The pro-choice movement in the United States is at a critical crossroads. A new reproductive justice movement is emerging from the hardships endured by women in this country, one that will challenge the heated, sometimes violent suppression of women's dignity and human rights.
This year, more legislation to limit women's access to abortion and to legally separate fetuses from the pregnant women who sustain them was introduced in state legislatures than ever before - over 350 bills. Less commonly known is the fact that these laws also undermine the rights and health of pregnant women who wish to continue their pregnancies. According to Amnesty International, the United States spends more than any other country on health care, yet women here have a higher risk of dying due to pregnancy-related complications than women in 40 other countries.
Poverty, geography, religion, politics all play a dominant role in determining who can and cannot get birth control, maternal health care and abortion services in the United States. Maternal care and abortion rights are intertwined--more than 60% of women who have abortions are already mothers. Despite this, a woman's human rights--her right to make medical decisions, right to religious freedom, right to personal dignity are all increasingly taking a back seat to efforts to re-criminalize abortion. It's harder to end a pregnancy than it was 20 years ago due to the barriers women must overcome and the fact that reproductive health clinics continue to close.
In states across the U.S., especially the Midwest and South, where women are earning less and less, the cost of an abortion is often out of reach. Add hours of travel, unpaid time off from work, childcare, and the obstacles to getting an abortion become significant. These same obstacles keep many women from getting the prenatal and postnatal care they deserve.
These states are also home to some of the most restrictive and punitive laws curtailing women's access to reproductive health care, and also claim some of the highest teen pregnancy and child poverty rates in the country. The Washington Post recently reported a rise in teen pregnancy rates, despite the $1.5 billion spent on abstinence-only programs
over the past decade.
Anti-abortion and anti-government activism is heated, high-profile, and often violent. This violence culminated in May 2009, when Dr. George Tiller was assassinated in Wichita, Kansas. His murder seems to have emboldened the anti-choice, anti-woman movement, while the women of these regions suffer the most.
This continuing campaign against women is unacceptable and un-American.
While state legislators push bills to penalize women who continue their pregnancies to term in spite of a drug problem, they do nothing to advocate for family and medical leave nor do they work to stop hospitals from banning women who have had previous cesarean surgery from delivering at their hospitals unless they agree to have another such surgery - whether they need it or not. The Federal outlook is no better. The new Congress is gearing up to host an unprecedented number of bills that go against women's dignity and
human rights. Unequivocally, we have more legislators who allow their opposition to abortion to trump the worth of women.
Following Roe in 1973, the U.S. saw an extraordinary improvement in public health and women's health with the legalization of abortion - but all this progress, access to maternity care and abortion care, is under increasing attack. This trend must be reversed and the rights of women must be respected. Doing so will result in more favorable health outcomes for women and their children.
What is emerging in 2010 is not our mothers' reproductive rights movement. This is a reproductive justice movement that addresses abortion care, maternity care, birthing rights and sex education in a holistic manner - each element part of a greater whole. This is a movement that recognizes that a woman's decision regarding pregnancy, no matter its outcome, is a moral and personal one.
The simple truth is that the same women who have abortions are already mothers or will most likely become mothers. It is imperative that we value these women, these mothers and ensure that they have full access to all of the maternal and reproductive health care services they need. America should do nothing less for the sake of women and their families.
Weekly Pulse: Pelosi Makes Her Move; GOP Rep. Calls for Coup
By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium blogger
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has laid out a strategy to pass health care reform in the next couple of days by allowing the House to vote on the details of the reconciliation package instead of the Senate bill itself. As usual, progressives are fretting that winning will make them look bad. On the other hand, conservatives are baying for blood and calling for revolution.
'Deem and pass'
Nick Baumann of Mother Jones discusses the parliamentary tactic known as "deem and pass" (D&P), which House Democrats plan to use to avoid voting for the Senate bill before the Senate fixes the bill through reconciliation. The House doesn't want to sign a blank check. If the health care bill passes the House first, there's no guarantee that the Senate will make the fixes as promised.
Originally, the hope was that the Senate could do reconciliation first. The problem is that you can't pass a bill to amend a bill that isn't law yet. That would be like putting the cart before the horse. To clear that hurdle, the House will invoke a rule that deems that Senate bill to have passed if and when the House passes the reconciliation package. It's sort of like backdating a check. Ryan Grim explains the process in more detail on Democracy Now!
D&P does not equal treason
Progressives like Kevin Drum worry that D&P will make the Democrats look bad. Meanwhile, the Tea Party crowd is calling for Nancy Pelosi to be tried for treason, as TPM reports. The bottom line is that D&P is no big deal. Republicans used the process 36 times in 2005 and 2006; Democrats used it 49 times in 2007 and 2008. D&P is constitutional. We know because it has already been upheld by the Supreme Court. Kevin Drum writes, "If you have a life, you don't care about the subject of this post and have never heard of it."
