I was half listening to the Nightly News the other evening when I heard about a car driving into the beach at Daytona. I harrumphed, because I had visited Daytona Beach a couple of years ago and was totally flummoxed by the fact that cars drive up and down that beautiful beach just because, well, they can. I just assumed some idiot had gotten distracted.
But as I watched further, it was apparent that this was a different matter entirely. A woman with three children in a minivan intentionally turned and drove into the surf. The children were screaming for help, and the oldest trying to wrestle the steering wheel from his mother. Others on the beach responded to the obvious distress and rescued mother and three children.
As I listened, I felt a bizarre sense of inevitability. I almost said the words along with the commentator: the woman was from South Carolina.
In 1994, Susan Smith achieved national notoriety when she claimed that her two children had been abducted by a black man; after a nine day search, she admitted that in fact she had pushed her car into a lake, drowning her sons. Her stepfather, a Christian Coalition leader, admitted to having sexually molested Smith.
I only relate that story because, as with Ebony Wilkerson, it is pretty much a checklist of what is wrong with South Carolina. A mentally disturbed woman, victim of spousal and/or sexual abuse, responsible for children. It turns out that three days earlier, Wilkerson had called 911 from her Myrtle Beach home to report having been raped by her husband. He had also been arrested and charged with battery in 2005. This time around, the Myrtle Beach police appear to have been "still investigating" the call when questioned three days after she attempted to kill herself and her children.
Earlier on that same day in Daytona, her sister called the police and reported that Ebony was delusional, talking about Jesus and demons. They actually stopped her on the road, but had no reason to hold her.
Wilkerson was 27 weeks pregnant.
Obviously, in both South Carolina and Florida, attempts were made to intervene. But this woman had been wrestling with crises that needed intervention a long time ago.
Here in South Carolina, our governor is working hard to deny people food stamps and health care, two pieces of a struggle that could be easily addressed for so many of us. More difficult problems of mental illness, spousal assault and isolation would require hard work from our government. Ebony Wilkerson has had contacts with various government services, and they have been inadequate.
Poverty, racism, inadequate education, lack of family assistance, inadequate health and mental health outreach, lack of sex education and family planning, failure to pursue and prosecute the abusers of women.
I could go on.
It's been quite a number of years since Susan Smith drowned her children. Sadly, South Carolina continues to be number 1 (or right up there) in all the wrong things.
Isn't it time we stopped worrying about whether we should be feeding people who don't have jobs and just feed them? And how about knocking it off about the evils of the Affordable Care Act, and taking that Medicaid expansion?
Then maybe we can begin to address those tragedies that can be prevented with commitment and work.
Saturday, March 8, 2014
Sunday, January 12, 2014
--isms
I'm currently reading a book about women in politics, that begins with the 2008 presidential primary race between a woman and a black man. Hillary v. Barack is rife with misunderstandings and overanalysis between women of both camps, and manipulations of those sensitivities by mostly white men.
As I'm reading it occurs to me that there is one "ism" that is not addressed, ever. As a 62 year old woman I've been invisible for some time. Friendly smiles don't mean respect for my brain; I have eventually become that sweet old lady that lived in the era before women had a clue.
A few days ago, at lunch with a number of other women, most of whom were also in their 60's, the young, cocky male waiter came up to us and asked, "What can I get for you girls?" "Girls?" one of my friends asked in astonishment. The young man in his turn was puzzled at the fuss. Imagine him walking up to a group of men and asking what he could get for "you boys." Doesn't happen.
Ageism is the ism that dare not be spoken. Just as I did back in the 60's, the young continue to treat the old as though age=stupidity and that they have just invented the world in which they happily live. And the worst of all ageisms is that combined with sexism. Don't call me "honey," and don't call me by my first name. Amazingly, I've settled for "Ms." although I have a doctorate, and I am thrilled when I'm not called "Mrs." or "Miss," neither of which is accurate as I am one of those dinosaurs here in 2014 who is married and kept the name of my family of origin (also barbarically still called a "maiden name.")
Sure it's nice to have someone offer me a seat on a crowded bus, although I would surely stand if someone less physically able were to board. It's kind of nice that people who don't know me smile at me because they don't know what a curmudgeon I really am. Good reasons not to ever want to dye my white hair.
But, people, my brain has not changed. I'm still pretty smart, and probably know a lot more about the world around me (except for technology) than most under-thirties. I also have something it will take years for them to gain, a historical perspective of what's going on. Not just because I've been there, but because over the years I've become more open to what happened in the world before my time.
When I was preschool age, my younger sister and I were sitting in a parking lot in the back seat of my father's car. Bored and silly, we noticed a nice older woman sitting in the car next to us. We began to wave. She gave us the finger.
And good for her. At some point, I got the message.
As I'm reading it occurs to me that there is one "ism" that is not addressed, ever. As a 62 year old woman I've been invisible for some time. Friendly smiles don't mean respect for my brain; I have eventually become that sweet old lady that lived in the era before women had a clue.
A few days ago, at lunch with a number of other women, most of whom were also in their 60's, the young, cocky male waiter came up to us and asked, "What can I get for you girls?" "Girls?" one of my friends asked in astonishment. The young man in his turn was puzzled at the fuss. Imagine him walking up to a group of men and asking what he could get for "you boys." Doesn't happen.
Ageism is the ism that dare not be spoken. Just as I did back in the 60's, the young continue to treat the old as though age=stupidity and that they have just invented the world in which they happily live. And the worst of all ageisms is that combined with sexism. Don't call me "honey," and don't call me by my first name. Amazingly, I've settled for "Ms." although I have a doctorate, and I am thrilled when I'm not called "Mrs." or "Miss," neither of which is accurate as I am one of those dinosaurs here in 2014 who is married and kept the name of my family of origin (also barbarically still called a "maiden name.")
Sure it's nice to have someone offer me a seat on a crowded bus, although I would surely stand if someone less physically able were to board. It's kind of nice that people who don't know me smile at me because they don't know what a curmudgeon I really am. Good reasons not to ever want to dye my white hair.
But, people, my brain has not changed. I'm still pretty smart, and probably know a lot more about the world around me (except for technology) than most under-thirties. I also have something it will take years for them to gain, a historical perspective of what's going on. Not just because I've been there, but because over the years I've become more open to what happened in the world before my time.
When I was preschool age, my younger sister and I were sitting in a parking lot in the back seat of my father's car. Bored and silly, we noticed a nice older woman sitting in the car next to us. We began to wave. She gave us the finger.
And good for her. At some point, I got the message.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Justifying Abortion
Let me begin by saying, none of your business. We need to remember this. Our right to a medical procedure is nobody's business. And yet because we are constantly under attack for the freedom to decide to have an abortion, we have found it necessary to tell private, personal stories and to attempt to provide a justification for those decisions that are palatable to religious radicals in this country that are no better than the Taliban.
Here's another point: we allowed the insurance industry to increase premiums on those who smoke. At some point, we will allow them to increase premiums on the obese. With DNA testing, it will become possible to increase premiums for those who are high-risk for genetic factors. Forcing women to pay a rider for abortion coverage is really another component of the country's intolerance and willingness to let industry profit from it. Which does not excuse or minimize this new attack; I am merely saying we should step back and look at the atmosphere that allows it to happen.
Under the heading of, "I Can't Believe They Can Do This," Michigan Right to Life gathered sufficient numbers of signatures on a petition to require women to pay for an insurance rider on any insurance policy, even those held privately, if they want abortion services to be covered. So, once again, the voice of the fanatic holds sway over individual rights. Of course, this did require that the Michigan legislature do the group's bidding.
