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.

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.

A Pro-Choice Governor for South Carolina

You may have heard about all the idiotic anti-abortion bills floating around the SC Statehouse.  Sadly, this is business as usual for many of our legislators.  Bills like "personhood" and "preborn" and commissioning monuments to birth keep popping up, and like whack-a-mole, our good legislators continue to vote no.  But last year, one of the bills passed the House before being rejected by the Senate.  Pure single-mindedness could actually get one of the hair-brained bills turned into law.

Meanwhile, in 2010, Vincent Sheheen ran for Governor against Nikki Haley.  He's a good guy, a loyal Democrat, but talks too long and hard about cooperating, and while he claimed to be pro-choice before the primaries, he became far more wishy-washy before the general election, a fact that Haley was more than willing to use to her advantage.

We don't need a watered down republican in the Governor's mansion; we need someone who will unflinchingly defend a woman's right to reproductive freedom.

Here is a draft of a letter to Senator Sheheen encouraging him to stand up for a woman's right to choose, and vote no on any bill that infringes on that right:

___________, 2013

Senator Vincent Sheheen

504 Gressette Building

Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Dear Senator Sheheen:

I am a Democratic voter in South Carolina who is concerned about bills regarding women – and families – right to reproductive privacy. I am concerned that our state legislature has taken upon itself to redefine “life” to an absurd degree, in order to dictate mores that certain of our legislators believe to be Christian, but which are contemporary inventions.

Here in South Carolina there is much importance placed on “freedom.” Yet there are those elected by us that would vote to impose their presence within the bedroom and the doctor's office. There are bills that seek to determine unreasonable criteria for doctors who might perform abortions, which are legal procedures, and for those clinics that offer that service.

This is not only a travesty of the concept of individual freedoms These bills would jeopardize our right to religious freedom. They presume that our legislators are a religious authority, and not merely people elected to preserve the welfare of the citizens of this state.

Meanwhile, this battle over the control of a woman's reproductive choices is taking place while our quality of life in South Carolina continues to suffer. Poor education, high unemployment and low wages, inadequate health care are all issues that our legislators need to be addressing. Criminalizing a woman's reproductive health choices does in no way improve our quality of living. Rather, it drains our resources.

I understand that you are considering running for governor in 2014. I would be delighted to support someone who truly reflects Democratic values. I believe that a Democrat fights for our freedoms, and that includes the freedom of a woman, and her family, and her doctor, and her religious beliefs, in making her reproductive choices.

I would be unable to support your campaign if you vote for any of the anti-choice legislation that is proposed.

Thank you for your serious consideration of these matters, and I looking forward to your reply.

Very truly yours,

We would like to encourage you to send this letter, or some version of it, or your own original letter, to Senator Sheheen.  Snail mail will have more of an impact, but email will work. The more letters he gets, the more aware he will be of how important this issue is, not just to the women of the state, but to his election campaign.  Now is the time to let him know where we stand.

To paraphrase Arlo Guthrie, if three people did it, he might think it's some kind of an organization, and if 50 people did it, he might think it's a movement.

And it is a movement.

Controlling Women By Controlling Doctors

Our SC Senate is already hard at work punishing women who need abortions.  S 204 was introduced yesterday, and would require physicians who perform abortions to be board certified in obstetrics and gynecology, and if performing that abortion outside of a hospital, must have privileges at a certified hospital.  This is another blow for clinics.

The further absurdity of this proposed legislation is that in South Carolina, certified midwives are allowed to deliver a child at home, and are considered qualified by DHEC to carry out life saving measures.  Yet it will take a board certified physician to perform this typically routine procedure.

Now might be a good time to contact our own anti-choice democrat Senator Vincent Sheheen, and let him know that we women (and the men who love them) are unlikely to support him for governor in 2014 if he's going to vote against women's reproductive rights.

* * *

And on the national front, Paul Ryan has just co-sponsored a "personhood" bill that gives zygotes full human rights from the moment of conception.  How can this be worse, you might ask?  He could have been our Vice President.