Teabag revolution
There is no joy in Tea Party Land, as Dave Weigel reports in the Washington Independent. The tea baggers are frantically lobbying to stop the bill, but the reality is starting to sink in. Their leaders are shifting from trying to kill the bill to planning the tantrum they're going to throw when it passes:
While many held out hope that plans to pass the Senate's version of reform in the House would stall out, others pondered their next steps. Some, like Rep. Steve King (R-IA), took a dark view of what might come.
"Right now, they're civil, because they think they have a chance of stopping this bill," said King to reporters, waving his arm at a pack of "People's Surge" activists forming a line to enter the Cannon House Office Building. "The reason we don't have violence in this country like they do in dictatorships is because we have votes, and our leaders listen to their constituents. Now we're in a situation where the leaders are defying the people!" Later, King would expand on those remarks and speculate on a possible anti-Washington revolt in which Tea Parties would "fill the streets" of the capital.
Sounds like King is calling for a revolution, doesn't it? As it turns out, that's exactly what he says he wants if health care reform passes. Eric Kleefeld of TPMDC reports that King is hoping for something akin to the uprising that overthrew the Communists in Prague in 1989. "Fill this city up, fill this city, jam this place full so that they can't get in, they can't get out and they will have to capitulate to the will of the American people," King said in an interview with the Huffington Post.
Women and health care reform
Health care reform seems poised to pass. Amid the heady excitement, there's a sense of gloom in the reproductive rights community. Bart Stupak was defeated, but health care reform will probably end private insurance coverage for abortion.
In The American Prospect, Michelle Goldberg urges feminists to support reform anyway. She argues that the women suffer disproportionately under the status quo. If reform passes, it will insure 17 million previously uninsured women. Expanding health care coverage might help reverse rising maternal mortality rates in the United States.
A recent report by Amnesty International found that at least two women die in childbirth every day in the U.S., a much higher rate than most developed countries. The anti-choicers had the advantage because they were willing to kill health reform over abortion. The pro-choice faction did not allow itself the luxury of nihilism.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
John, sweetie, did you not get the memo about how all of this Boomer-era identity politics stuff is completely outdated and irrelevant?
Our new post-feminist, post-bigotry, post-partisan era will put a pony in every yard if we would but wait for the completion of the latest 11th dimensional chess move, wherein it will be revealed that the lack of support for reproductive rights and marriage equality has just been a secret ploy to massively increase their popularity.
So we shouldn't feel insulted or look for meaning in behavioral ticks, because none of that means anything anymore. After all, we know the president thinks we're likeable enough. We shouldn't nitpick or be paranoid. We need to support the administration, even if it's just with an ambiguously silent presence, so they can deal with important things, like the war.
I remember that at the turn of the century (ha! I've always wanted to get to write that) it seemed like you couldn't read a news outlet anywhere that wasn't running articles on Islam 101 and the institution of Sharia law in some country. In one such article I read, a clerical commentator, iirc, was talking about why the veil was such a big deal to newly instituted Islamic governments.
He said, roughly, that it was because it was a lot easier to prove your piety by insisting that women cover themselves than it was to give up banking with interest.
I've always thought of that story when people go tediously on about the huge, innate cultural differences between Us and Them. It isn't only that women haven't been able to vote in the US for even a full 90 years, that we're only at about the 150 year mark for meaningful property rights for married women, that the states never ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, that women get paid less than men, etc. It's also because still today, our rights and health are often the first bone offered up on the altar of bipartisan consensus.
For the sake of people who believe that undifferentiated cell balls are people, the Democrats routinely ignore the interests of those who believe that women are people. Hence, the uterus remains the only organ that the state can require any adult living or dead to donate the use of for anyone else's sake.
The health financing reform fight has been no exception to this trend, and I don't know if I'm even capable of conveying how angry it makes me that Obama's signaling he's willing to gut reproductive health coverage in even private insurance plans, and almost certainly to exclude it from any public option, just so he can stake a claim to being the "last" president to deal with health care.
If you like the coverage you have, you can keep it. Probably. Unless you're a chick.
Public Christians in US politics can easily prove their piety to peers by punitively, and only, making life harder for women. They are not asked to prove moral fitness by driving out moneychangers, helping the poor, showing mercy, clothing the naked, exemplifying forgiveness, showing hospitality to strangers, being humble, keeping prayer private, sheltering the homeless, ministering to prisoners or feeding the hungry. Indeed, if indifferent cruelty is a spiritual virtue, then majorities in Congress are surely bound for heaven. Such as it would be. Whatever faith that is, it isn't in the Bible, a book I've had to read through cover-to-cover at least twice.
