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.

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...

Obama Administration Appeals Ruling On Morning-After Pill

JOSH LEDERMAN and LAURAN NEERGAARDMay 2, 2013, 7:07 AM1520

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."





 

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.