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.

No Respect

Our own ex-gov. Mark Sanford seems to be a poster child for disrespecting women.  You don't have to look at his poor record as governor when for two terms he fought the hard fight against any program that would give aid to women and children.

You could even say that Sanford's battle is not so much against women, but against people of limited means -- we of the 47 percent, to put it in Mitt Romney terms.

But his misogynistic treatment of his former wife, and even his treatment of his fiancee, scream out the kind of narcissism that insure that, to Mark Sanford, a woman is merely the means to an end, the end being who he sees in the mirror and what he has to gain.

When you listen to his remarks about his many indiscretions, I mean really listen to the words and not the sad face with the teary eyes and all the talk about "his God," what you really hear is how things might affect Mark Sanford.

Jenny Sanford recounts in her autobiography Staying True that at her husband's press conference after his affair became public, despite the tears and the appearance of remorse, he failed to apologize to his wife and sons, nor to thank Jenny for standing by him.  More inappropriate and narcissistic was his call to her after the event to ask her how he did.  Most of us would see that, and his repeated attempts to seek her input and approval, as just plain cruel.  But Mark continued to beg her for permission to continue to see the other woman.  And whining that she just didn't understand.

One would want to believe that his judgment was tainted back then by what was happening to him in his personal life (even though those events were of his own doing), but throughout the current House campaign, we have been hearing bizarre stories like that of him asking Jenny to manage his campaign as she had in the past (and telling her that this time she would be paid for it!!!).  There was the strange acceptance speech the night Sanford won the primary challenge in which he expressed surprise that the "other woman," now his fiancee, had turned up to celebrate his win.  And now we learn that one of the sons who was on stage at the event had not ever met the woman with whom they were sharing the stage.  As Jon Stewart might say, "Awk-ward."

And cold and uncaring.

Lately we have word that he has several times trespassed to enter Jenny's home, and that in March she decided to pursue the matter legally.  And Sanford's response to this is to accuse, well everyone involved in making it public, of political motivation, as though we the people have no right to know about such behavior from someone running for office.  

What we get from Mark Sanford in response to all these incidents is the type of depressive and pathetic whining that amounts to, "Why are you all picking on me?"

He has tried to blame the most recent trespassing event on the fact that Jenny was not home, leaving their 14-year-old son unsupervised.  Because, as you know, Mark Sanford is all about being there for his children.

There is a disconnect here that is disturbing.  Mark Sanford's reflection goes no further than how an action will reflect on him, and not ever whether it is right or wrong.  Whether it is leaving the state without alerting state officials of his whereabouts or lying about his affairs, Sanford is unable to do the right thing when it interferes with his needs and impulses.  And when it's over, he is unable to see what he did that was wrong.

The fact that Mark Sanford on primary night referred to "my God" was jarring.  It truly emphasized the extent to which Sanford filters his entire world through the lens of his own needs, and that it is indeed his world.

Depression is the flip side of anger.  Without going all psychobabble here, I will say that Sanford's depression looks a lot like what he feels when his attempts to manipulate the women in his life fail.  His idea of a swell relationship with his ex-wife seems to be happily running his campaign, giving him free access to her home, and supporting him in his campaigns and in his love life.

And the continued errors in judgment he has made that involve his wife, and his attempts to spin the errors, point to a man who can never be trusted to do the right thing.  Or even to understand when he has done the wrong thing.

Which pretty much explains why on earth after being laughed out of the Governor's Mansion at the end of his term he would imagine we would want him back.

Fear and Loathing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of the Shadows

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

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

What's the difference?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Scott reply re: VAWA and my Response

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

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

He goes on to say: 

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

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

Dear Senator Scott, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

Stay tuned.

Violence Against Women Act Reauthorized

The House voted today to pass the Senate’s bipartisan version of the Violence Against Women Act which extends coverage to Native American women and members of the LGBT community.

The legislation passed on a vote of 286 to 138, with 199 Democrats joining 87 Republicans to push the reauthorization of the landmark 1994 law.

 

And, here in South Carolina, Rep. Clyburn (D) was the only one of our five current Representatives that voted in favor of the bill.  Representatives Wilson, Duncan, Gowdy, Mulvaney and Rice ( all Republicans) voted No.  And just as a reminder, both SC Senators (Scott & Graham) also voted against this bill.

 

Oh, yeah...it's a great day here in South Carolina.

 

Where Ever Your Conscience May Take You

Lindsey Graham may not care much about gun deaths, but he proudly calls himself a "pro-life Senator."  Where he takes his stand is right smack inside of a woman's body, where he can celebrate all his religious freedoms.

I made the mistake of adding my name to an email petition regarding a woman's right to contraceptive access and the providers' obligation to, well, do their jobs.  I try to avoid this because what happens is I get back, by snail mail, on the taxpayer's dime (more like a dollar given the classy stationery and the cost of stamps), a form letter carefully tailored to say, "I don't agree, I am right, but please always feel free to contact me."

Often I don't bother to open the letter; I can tell you what they all say.  But I had just gotten the same old from Nikki Haley, on even more expensive letterhead, and I thought I'd start a collection.

So what we are struggling against these days, is no longer just the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy (or, as Lindsey might say, "Kill an unborn baby").  These days we are watching our President attempt to move us back to the 20th century, back before President W invented (probably has his science advisers invent) the "conscience clause."

This is one of those right-wing freedoms that started off with the Catholic church, those bastions of morality, all men, who believe that a woman's job is to submit to her husband.  Having no wife, and supposing not to have sex, the Pope and his underlings have nonetheless become the go-to guys when our Congressional leaders need testimony on women's reproductive systems.

Now I think the issue of whether or not an unmarried man should have any say in what happens to a woman, reproductively speaking, is absurd, but let's not dwell on that.

More important is the fact that religious groups enjoy (and I do mean enjoy) tax exempt status and despite their wealth are considered non-profit organizations.  As such they freeload off taxpayers, are allowed to receive government grants, and then dictate terms that fly right in the face of the Constitution.

Remember the Constitution?  All those right-wingers carry a copy of it on their person, I think to protect them from stray bullets when they are out wielding their weapons around town.

I believe that the louder someone talks about "freedom" these days, the more likely they are to dismiss the concept of "equality."  And this is what is wrong with the Catholic church, small businesses, pharmacists, the US Congress AND legislatures like that of our very own state of South Carolina.

You don't get to move the line.  If we've got a law --  if the Supremes have said abortion is legal -- you don't get to decide you don't want to do it.  If you provide insurance coverage, you don't get to decide you don't agree with a certain procedure.  If you operate a pharmacy, you are obligated to do your job, which is not to make moral judgments.

Imagine where this "conscience" silliness can lead.  In fact, you don't have to imagine from whence it came.

A hotel manager could decide his morals were compromised by allowing a couple of mixed race to have a room.

An obstetrician may refuse to care for a pregnant and unmarried teen.

A restaurateur would be free to turn away a gay couple.

And here's one that hasn't happened yet:  a pharmacist could decide not to prescribe erectile dysfunction drugs.

Which might, in fact, be a good thing.  Because on a religious level, one could say that if God wanted a man to have sex he'd have given him that erection.  And for another matter, the day this happens we will have a whole new ballgame.