Which also therefore qualifies me to inform you that 'the b*tches got it coming' is neither in the Gospel, which isn't the law, nor the Constitution, which is. Read up.
To follow up on my post re former AG and Gov. Spitzer considering a comeback, the musing and maneuvering has begun. Immediately after The Hill and Danny Hakim at the NYTimes reported he was considering it, Spitzer came out with a full denial Tuesday night, then announced yesterday he was planning on teaching a course on law and public policy at City College of New York. Of course, this doesn't preclude doing a campaign as well, but it does try to bat down the rumors. Meanwhile, Survey USA did a snap poll, finding that 62% of New Yorkers would definitely or consider voting for Spitzer if he ran again for public office. It also found that 41% of voters think Spitzer is more qualified than Paterson to be governor, with 31% going for Paterson and 35% unsure. This follows up on a May poll finding 51% would rather have Spitzer as Governor over Paterson. While Spitzer's numbers do tank against Giuliani (if he runs) in the SUSA poll, and this is all speculation until Cuomo makes up his mind on running for Governor or not, I think there is some positive sign there that he could definitely run for office again and win, perhaps for Comptroller.
I should also mention that the New York State Comptroller is a guy named Thomas DiNapoli, who was most recently a member of the Assembly until chosen by his peers to replace the previous Comptroller over a scandal. An August 24th Siena poll found a whopping 74% had no opinion of DiNapoli, despite taking office in early 2007. To be honest, he's maintained a low profile, and I think can be beaten in a primary. I see that, or running for Attorney General if Cuomo opts to run for Governor, as the most likely possibilities.
The one other thing I did want to address was opinion over respect and forgiveness. After the news came out Tuesday evening on speculation that he might run again, I chatted with my mom and my sister about it. My mom was previously a die-hard Spitzer supporter. I interned in his Buffalo office when he was AG many years ago, and the same office intervened on our behalf when a car dealership tried to screw her out of their warranty obligation when the car was broken. And, as she would say, he's a good Jewish boy.
I was shocked by the flat refusal to support him (at least, in a Dem primary), and it was because of the prostitution issue. To me, I don't care about his personal life to any extent, unless he's using state resources or severely breaking the law, or it's rape. To her, and my sister, cheating on your partner is one thing, but cheating on your partner via prostitution is another. It's supporting an illicit industry, I was told, condoning a lifestyle that shouldn't be condoned, even if it's to support a child. It's taking advantage of women, even if it's consensual. It's interesting to note my mother and my sister are both die-hard feminists and Hillary backers (their reactions to the McCain campaign's targeting of Hillary supporters by picking Palin inspired me to write this piece last year analyzing the effects of it), so perhaps that has something to do with it. Each is entitled to their own opinion, but I am concerned this may by more prevalent than expected, at least among women or a certain demographic of women. It would certainly an important concern in any Spitzer campaign.
The offenders put out a piece in the UK's Daily Telegraph suggesting that wearing provocative clothing makes women more likely to be raped. Only now, it's not just a nervous elderly relative or skeezy Bill O'Reilly saying it, but 'scientists.' As Goldacre was able to gather from talking to the dissertation candidate involved, her research showed nothing of the kind and the conclusion in the headline wasn't going to be reported as a finding because the evidence didn't support it.
But who wants to let facts and evidence get in the way of a little harmless slut-shaming?
Indeed, the research the paper was supposed to be reporting on seems not to have been focused on criminal behavior, and the researcher herself says that the survey structure wouldn't likely be suitable for answering the question assumed by the news article. But there has been research done on what marks people out for being crime victims, conducted by observing the responses of actual criminals, and the conclusions were very different than the prejudice-laden assumptions of the Daily Mail article.
Fascinating stuff. Over the past year or so, I've grown a bit more skeptical that what we're doing is a movement. It may or may be comparable to what the right did in the 1970s in terms of rebuilding partisan apparatus, though there has been no national success story akin to the Panama Canal Treaty or Prop 13. The Obama campaign used movement a lot, not sure what that means.
Palin regaled the cheering crowd with a story about how she was reading her Starbucks mocha cup yesterday, which featured a quotation from former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.
"Now she said it, I didn't," Palin said of Albright. "She said, 'There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women.'"
I wasn't aware of that particular circle, but then I haven't studied Dante. Now what was it Palin said before...Oh, yes:
Once onstage, together with Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, Palin talked about what women expect from women leaders; how she took charge in Alaska during a political scandal that threatened to unseat the state's entire Republican power structure, and her feelings about Sen. Hillary Clinton. (She said she felt kind of bad she couldn't support a woman, but she didn't like Clinton's whining.)
I just had two interesting discussions with my mom and my sister, both of whom were Hillary supporters in the primary, that really got my thoughts going on what McCain is trying to do with this pick, and why it's set up to fail.