Most of us are not fighting for reproductive freedoms because we are not wrong. We are engaging in the freedom that we take for granted in a democracy. We have fought hard for equality, and assume it is our due. But just as if we were a country under attack, our attacker has no justification, only the desire to control us. They have not ever needed to prove that they are right, only that they are more powerful. And that they have, because they are louder and they don't give up. Ever.
And this has been going on for a very long time.
So we need to fight back, and as ferociously as they fight, and as though we are a country at war defending our liberty.
And there are others that should be joining the fight, for a variety of reasons.
Men should be interested in defending the right to reproductive privacy and equality, because after abortion comes birth control, already under attack. A woman who does not have reproductive freedom makes the entire family structure more vulnerable, emotionally and economically.
Employers should want to assure that women are in control of their reproductive health, for the stability of the workplace.
The insurance industry certainly must know that it makes sense financially to cover birth control and abortion.
And finally, as a community we should all recognize that those who are seeking to prevent women from determining their reproductive paths are by no means pro-life. In fact, they oppose funding better health care and nutrition for pregnant women and children. The women most affected will be the poor, but it will also be the middle class who in 2014 will be struggling to provide the best for their families. The additional costs for preventive care, and even more the burden of being forced to carry a pregnancy, can be enough to push that woman or that family over the brink into undue emotional stress, and financial hardship. It can end the possibility of college, even high school, and put an end to a promising career and hope for the future.
And here's something else. A woman who is able to make her own reproductive decisions is more likely later to have wanted, healthy and happy children.
God did not create a world in which a woman has an abortion and is then banned from having children. That's the case whether the abortion is the result of a rape, a medical complication, or an error in judgment. Those who seek to punish women for their sexuality would have us believe that abortions reduce the numbers of children. In fact, being able to wait until a woman feels ready to have a child is something that many of us might consider a blessing. That God may have given us the option of ending a pregnancy because this is not about punishment but about growth. And there are a lot of women who have had that opportunity, and wonderful, wanted children were the result.
I am one of them. Not that it's anybody's business.
So instead of wondering why the anti-abortion, anti-life, anti-freedom people are attacking us, I think we need to see the attacks as irrational acts committed by tyrants, and do what we need to do to control our bodies and our lives.
Here's another point: we allowed the insurance industry to increase premiums on those who smoke. At some point, we will allow them to increase premiums on the obese. With DNA testing, it will become possible to increase premiums for those who are high-risk for genetic factors. Forcing women to pay a rider for abortion coverage is really another component of the country's intolerance and willingness to let industry profit from it. Which does not excuse or minimize this new attack; I am merely saying we should step back and look at the atmosphere that allows it to happen.
Under the heading of, "I Can't Believe They Can Do This," Michigan Right to Life gathered sufficient numbers of signatures on a petition to require women to pay for an insurance rider on any insurance policy, even those held privately, if they want abortion services to be covered. So, once again, the voice of the fanatic holds sway over individual rights. Of course, this did require that the Michigan legislature do the group's bidding.
Most of us are not fighting for reproductive freedoms because we are not wrong. We are engaging in the freedom that we take for granted in a democracy. We have fought hard for equality, and assume it is our due. But just as if we were a country under attack, our attacker has no justification, only the desire to control us. They have not ever needed to prove that they are right, only that they are more powerful. And that they have, because they are louder and they don't give up. Ever.
And this has been going on for a very long time.
So we need to fight back, and as ferociously as they fight, and as though we are a country at war defending our liberty.
And there are others that should be joining the fight, for a variety of reasons.
Men should be interested in defending the right to reproductive privacy and equality, because after abortion comes birth control, already under attack. A woman who does not have reproductive freedom makes the entire family structure more vulnerable, emotionally and economically.
Employers should want to assure that women are in control of their reproductive health, for the stability of the workplace.
The insurance industry certainly must know that it makes sense financially to cover birth control and abortion.
And finally, as a community we should all recognize that those who are seeking to prevent women from determining their reproductive paths are by no means pro-life. In fact, they oppose funding better health care and nutrition for pregnant women and children. The women most affected will be the poor, but it will also be the middle class who in 2014 will be struggling to provide the best for their families. The additional costs for preventive care, and even more the burden of being forced to carry a pregnancy, can be enough to push that woman or that family over the brink into undue emotional stress, and financial hardship. It can end the possibility of college, even high school, and put an end to a promising career and hope for the future.
And here's something else. A woman who is able to make her own reproductive decisions is more likely later to have wanted, healthy and happy children.
God did not create a world in which a woman has an abortion and is then banned from having children. That's the case whether the abortion is the result of a rape, a medical complication, or an error in judgment. Those who seek to punish women for their sexuality would have us believe that abortions reduce the numbers of children. In fact, being able to wait until a woman feels ready to have a child is something that many of us might consider a blessing. That God may have given us the option of ending a pregnancy because this is not about punishment but about growth. And there are a lot of women who have had that opportunity, and wonderful, wanted children were the result.
I am one of them. Not that it's anybody's business.
So instead of wondering why the anti-abortion, anti-life, anti-freedom people are attacking us, I think we need to see the attacks as irrational acts committed by tyrants, and do what we need to do to control our bodies and our lives.
Friday, November 8, 2013
Religious Exemptions -- That Slippery Slope
I was disgusted, but not surprised, when I heard yesterday that the Senate was entertaining something called "the Toomey amendment," which would allow employers to discriminate against LGBT employees because of their -- pardon the expression -- religious values.
Not surprised because the religious tyranny wing of the republican party was able to get away with this lame rationalization for religious groups when in June the Obama administration allowed religious groups to exercise a religious exemption by not covering contraception, which would be somehow covered by other means. Good deal, right?
Not good enough for the rabidly religious. This was a mere victory en route to the next battle. That next battle was that employers, whether a religious group or not, should not have to pay for contraception if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Nor should they have to pay the penalty for failing to cover this required benefit. And the D.C. Appeals Court did in fact last Friday, strike down the requirement.
And of course, there is the battle raging over whether a pharmacist should have to fill a prescription for contraception if it burdens their conscience. Even a waffling bill which allows an employee to refuse to fill as long as there is someone at the pharmacy who will do so has been unable to make it through Congress. And why should it? Refusing outright has been the raison d'etre of our current republican legislators.
What does contraception have to do with LGBT rights? That religious exemption is the key to wiping out a whole lot of our civil liberties. Because the same god who thinks women should not have protection from pregnancy believes that being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is wrong. According to the god who talks to these folks, a person of faith (i.e. christian) should be able to deny workplace rights to any of the above based on the perversion known as their "conscience."
So let's just look ahead down that slippery slope. If the law and the courts agree that based on religious freedom an employer should not have to provide contraceptive care, or give LGBT persons employment equality, and businesses have the right to refuse to provide contraception based on their religious beliefs, some other likely god-fueled battles are:
Refusal to marry an interracial couple.
Refusal to allow adoptions by certain racial or religious groups.
Refusal of a restaurateur to seat people who are LGBT.
Refusal to allow members of certain groups service.
Segregated proms.
Signs in windows exercising business owners' rights:
Two things about the above examples. First of all, check out the dates on the links.
Secondly, notice the language in defense of these horrific acts of discrimination. They all positively flow with the blood of protecting religious freedom.
So here's the thing. If we don't all join together to fight these injustices, we are all going to be living in a country in which the only freedom is granted to those who are white, wealthy, and claim to be christian.
The only way to protect our individual freedoms, and our freedoms as members of minority groups, is by uniting and not allowing any discrimination of any one of us by any person (or business or church). If you can't see the problem with refusing to fill a prescription for birth control, I guarantee, your rights will be next in front of the firing squad.
Not surprised because the religious tyranny wing of the republican party was able to get away with this lame rationalization for religious groups when in June the Obama administration allowed religious groups to exercise a religious exemption by not covering contraception, which would be somehow covered by other means. Good deal, right?
