"Using funding from multiple grant programs" certainly could be warranted in South Carolina. This state, as I'm sure you are aware, has an abysmal record on domestic violence, being number two in the country for the number of women murdered by men.

But in any case, voting against the reauthorization of VAWA based on a possible overlap in funding victim services' programs seems like "throwing out the baby with the bath water." If you believe there is overlap in funding, then attack that problem; in voting against the VAWA reauthorization you were not necessarily cutting out duplicated funding.

As to your concern about the constitutionality of S.47, it is not clear what provision you are referring to. I would direct you to the following site: http://4vawa.org/pages/tribal-provision-of-s-1925-myths-v-facts, which appears to answer many of the "questions" about this bill. 

Frankly, Senator Scott, I don't think either of the above two "concerns" of yours are what decided your vote. I think your issue was with the persons who were protected under the bill.

You state that you supported the House version of the bill which included "gender neutral" language. This bill in fact removed the LBGT community from the protections under the Act. It specifically deleted "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" from the list of underserved populations who face barriers to accessing victim services, thereby disqualifying LGBT victims from a related grant program.

Apparently you do not think that this specific community deserves equal protection under the law. I think you should be ashamed of yourself.

As a man who touts his Christianity at every opportunity, you should be well aware that Christians are enjoined to "love one another," and no mention is made in that simple statement about gender identity or sexual orientation.

I do not think, Senator Scott, that you serve my interests, the interests of women or the interests of anybody in this community.

Sincerely,

I'm still waiting on a reply from Senator Graham to my original letter.

Stay tuned.