I've seen the polling that says only 66% of Hillary supporters are supporting Obama, and 27% are backing McCain, and I think that's the biggest reason for this pick. McCain and his advisers obviously see an opening there. Palin brings nothing else to her table, since her age doesn't matter because she has zero qualification in terms of experience. So let me tell you what I think he's attempting with former female Clinton supporters, and the likelihood of pulling it off.
Just curious how other people feel about the photoadvertising that's in the middle of posts here now. I was sort of disturbed by the Snorg Tees ads--though the company and its shirts seemed pretty inoffensive when i clicked over--but I don't know if I'm just off in my sleep-deprived haze. The other ads (Avis, Yell.com) raised different objections for me about pushing messages across very visibly on behalf of large corporate entities. I know the site needs money to run, but I was curious what people thought about this, especially in the context of the lengthy conversation about feminism / misogyny that happened here a few weeks ago.
Even before the primary had ended, feminists/womanists (hereafter FWs) who had become disenchanted with Senator Barack Obama as a result of worrying rhetoric on reproductive rights, his and his campaign's use of sexist dog whistles, and/or his silence in response to an appalling onslaught of misogyny unleashed upon his opponent, were being bullied at any indication (real or imagined) that they would not vote for him.
The preeminent progressive journalist of her time wrote:
AUSTIN, Texas --- I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.
Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.
http://freepress.org/columns/d...
There was a petition from NYC feminists:
In the coming elections, it is important to remember that war and peace are as much "women's issues" as are health, the environment, and the achievement of educational and occupational equality. Because we believe that all of these concerns are not only fundamental but closely intertwined, we will be casting our vote for Senator Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. http://www.ipetitions.com/peti...
(I'm going to steal Jon's thunder here and welcome Sara Robinson of (one of my personal favourite blogs) Orcinus as the next guest-blogger here at Open Left. If you ever thought racism was just a problem of the past, or that it went away on its own, Orcinus will disabuse you of that. Jon, feel free to add anything I may have missed you wanted to say by way of introduction. - promoted by Daniel De Groot)
What did Hillary's campaign -- and, ultimately, her failure -- mean for progressives? My offering is a meditation in four parts.
I Hillary was quite possibly the last great feminist heroine we'll see from a passing generation -- that early 1945-1955 cohort of Boomer women -- that produced a historically singular crop of them. And that, in the end, was both her glory and her curse.
The 1980s was a decade of incredible ferment, as women of color--particular black women--challenged the tradional white middle-class focus of mainstream feminism, in addition to all the other obstacles they faced. This challenge ranged across a wide range of arenas, from local grassroots organizing to national bestselling books, like Alice Walker's The Color Purple. Walker was just one of a whole generation of novelists, such as Toni Morrison and Gloria Naylor, who dramatically opened new vistas in their writing, just as things were shutting down hard on the national political scene with the advent of Ronald Reagan and the rapid institutional growth of the religious right.
The novelists mentioned, were only the tip of the iceberg, however. This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color, first published in 1981, was a groundbreaking anthology edited by Cherríe Moraga and Gloria E. Anzaldúa that revealed a whole previously-hidden landscape, that informed a whole new generation of women of color that they were not alone, not isolated and apart from history, and that also helped initiate a much wider cultural re-assessment that continues to this day.
This is the third installation of a decade-by-decade diary series calling for people to share their experiences, from everyday experience of family and friends, to local politics, all the way on up, as high as our experience reaches. The point of this series is to get at women's experience and the growth and development of feminist consciousness-and/or womanist consciousness as many women of color prefer. Naturally this does not exclude men. We are an important part of this story, even if we are not the center of it. But our main role here is one of listening. For a longer explanation, see the first installment here.
I've altered my original plan and am doing one installation per weekend. This diary will be re-promoted on Sunday. A brief kick-off discussion of the decade follows on the flip.
[UPDATE]: I am re-promoting this diary in hopes of getting a more robust response. I wanted to do a decade-by-decade series, but unfortunately, there was not sufficient interest during the week to warrant it. I am hoping this will change.
This is the second installation of a decade-by-decade diary series calling for people to share their experiences, from everyday experience of family and friends, to local politics, all the way on up, as high as our experience reaches. The point of this series is to get at women's experience and the growth and development of feminist consciousness-and/or womanist consciousness as many women of color prefer. Naturally this does not exclude men. We are an important part of this story, even if we are not the center of it. But our main role here is one of listening. For a longer explanation, see the first installment here.
I originally planned to do one a day, but it seems that a slower pace is called for, so I will leave this one up Wednessday and Thursday, before going on to the 1970s on Friday. I also invite any woman who wants to volunteer to write the intro for the next diary to contact me (see my users page for my email address).
STATE BLOGS