Not good enough for the rabidly religious. This was a mere victory en route to the next battle. That next battle was that employers, whether a religious group or not, should not have to pay for contraception if it conflicts with their religious beliefs. Nor should they have to pay the penalty for failing to cover this required benefit. And the D.C. Appeals Court did in fact last Friday, strike down the requirement.
And of course, there is the battle raging over whether a pharmacist should have to fill a prescription for contraception if it burdens their conscience. Even a waffling bill which allows an employee to refuse to fill as long as there is someone at the pharmacy who will do so has been unable to make it through Congress. And why should it? Refusing outright has been the raison d'etre of our current republican legislators.
What does contraception have to do with LGBT rights? That religious exemption is the key to wiping out a whole lot of our civil liberties. Because the same god who thinks women should not have protection from pregnancy believes that being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is wrong. According to the god who talks to these folks, a person of faith (i.e. christian) should be able to deny workplace rights to any of the above based on the perversion known as their "conscience."
So let's just look ahead down that slippery slope. If the law and the courts agree that based on religious freedom an employer should not have to provide contraceptive care, or give LGBT persons employment equality, and businesses have the right to refuse to provide contraception based on their religious beliefs, some other likely god-fueled battles are:
Refusal to marry an interracial couple.
Refusal to allow adoptions by certain racial or religious groups.
Refusal of a restaurateur to seat people who are LGBT.
Refusal to allow members of certain groups service.
Segregated proms.
Signs in windows exercising business owners' rights:
Two things about the above examples. First of all, check out the dates on the links.
Secondly, notice the language in defense of these horrific acts of discrimination. They all positively flow with the blood of protecting religious freedom.
So here's the thing. If we don't all join together to fight these injustices, we are all going to be living in a country in which the only freedom is granted to those who are white, wealthy, and claim to be christian.
The only way to protect our individual freedoms, and our freedoms as members of minority groups, is by uniting and not allowing any discrimination of any one of us by any person (or business or church). If you can't see the problem with refusing to fill a prescription for birth control, I guarantee, your rights will be next in front of the firing squad.
Tuesday, October 29, 2013
Family Values
Maybe it's me, but "family values" means a whole lot different to the Tea Party, the Heritage Foundation and groups that actually have the words "family" and/or "values" in their names than it does to me. I think of family values in terms of valuing families -- being sure that children have proper nutrition and a secure roof over their heads, including in school, where there should be heat in the winter and no water leaking from said roof. And of course a decent education followed by a job that provides a living wage for a good day of work, and decent benefits, like sick leave and health insurance to provide for the children. See, it's like a cycle.
But the folks that brag about their family values today tend to be the ones that do not value the families of those with less wealth and power than they have. And then try to justify those other children and families doing without all that fine stuff with nonsense about killing jobs and creating debt that their children will have to pay off.
And when they say they don't want their children to have to pay off the nation's debt, they really mean their children -- not yours.
So in that atmosphere, forget about daycare, we have to fight for the adequacy of our schools. And where far too many workers barely subsist on minimum wage, our government is convinced that the way out of debt is to continue to pay off big farms and cut food stamps.
So it comes as no surprise to learn that with all the talk about being "pro-life," pregnant women continue to be discriminated against at work. Given jobs that jeopardize their health, limited sick leave, forced to take unpaid leave or terminated when they are unable to continue to do their job.
The ACLU and its New York chapter worked to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in New York City, which was signed into law on October 2 by Mayor Bloomberg. As you can imagine, getting this law to go anywhere in our current Congress will be a fight. It was introduced in 2012, and reintroduced this year.
The ACLU is asking for our support, in signing a petition to Congress to pass a Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Please sign, and spread the word. And be sure to let our representatives know that all that talk about family values is just hot air without passing legislation that truly supports families.
And while we're at it, I'm thinking we should get our own legislators here in South Carolina to pass its own Pregnant Workers Fairness Act; maybe those who feel the need to safeguard pregnancy could do something more constructive than force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
But the folks that brag about their family values today tend to be the ones that do not value the families of those with less wealth and power than they have. And then try to justify those other children and families doing without all that fine stuff with nonsense about killing jobs and creating debt that their children will have to pay off.
And when they say they don't want their children to have to pay off the nation's debt, they really mean their children -- not yours.
So in that atmosphere, forget about daycare, we have to fight for the adequacy of our schools. And where far too many workers barely subsist on minimum wage, our government is convinced that the way out of debt is to continue to pay off big farms and cut food stamps.
So it comes as no surprise to learn that with all the talk about being "pro-life," pregnant women continue to be discriminated against at work. Given jobs that jeopardize their health, limited sick leave, forced to take unpaid leave or terminated when they are unable to continue to do their job.
The ACLU and its New York chapter worked to pass the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act in New York City, which was signed into law on October 2 by Mayor Bloomberg. As you can imagine, getting this law to go anywhere in our current Congress will be a fight. It was introduced in 2012, and reintroduced this year.
The ACLU is asking for our support, in signing a petition to Congress to pass a Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. Please sign, and spread the word. And be sure to let our representatives know that all that talk about family values is just hot air without passing legislation that truly supports families.
And while we're at it, I'm thinking we should get our own legislators here in South Carolina to pass its own Pregnant Workers Fairness Act; maybe those who feel the need to safeguard pregnancy could do something more constructive than force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
We're #1
Read what Mia McLeod has to say about South Carolina being #1 in domestic violence. Maybe raising the amount of the bond needed to be posted would help, but people that are crazy violent have been known to wait around a few days to take out their rage.
I was a visiting therapist at a shelter for battered women on Long Island back in the 90's, where three women in the month of December one year were killed by men to whom had been served an order of protection. Interestingly, or obscenely, it was the same judge, and he had ordered the women to serve the petition themselves rather than have the court pay for a server.
While at the shelter, I saw what happens when a woman without family and financial resources makes the courageous decision to leave an abusive partner. Even with social services and medicaid the resources are pathetic. After the short stay they not only have to deal with housing, but also with transportation. Often with children, there is inadequate care available, and finding a job while juggling temporary and/or unaffordable housing and transportation is one step too far in this nightmare.
More often than not, when abusers come calling with apologies and promises, the women go home to whatever security they have there.
Society's biases are really what this is all about. Here in South Carolina where the mass killing of children in Newtown last December resulted in a season of gun bills designed to protect the rights of gun owners, we pretty much know where the loyalties lie. Hard to believe but the philosophy is that women that get beat must be doing something to deserve it. Oh, and if she doesn't like it why doesn't she leave. And if she leaves and he comes after her, well, that's her own fault too.
Add to that an education system that struggles to provide "minimally adequate" schools, the constant stress of being working poor -- and in this economy, the stress of being working middle class. We have a governor who won't take federal money to assure Medicaid for the poor, and who would like to prevent those on food stamps from buying sweets.
And then our legislature gerrymandered districts so that the status quo is guaranteed.
There's two levels here.
The first is stepping in those shoes and living that life. Knowing what it is like to be a woman afraid, and unable to do enough to keep herself and her children safe.
The second is a society that approves and rewards power and punishes weakness.
Strong laws that communicate disapproval of violence against women and children need to happen before the violence will be lessened.
And while that happens, allowing people to have a life with the security of home, health, a living wage, and for their children a good education with promise for the future, will perpetuate the value that violence is unacceptable.
Mia McLeod is a strong voice to that end, but she needs a lot more voices to call out for change with her.
I was a visiting therapist at a shelter for battered women on Long Island back in the 90's, where three women in the month of December one year were killed by men to whom had been served an order of protection. Interestingly, or obscenely, it was the same judge, and he had ordered the women to serve the petition themselves rather than have the court pay for a server.
While at the shelter, I saw what happens when a woman without family and financial resources makes the courageous decision to leave an abusive partner. Even with social services and medicaid the resources are pathetic. After the short stay they not only have to deal with housing, but also with transportation. Often with children, there is inadequate care available, and finding a job while juggling temporary and/or unaffordable housing and transportation is one step too far in this nightmare.
More often than not, when abusers come calling with apologies and promises, the women go home to whatever security they have there.
Society's biases are really what this is all about. Here in South Carolina where the mass killing of children in Newtown last December resulted in a season of gun bills designed to protect the rights of gun owners, we pretty much know where the loyalties lie. Hard to believe but the philosophy is that women that get beat must be doing something to deserve it. Oh, and if she doesn't like it why doesn't she leave. And if she leaves and he comes after her, well, that's her own fault too.
Add to that an education system that struggles to provide "minimally adequate" schools, the constant stress of being working poor -- and in this economy, the stress of being working middle class. We have a governor who won't take federal money to assure Medicaid for the poor, and who would like to prevent those on food stamps from buying sweets.
And then our legislature gerrymandered districts so that the status quo is guaranteed.
There's two levels here.
The first is stepping in those shoes and living that life. Knowing what it is like to be a woman afraid, and unable to do enough to keep herself and her children safe.
The second is a society that approves and rewards power and punishes weakness.
Strong laws that communicate disapproval of violence against women and children need to happen before the violence will be lessened.
And while that happens, allowing people to have a life with the security of home, health, a living wage, and for their children a good education with promise for the future, will perpetuate the value that violence is unacceptable.
Mia McLeod is a strong voice to that end, but she needs a lot more voices to call out for change with her.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Across the Aisle
I heard that State Senator Vincent Sheheen made an appearance at SC Pride yesterday. Not surprisingly it has not been widely reported, especially by the Sheheen camp. Sheheen made news earlier this month by reaching across the aisle to Governor Haley in his support of the ban on gay marriage. The public outcry apparently stunned Sheheen, who wants more than anything to be governor, to the point of making the appearance at the Gay Pride event.
The problem with Senator Sheheen as I see it is that his values lie on the other side of the aisle, but his political affiliation is with us Democrats.
While Sheheen unabashedly seeks support from women's groups, unions, and gay rights groups, he wants to do it without making it too public, and without having to compromise his lack of support for same.
Pardon me but my rage is showing.
It would be a simple matter even for a proud Catholic like Sheheen to support women's reproductive privacy and freedom. Even Pope Francis, who has to deal with the ultra-conservative archbishops who elected him, has figured out a work-around to the Church's obsession with contraception and abortion.
With Pope Francis, his own Church's leader, as the model, now is the time for Senator Sheheen to take a stand that sets him apart from the rabid Christian republicans, like Senator Lee Bright, who would bring back the Inquisition (for women only) which looks a bit like his fantasy of Sharia Law.
In other words, women's reproductive choices should be as private as are those of men. They should be as fully covered as those of men (When was the last time you heard an argument that vasectomies should not be covered by our state health plan?). Women's health care -- the promotion of discriminatory practices against women -- has no place in the legislature.
Abortion and contraception are private matters, to be addressed by the woman, her doctor, her family, her church, and not by government. God did not appoint lawmakers to make God's rules. In fact, there's that whole "render unto Caesar" idea that pretty much means the state should stay out of God's business, and God will do the same for the state.
Meanwhile, the state's business is to see that those who choose to have children are not made to suffer needlessly. In other words, health care, education, a living wage, those are the issues that need to be addressed by government, not what goes on in the doctor's office, or in one's church.
We need to suggest this to Senator Sheheen, to insist in fact that he listen to us -- and to the Pope -- and stop obsessing about women's reproductive parts. We need to let him know, on Facebook, on Twitter, by email and in person, that church and government, his religion and his role as a public servant, are separate entities. We need to call and write to the media. We need to light up this issue, while there is a chance that a Democratic candidate might listen.
The problem with Senator Sheheen as I see it is that his values lie on the other side of the aisle, but his political affiliation is with us Democrats.
While Sheheen unabashedly seeks support from women's groups, unions, and gay rights groups, he wants to do it without making it too public, and without having to compromise his lack of support for same.
Pardon me but my rage is showing.
It would be a simple matter even for a proud Catholic like Sheheen to support women's reproductive privacy and freedom. Even Pope Francis, who has to deal with the ultra-conservative archbishops who elected him, has figured out a work-around to the Church's obsession with contraception and abortion.
With Pope Francis, his own Church's leader, as the model, now is the time for Senator Sheheen to take a stand that sets him apart from the rabid Christian republicans, like Senator Lee Bright, who would bring back the Inquisition (for women only) which looks a bit like his fantasy of Sharia Law.
In other words, women's reproductive choices should be as private as are those of men. They should be as fully covered as those of men (When was the last time you heard an argument that vasectomies should not be covered by our state health plan?). Women's health care -- the promotion of discriminatory practices against women -- has no place in the legislature.
Abortion and contraception are private matters, to be addressed by the woman, her doctor, her family, her church, and not by government. God did not appoint lawmakers to make God's rules. In fact, there's that whole "render unto Caesar" idea that pretty much means the state should stay out of God's business, and God will do the same for the state.
Meanwhile, the state's business is to see that those who choose to have children are not made to suffer needlessly. In other words, health care, education, a living wage, those are the issues that need to be addressed by government, not what goes on in the doctor's office, or in one's church.
We need to suggest this to Senator Sheheen, to insist in fact that he listen to us -- and to the Pope -- and stop obsessing about women's reproductive parts. We need to let him know, on Facebook, on Twitter, by email and in person, that church and government, his religion and his role as a public servant, are separate entities. We need to call and write to the media. We need to light up this issue, while there is a chance that a Democratic candidate might listen.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Expert Opinion
These days, when the men in Congress invite the men in the Church to testify on how better they can help women see the light, some of us are starting to notice. Some of us are beginning to remember, as though awakening from a deep slumber, that it wasn't always like this. But before it wasn't like this, it was.
What I mean is that many of us grew up in a Mad Men world, where being thin and pretty were requirements not only for being a stewardess but for answering phones in an office. In that world, we kept things tidy and never made a fuss. We were mostly homemakers, and when we made ripples, folks, we were unceremoniously squashed.
I remember as a psychology student learning about the high rates of women in psychiatric hospitals diagnosed with depression, and the new miracle drugs, like Valium, that would get them back on the track to being happy. Because without a happy wife, how could the husband go out and conquer the world?
Fortunately, that was my mother's generation, and in the fifties there was enough social security -- the kind you get from having a roof over your head with an affordable mortgage and knowing you were going to college -- to have the guts to begin to question your world.
Who were men to tell us what made us happy? Or that our job was to keep them happy? We knew we were smart and starting to realize we were as smart (maybe smarter) than the boys that were going to college and getting better jobs than us.
We made waves. And it felt good. And for awhile, the men in charge listened. And then more women were in charge.
But not enough.
The men were persistent; they know war. We women knew how to work hard, and we also knew guilt. We tried to do it all, and that left us vulnerable, too busy doing it all and trying to get it right to fight battles we thought we had already won.
Men let women be midwives when it wasn't worth their time, but when it became a career they began to fight to take it away from us.
They let us be managers as long as our lower wages could make their profits greater. And as long as women were taking care of the children, they weren't as likely to rise too high, or rise up to fight.
And as long as we were the ones that had babies, we were still going to be under their thumbs.
This is why so much energy is being focused on women's reproductive freedom. In a Congress that daily fights to deny women food stamps and health care the issue is certainly not the value of life. It is, however, about power and money.
Good education can give a girl hope for a good future. Access to contraception can free a young adult from worry, and allow her to control her present and her future. Availability of safe abortions mean security for women and their families.
The crazies of the religious right are merely pawns of the power brokers. They are used daily in front of the offices of abortion providers, and they are used at the polls on election day. Groups with warm and fuzzy names like the Family Research Council are about as anti-family as you can get; they scorn poor women for having too many babies at the same time as they cut off her education and access to birth control.
But our "representatives" in Congress look to these anti-life groups as "experts" when they are looking to force their way on women. And while the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops may be momentarily busy tap-dancing around the actual Christian values of their new Pope, they will still make time to restate their control over women.
Let's start questioning -- loudly -- the "expert opinions" that have nothing to do with science, nothing to do with life, and nothing to do with women. When you see a group convene, whether it be the state legislature or a hospital board or the Heritage Foundation, count heads and note how many women there are. And then make sure to note how many women are testifying about women's issues.
What I mean is that many of us grew up in a Mad Men world, where being thin and pretty were requirements not only for being a stewardess but for answering phones in an office. In that world, we kept things tidy and never made a fuss. We were mostly homemakers, and when we made ripples, folks, we were unceremoniously squashed.
I remember as a psychology student learning about the high rates of women in psychiatric hospitals diagnosed with depression, and the new miracle drugs, like Valium, that would get them back on the track to being happy. Because without a happy wife, how could the husband go out and conquer the world?
Fortunately, that was my mother's generation, and in the fifties there was enough social security -- the kind you get from having a roof over your head with an affordable mortgage and knowing you were going to college -- to have the guts to begin to question your world.
Who were men to tell us what made us happy? Or that our job was to keep them happy? We knew we were smart and starting to realize we were as smart (maybe smarter) than the boys that were going to college and getting better jobs than us.
We made waves. And it felt good. And for awhile, the men in charge listened. And then more women were in charge.
But not enough.
The men were persistent; they know war. We women knew how to work hard, and we also knew guilt. We tried to do it all, and that left us vulnerable, too busy doing it all and trying to get it right to fight battles we thought we had already won.
Men let women be midwives when it wasn't worth their time, but when it became a career they began to fight to take it away from us.
They let us be managers as long as our lower wages could make their profits greater. And as long as women were taking care of the children, they weren't as likely to rise too high, or rise up to fight.
And as long as we were the ones that had babies, we were still going to be under their thumbs.
This is why so much energy is being focused on women's reproductive freedom. In a Congress that daily fights to deny women food stamps and health care the issue is certainly not the value of life. It is, however, about power and money.
Good education can give a girl hope for a good future. Access to contraception can free a young adult from worry, and allow her to control her present and her future. Availability of safe abortions mean security for women and their families.
The crazies of the religious right are merely pawns of the power brokers. They are used daily in front of the offices of abortion providers, and they are used at the polls on election day. Groups with warm and fuzzy names like the Family Research Council are about as anti-family as you can get; they scorn poor women for having too many babies at the same time as they cut off her education and access to birth control.
But our "representatives" in Congress look to these anti-life groups as "experts" when they are looking to force their way on women. And while the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops may be momentarily busy tap-dancing around the actual Christian values of their new Pope, they will still make time to restate their control over women.
Let's start questioning -- loudly -- the "expert opinions" that have nothing to do with science, nothing to do with life, and nothing to do with women. When you see a group convene, whether it be the state legislature or a hospital board or the Heritage Foundation, count heads and note how many women there are. And then make sure to note how many women are testifying about women's issues.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Coming Out from the Shadows
In an amazing wedding announcement in the New York Times, the couple describes their decision when they had just begun dating to have an abortion, because the time and circumstances were not right. They went on to have a son and are now celebrating their marriage.
This is such an important news story, because it is about women coming out from the shadows. It is about refusing to accept blame and hatred for a responsible decision. It is about letting others see just who we are.
When African-Americans risked their lives to desegregate schools and businesses, they were able to debunk all the nasty myths that had existed because they had been forced to live hidden away.
When gay and lesbian men and women took the courageous step of coming out, and then began to celebrate their existence, those who had denigrated their sexual identity were forced to recognize that these people are in fact their friends, family, co-workers, neighbors.
And as women come forward and tell their stories, and make their abortion decision just another page in their lives, those who have demonized us will no longer have power over us.
Because those who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy are us: our daughters, our mothers, our friends and co-workers, our neighbors.
It is easy to demonize someone you don't have to face, and for whom there is no name. This is the time to stand up to the bullies and let them know we are not ashamed of who we are and how we have lived our lives.
This is such an important news story, because it is about women coming out from the shadows. It is about refusing to accept blame and hatred for a responsible decision. It is about letting others see just who we are.
When African-Americans risked their lives to desegregate schools and businesses, they were able to debunk all the nasty myths that had existed because they had been forced to live hidden away.
When gay and lesbian men and women took the courageous step of coming out, and then began to celebrate their existence, those who had denigrated their sexual identity were forced to recognize that these people are in fact their friends, family, co-workers, neighbors.
And as women come forward and tell their stories, and make their abortion decision just another page in their lives, those who have demonized us will no longer have power over us.
Because those who have chosen to terminate a pregnancy are us: our daughters, our mothers, our friends and co-workers, our neighbors.
It is easy to demonize someone you don't have to face, and for whom there is no name. This is the time to stand up to the bullies and let them know we are not ashamed of who we are and how we have lived our lives.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
Left Behind
The Post & Courier ran an article last Wednesday on the local coalition which had organized to send buses to Washington for the "new march," the 50th anniversary of Dr. King's March for Jobs and Freedom. I read through it a few times and then concluded that, once again, women were being left behind.
The purpose of this coalition:
“to stand together against the recent attack on voter rights, against Stand Your Ground and racial profiling, and to continue to raise awareness on unemployment, poverty, gun violence, immigration, gay rights and other critical issues affecting our nation,” according to the National Action network.
Apparently, women's rights fell into the unnamed "other critical issue" category.
Sure, just like in the 60's, we could join up and demonstrate against the war in Vietnam, or for civil rights, but we signed up as helpers, keeping the men happy so they could do the real work.
By the 70's, women like Gloria Steinhem and Betty Friedan confronted that hypocrisy, questioning our second place position in society, from family roles to economic rights. It was a fight that continues today, because we continue to be the second class citizen, with lower pay and less input. While we run more things than ever, we continue to have a supporting role in our own lives.
Our struggle for freedom and equality has never been greater than it is today, when state and federal legislators strike down programs that would provide economic security, and push through laws that make us prisoners of our own bodies.
Imagine vasectomies being banned from government health insurance plans, as are abortions. Suppose a man had to prove he was married before he could buy erectile enhancement drugs? Imagine couples of mixed race being refused service for religious reasons, as pharmacists are now allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. Just as those of us in the LGBT community are winning hard fought battles for equal rights, women are being threatened with imprisonment for refusing to carry a pregnancy to term.
The public spectacle that we have allowed to exist with women's bodies as the object is as horrific as Russia's attack on its gay citizens. In this country we should be appalled that women would be subject to government control by virtue of the fact that we are capable of getting pregnant.
If so many of our government leaders are opposed to that mythical evil that the ignorant call "Sharia Law," how can they propose the same kind of religious imprisonment and call it Christianity?
Getting back to the article about the 50th Anniversary March, it seems that we -- women -- have gotten so desensitized to our exclusion that we don't even realize that the coalitions that are fighting for freedom and justice are not fighting for ours.
It's time, once again, to open our own eyes, so that we can confront that hypocrisy each time it occurs. Don't let our leaders make a set of rules for free Americans, and another for women. Don't support Democratic candidates who refuse to stand by a woman's right to the same privacy as a man. Stop allowing our government to be controlled by religious extremists that prove their power by exploiting women's bodies.
Don't forget, and don't let our fellow Democrats leave us behind.
The purpose of this coalition:
“to stand together against the recent attack on voter rights, against Stand Your Ground and racial profiling, and to continue to raise awareness on unemployment, poverty, gun violence, immigration, gay rights and other critical issues affecting our nation,” according to the National Action network.
Apparently, women's rights fell into the unnamed "other critical issue" category.
Sure, just like in the 60's, we could join up and demonstrate against the war in Vietnam, or for civil rights, but we signed up as helpers, keeping the men happy so they could do the real work.
By the 70's, women like Gloria Steinhem and Betty Friedan confronted that hypocrisy, questioning our second place position in society, from family roles to economic rights. It was a fight that continues today, because we continue to be the second class citizen, with lower pay and less input. While we run more things than ever, we continue to have a supporting role in our own lives.
Our struggle for freedom and equality has never been greater than it is today, when state and federal legislators strike down programs that would provide economic security, and push through laws that make us prisoners of our own bodies.
Imagine vasectomies being banned from government health insurance plans, as are abortions. Suppose a man had to prove he was married before he could buy erectile enhancement drugs? Imagine couples of mixed race being refused service for religious reasons, as pharmacists are now allowed to refuse to fill birth control prescriptions. Just as those of us in the LGBT community are winning hard fought battles for equal rights, women are being threatened with imprisonment for refusing to carry a pregnancy to term.
The public spectacle that we have allowed to exist with women's bodies as the object is as horrific as Russia's attack on its gay citizens. In this country we should be appalled that women would be subject to government control by virtue of the fact that we are capable of getting pregnant.
If so many of our government leaders are opposed to that mythical evil that the ignorant call "Sharia Law," how can they propose the same kind of religious imprisonment and call it Christianity?
Getting back to the article about the 50th Anniversary March, it seems that we -- women -- have gotten so desensitized to our exclusion that we don't even realize that the coalitions that are fighting for freedom and justice are not fighting for ours.
It's time, once again, to open our own eyes, so that we can confront that hypocrisy each time it occurs. Don't let our leaders make a set of rules for free Americans, and another for women. Don't support Democratic candidates who refuse to stand by a woman's right to the same privacy as a man. Stop allowing our government to be controlled by religious extremists that prove their power by exploiting women's bodies.
Don't forget, and don't let our fellow Democrats leave us behind.
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Both Sides of Eric Cantor's Mouth
Eric Cantor is suddenly concerned about who's in the doctor's office with us:
For decades we have had to make room for all the representatives of private insurance companies; in the heyday of managed care, there were all kinds of folk, from nurses to administrators, and even occasionally a doctor.
But Eric Cantor's proud contribution to the "manning" of the doctor's office has been all his votes to criminalize abortion. He has voted every which way to limit a woman's rights when she is in her doctor's office, from forcing her to watch a sonogram to controlling how many weeks to who pays for the visit to where she can go.
And all these bills, should they become law, require personnel. More enforcement personnel, in fact, than it would take to stand arm-in-arm guarding the Mexican border.
So I would like to take this opportunity to put Mr. Cantor's mind to rest (and I do believe a little rest would be good for such a panicky little man).
Only an idiot would think that the IRS is going to be involved in medical decisions. The IRS would have lots less to do with medical decisions than does the insurance industry, to which Cantor would like to return all control by repealing the Affordable Care Act.
Obviously, this is another "keyword" mind game. The IRS has become the fall guy for, well, everything, but it started with the "scandal" that right-wing groups were having applications for tax-exempt status denied. In fact, political groups on both sides were being denied, as they should have been. But Democrats being Democrats, instead of saying, "Yeah, what of it?" they cowered and allowed "IRS" to become yet another bad word eliciting knee-jerk rage like Benghazi.
I would like to hear Eric Cantor's defense of those votes which would place law enforcement solidly in the doctor's office with American women, and then he can explain why he thinks one more guy would make a difference in there.
"The doctor's office is the last place anyone would want to find the IRS."I believe his concern stems from the fact that, particularly for women, the doctor's office has been getting crowded.
For decades we have had to make room for all the representatives of private insurance companies; in the heyday of managed care, there were all kinds of folk, from nurses to administrators, and even occasionally a doctor.
But Eric Cantor's proud contribution to the "manning" of the doctor's office has been all his votes to criminalize abortion. He has voted every which way to limit a woman's rights when she is in her doctor's office, from forcing her to watch a sonogram to controlling how many weeks to who pays for the visit to where she can go.
And all these bills, should they become law, require personnel. More enforcement personnel, in fact, than it would take to stand arm-in-arm guarding the Mexican border.
So I would like to take this opportunity to put Mr. Cantor's mind to rest (and I do believe a little rest would be good for such a panicky little man).
Only an idiot would think that the IRS is going to be involved in medical decisions. The IRS would have lots less to do with medical decisions than does the insurance industry, to which Cantor would like to return all control by repealing the Affordable Care Act.
Obviously, this is another "keyword" mind game. The IRS has become the fall guy for, well, everything, but it started with the "scandal" that right-wing groups were having applications for tax-exempt status denied. In fact, political groups on both sides were being denied, as they should have been. But Democrats being Democrats, instead of saying, "Yeah, what of it?" they cowered and allowed "IRS" to become yet another bad word eliciting knee-jerk rage like Benghazi.
I would like to hear Eric Cantor's defense of those votes which would place law enforcement solidly in the doctor's office with American women, and then he can explain why he thinks one more guy would make a difference in there.
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Opening the Door to Alleys and Coat Hangers
The Texas State Legislature had to lie, cheat and steal to do it, but they have managed to pass their forced-pregnancy bill.
Delusional Rick Perry appears to believe that now that he has taken the criminalization of women and their reproductive rights to new depths in his state, he is ready to give the national stage another try, and so has indicated that he will not run for another term as governor.
What does the passage of this bill really mean?
By making it more difficult for women to seek legal abortions, Texas has opened that door to the dirty, dangerous back-alley abortions of the 50's. Teenage girls and women alike will return to the options that were available when I was a teenager. Word of mouth will lead them to the door of the disreputable doctor, or to those old home remedies for pregnancy, like Lysol and coat hangers. If you are poor and have limited resources, an unsupportive family, or are just terrified, these are the options that will remain open to you in Texas, and in many other states across the country.
These lawmakers have done nothing to provide better education, better health care, better nutrition, a living wage. These are the means through which a moral nation fights abortion. In those states where there is hope and means to a decent life, the incidence of abortion is less. And not surprisingly, teen pregnancy and infant mortality rates are lower.
The sad fact is that the anti-abortion movement has been allowed to use the horrors of Kermit Gosnell's abortion practice and trial to push through the very laws that would make such practices more likely.
Wendy Davis did what she could to bring the real issues and arguments to the national stage. It will take many, many more women, and men, to stand up and loudly speak the truth, else this awful reality of back-room abortions will spread again across our country.
Delusional Rick Perry appears to believe that now that he has taken the criminalization of women and their reproductive rights to new depths in his state, he is ready to give the national stage another try, and so has indicated that he will not run for another term as governor.
What does the passage of this bill really mean?
By making it more difficult for women to seek legal abortions, Texas has opened that door to the dirty, dangerous back-alley abortions of the 50's. Teenage girls and women alike will return to the options that were available when I was a teenager. Word of mouth will lead them to the door of the disreputable doctor, or to those old home remedies for pregnancy, like Lysol and coat hangers. If you are poor and have limited resources, an unsupportive family, or are just terrified, these are the options that will remain open to you in Texas, and in many other states across the country.
These lawmakers have done nothing to provide better education, better health care, better nutrition, a living wage. These are the means through which a moral nation fights abortion. In those states where there is hope and means to a decent life, the incidence of abortion is less. And not surprisingly, teen pregnancy and infant mortality rates are lower.
The sad fact is that the anti-abortion movement has been allowed to use the horrors of Kermit Gosnell's abortion practice and trial to push through the very laws that would make such practices more likely.
Wendy Davis did what she could to bring the real issues and arguments to the national stage. It will take many, many more women, and men, to stand up and loudly speak the truth, else this awful reality of back-room abortions will spread again across our country.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Texas Bull
While across the country, and in the US Congress, the plot to keep women pregnant and powerless continues, in Texas they have continued to prove that they can do it bigger and better. In fact, Governor Perry-- who not only can't remember the third thing on any list, he can't recall resigning from the presidential race after becoming a laughingstock-- continues to believe that he has a moral imperative to, well, make women behave.
After Wendy Davis' amazing filibuster, which was cut short by republicans who were just teed off at not getting things their way, Rick Perry had his own personal god-given tantrum. Unable to get his forced pregnancy bill passed by following the rules that were set up by his own gang, and after his gang couldn't even break their own rules to get it passed anyway, Perry immediately stated that he is going to call for another special session. Maybe this time there will be a secret meeting place.
Perry, who I believe has way too personal a fear of abortion, projected that fear when he said that because Davis was born into "difficult circumstances" she should know how important it is to prevent women from being able to decide to have an abortion.
In Mr. Perry's small mind, women only (and apparently always) opt for abortion because life's too tough. Maybe just out of touch, or maybe it's that niggling fear that if his mom had had a choice, there would be no Rick Perry. Isn't it this fear of women being in control that is determining this whole evangelical passion to force women to bear children?
The other issue surrounding this nonsense coming out of Texas is the fact-free assertion that fetuses feel pain. Sadly, it was a woman who was blowing hot air on C-Span when I turned it on a week or so ago, and she was nearly in tears over the thought that these fetuses could feel pain.
To all those legislators there in Texas who are feeling the pain of those fetuses, I want you to dry those crocodile tears and pay attention. Because Texas is helping my state of South Carolina hold down the bottom in terms of health care, education and child nutrition.
It's time to take care of this group of constituents, who we know for a fact feel pain:
After Wendy Davis' amazing filibuster, which was cut short by republicans who were just teed off at not getting things their way, Rick Perry had his own personal god-given tantrum. Unable to get his forced pregnancy bill passed by following the rules that were set up by his own gang, and after his gang couldn't even break their own rules to get it passed anyway, Perry immediately stated that he is going to call for another special session. Maybe this time there will be a secret meeting place.
Perry, who I believe has way too personal a fear of abortion, projected that fear when he said that because Davis was born into "difficult circumstances" she should know how important it is to prevent women from being able to decide to have an abortion.
In Mr. Perry's small mind, women only (and apparently always) opt for abortion because life's too tough. Maybe just out of touch, or maybe it's that niggling fear that if his mom had had a choice, there would be no Rick Perry. Isn't it this fear of women being in control that is determining this whole evangelical passion to force women to bear children?
The other issue surrounding this nonsense coming out of Texas is the fact-free assertion that fetuses feel pain. Sadly, it was a woman who was blowing hot air on C-Span when I turned it on a week or so ago, and she was nearly in tears over the thought that these fetuses could feel pain.
To all those legislators there in Texas who are feeling the pain of those fetuses, I want you to dry those crocodile tears and pay attention. Because Texas is helping my state of South Carolina hold down the bottom in terms of health care, education and child nutrition.
It's time to take care of this group of constituents, who we know for a fact feel pain:
 |
| From AlterNet |
 |
| From Dallas Observer |
And if you Texas legislators are really into doing some research about pain, you'll find a lot of it in your own backyard. And you won't have to force women to take the helping hand that will help feed their kids.
 |
| worldhunger.blogspot.com |
Wednesday, June 5, 2013
Ignorance and Power
When you're too ignorant even to know to keep it to yourself, it sounds like this:
Well, "gee whiz," Saxby, I get a bit nervous considering how you might want to go about fixing this problem. If you can't change the hormone levels in those 17 to 22 or 23 year-olds that are coming in to the military, and you claim to want to do something about rape in the armed services, you might be suggesting that women should be more segregated. Coming from Georgia, you would understand a lot about that.
Because it is sounding a lot like if black folk don't go to the same schools or use the same bathrooms as white folk well then white folk won't be tempted to beat them up.
The Taliban has a big problem with women tempting their men to evil sexual thoughts as well. So they've solved that problem by making "their" women wear a hijab. Oh, and they can't leave the house without a man to chaperon, even if the "man" is eight years old.
So maybe you think that in our military women require uniforms more suitable to keeping our fighting men at bay. Maybe women should only go out in groups, oh, and with a chaperon.
So, gals, Senator Saxby Chambliss is the guy who is going to protect you from those randy 18-year-old recruits. Let him know how much you appreciate that:
| DC Address: |
The Honorable Saxby Chambliss
United States Senate
416 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510-1004
|
| DC Phone: | 202-224-3521 |
| DC Fax: | 202-224-0103 |
Monday, May 20, 2013
The Battle for Forced Pregnancy
Our own pompous ass, Senator Lindsey Graham, is scared out of his boots. So it's not enough for him to brag on what a good shot he is, he has taken his fight against a potential Tea Party challenger -- that must be you, Lee Bright -- to another battle front. He has come out with barrels blazing against... pregnant women.
I admit, in South Carolina it's a cheap shot. But it is also true that the man has shown in the past year that there is no depth to which he will not stoop to win re-election.
 | ||||||
Dear Friends,
First and foremost, tax dollars should not be used to fund abortions.
As a strong supporter of the right to life I have again cosponsored Senator Roger Wicker’s (R-Mississippi) legislation, S. 946 the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, to establish a consistent, government-wide prohibition on abortion funding.
This important legislation would make the following policies permanent:
· The Hyde Amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage through any program funded through the annual Labor, Health and Human Services Appropriations Act;
· The Helms Amendment, which prohibits funding for abortion as a method of family planning overseas,
· The Smith FEHBP Amendment, which prohibits funding for elective abortion coverage for federal employees;
· The Dornan Amendment, which prohibits use of congressionally appropriated funds for abortion in the District of Columbia; and
· other policies, such as the restrictions on elective abortion funding through Federal prisons.
The House of Representatives passed the bill 251-175 in the 112th Congress, but the legislation was not allowed for a vote in the Democrat-controlled Senate.
The legislation currently has 22 cosponsors in the Senate. I am hopeful the Senate will take up and force a vote on this important legislation to the pro-life cause.
Sincerely, Lindsey O. GrahamUnited States Senator
To contact me, please click here to visit my website.
Please do not respond to this email, the mailbox is unattended. To unsubscribe at any time, please click here. |
You might think that, after all his time in the Senate, he would be secure enough to continue to maintain his facade of reasonableness. But, like Mark Sanford, I believe Graham knows that there is no sweeter deal than working for the federal government. And no price is too great to pay to keep that job. And these days, there is no easier target than women and children.
So while these jackasses continue to pass bills that reinforce the fact that pregnant women are vulnerable and easily controlled, prenatal care will continue to suffer, infant mortality will continue to be shameful, and the future of children born to poverty will continue to be grim.
I sent an email to Lindsey in response to his proud newsletter:
I was 21 when I was fortunate to have legal and safe abortion available to me. I am now 62 and I am appalled that you believe God has chosen you to control the reproductive choices of my daughter.Shame on you.
Join me in letting misogynists like Lindsey Graham know that we are out here, we vote, and we are not ashamed.
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Parent v. President
A few days ago, Penny pointed out that seemingly minutes after President Obama forcefully pledged his support to Planned Parenthood and women's rights, he opposed removing age limits for above-the-counter purchase of the "morning-after" pill.
As a parent who was damned overprotective of my daughter I understand fully. Rather than have her sit through sex ed classes that I doubted were going to be open and accurate, I opted out. I talked to my daughter, and sometimes she was furious that I was so involved, but she also talked to me. And I am assuming that the Obama's are such parents.
But that is not always the case. And sadly, children get pregnant. And horrifically, there are times when the parents are the last people in which that child can confide.
We are a nation that refuses to deal with the difficult problems, the ones that would actually improved our lives, make the world safer for our children and grandchildren. Our legislators do a lot of grandstanding and bloviating about their moral values. But when it comes to doing the right thing, they lately almost always do the thing that fuels their power and greed instead.
Personhood amendments abuse women by forcing them to maintain a pregnancy to term, while funds that would improve the life expectancy of infants are cruelly cut. Civil rights for those who are not Christian are violated in the name of public safety while the right to own a gun and carry it anywhere is religiously protected.
Our children are increasingly less likely to feel secure, to have parents who have the time to spend with them when they are needed. They are less likely to be educated in a school where there are adequate numbers of teachers and counselors who know them. They are less likely to receive adequate sex education, and in some cases receive misinformation.
For those parents who are unable to be the parents their children trust and confide in, whether right or wrong, we need to be brutally honest about their children's -- our children's -- safety. We need to admit that children that are -- well, children -- are having sex, and we need to admit that access to Plan B is necessary. And then we need to keep slogging ahead to try to make a world where our children will not need Plan B or abortions. Which is, after all, the hard part of all this.
And we need our President to do the right thing, even though it is the hard thing.
As a parent who was damned overprotective of my daughter I understand fully. Rather than have her sit through sex ed classes that I doubted were going to be open and accurate, I opted out. I talked to my daughter, and sometimes she was furious that I was so involved, but she also talked to me. And I am assuming that the Obama's are such parents.
But that is not always the case. And sadly, children get pregnant. And horrifically, there are times when the parents are the last people in which that child can confide.
We are a nation that refuses to deal with the difficult problems, the ones that would actually improved our lives, make the world safer for our children and grandchildren. Our legislators do a lot of grandstanding and bloviating about their moral values. But when it comes to doing the right thing, they lately almost always do the thing that fuels their power and greed instead.
Personhood amendments abuse women by forcing them to maintain a pregnancy to term, while funds that would improve the life expectancy of infants are cruelly cut. Civil rights for those who are not Christian are violated in the name of public safety while the right to own a gun and carry it anywhere is religiously protected.
Our children are increasingly less likely to feel secure, to have parents who have the time to spend with them when they are needed. They are less likely to be educated in a school where there are adequate numbers of teachers and counselors who know them. They are less likely to receive adequate sex education, and in some cases receive misinformation.
For those parents who are unable to be the parents their children trust and confide in, whether right or wrong, we need to be brutally honest about their children's -- our children's -- safety. We need to admit that children that are -- well, children -- are having sex, and we need to admit that access to Plan B is necessary. And then we need to keep slogging ahead to try to make a world where our children will not need Plan B or abortions. Which is, after all, the hard part of all this.
And we need our President to do the right thing, even though it is the hard thing.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Not so fast, Agnes
I, too, was mighty pleased to see President Obama defend Planned Parenthood and condemn the state laws that are an assault on women's rights but..........
now we have this...
JOSH LEDERMAN and LAURAN NEERGAARD
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration on Wednesday appealed a federal judge’s order to lift all age limits on who can buy morning-after birth control pills without a prescription.
In appealing the ruling, the administration recommitted itself to a position Obama took during his re-election campaign that younger teens shouldn’t have unabated access to emergency contraceptives, despite the insistence by physicians groups and much of his Democratic base that the pill should be readily available.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obama-administration-appeals-ruling-on-morning-after-pill.php
So...whatcha think? Is Obama on our side or not? Why is his administration even getting involved?
The story goes on to say that the President is heavily influenced by being the father of two school age daughters. I think as President he should be more influenced by the "insistence by physicians groups...that the pill should be readily available."
now we have this...
Obama Administration Appeals Ruling On Morning-After Pill
In appealing the ruling, the administration recommitted itself to a position Obama took during his re-election campaign that younger teens shouldn’t have unabated access to emergency contraceptives, despite the insistence by physicians groups and much of his Democratic base that the pill should be readily available.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/obama-administration-appeals-ruling-on-morning-after-pill.php
So...whatcha think? Is Obama on our side or not? Why is his administration even getting involved?
The story goes on to say that the President is heavily influenced by being the father of two school age daughters. I think as President he should be more influenced by the "insistence by physicians groups...that the pill should be readily available."
Saturday, April 27, 2013
Taking a Stand
Earlier I today, I published a blog entry with lots of bad news, and hoped that President Obama would develop a spine on other issues, as he has on gun control. Imagine my surprise and pleasure when I learned of his speech yesterday to Planned Parenthood.
This was an amazing speech. These are the strong words of support that we have been waiting for.
Comment was made by Katie McDonough in Salon that he did not actually say the word "abortion." I think that's okay. If you listen to the words, he does not flinch when he talks about the state laws that are assaulting woman's rights throughout the country. He talks about the law that was passed making abortion illegal at six weeks.
I believe we have allowed Republicans to control the labeling of this debate. We did eventually come up with "pro-choice" to combat the "pro-abortion" label. But "choice" still brings us to "abortion." Which is about the fetus.
It is time we redirected this debate. This battle is about women, not that growth that may be inside of us. That is why I believe we need to call this a fight against "forced pregnancy." We all know, really, that that is what this is about. It is about control, and punishment. It has nothing to do with "preserving life" because there is no Republican support for health care for pregnant woman, much less for care for an infant when it is born. Republicans not only seek to punish women of limited means who have become pregnant, they will punish the children that are born to women of limited means.
Here in South Carolina, we have a shameful record of infant mortality, yet some of our legislators focus single-mindedly on assuring that every woman who becomes pregnant is forced to carry that pregnancy. With or without health care, or even decent nutrition. These men who, across the country, are pushing these bills through their state legislators are cruel and power-hungry; they care not for life much less quality of life. Their goal in each of these bills, no matter what warm-and-fuzzy names they give them, is to force pregnancy upon a woman.
I have said this before, but I keep being reminded that these are often the people who scream loudest for "freedom." What they mean, though, is the freedom to control those who have less power than them.
This was an amazing speech. These are the strong words of support that we have been waiting for.
Comment was made by Katie McDonough in Salon that he did not actually say the word "abortion." I think that's okay. If you listen to the words, he does not flinch when he talks about the state laws that are assaulting woman's rights throughout the country. He talks about the law that was passed making abortion illegal at six weeks.
I believe we have allowed Republicans to control the labeling of this debate. We did eventually come up with "pro-choice" to combat the "pro-abortion" label. But "choice" still brings us to "abortion." Which is about the fetus.
It is time we redirected this debate. This battle is about women, not that growth that may be inside of us. That is why I believe we need to call this a fight against "forced pregnancy." We all know, really, that that is what this is about. It is about control, and punishment. It has nothing to do with "preserving life" because there is no Republican support for health care for pregnant woman, much less for care for an infant when it is born. Republicans not only seek to punish women of limited means who have become pregnant, they will punish the children that are born to women of limited means.
Here in South Carolina, we have a shameful record of infant mortality, yet some of our legislators focus single-mindedly on assuring that every woman who becomes pregnant is forced to carry that pregnancy. With or without health care, or even decent nutrition. These men who, across the country, are pushing these bills through their state legislators are cruel and power-hungry; they care not for life much less quality of life. Their goal in each of these bills, no matter what warm-and-fuzzy names they give them, is to force pregnancy upon a woman.
I have said this before, but I keep being reminded that these are often the people who scream loudest for "freedom." What they mean, though, is the freedom to control those who have less power than them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)