Marilyn Katz : Our Bodies, Their Politics

Image from The Raw Story.
Our bodies, their politics

The last few months have made abundantly clear what women must do: rid America’s capitols of misogynists.

By Marilyn Katz / The Rag Blog / April 24, 2012

In the first half of 2011, close to 1,000 measures related to reproductive health and rights were introduced into state legislatures.

The first “women’s group” that I was involved in was not born out of feminist theory or organized by intellectual women on campus. Rather it was in 1966 in Chicago’s Uptown neighborhood, and its members were poor African-American moms on welfare and thirtysomething (looking 50) Appalachian women, newly arrived from Kentucky and West Virginia.

Not much older than me, many of the women in the group provided physical testament to the possible effects of multiple childbirths while young and poor. The work of the group ranged from food co-ops to welfare reform, from rent strikes to learning to read.

The impetus for the group, however, was a clear-eyed view that welfare was a “women’s issue,” and the need -- among the Appalachian women in particular -- for protection and camaraderie in the face of their husbands’ explosive anger upon learning that “their” women were seeking information about birth control from government VISTA volunteers.

Back then the outraged cry from men was not about “religious freedom,” but about male prerogative and the duties of women.

I have been reminded of those meetings in recent months by the series of controversies surrounding the contraception mandate in the federal healthcare reform law -- from the exclusion of Sandra Fluke’s testimony at congressional hearings (GOP Rep. Joe Walsh said the birth control debate is “not about women”) to Rush Limbaugh’s virulent rant (and limp apology), to the barely audible denouncements of his statement by the Republican presidential candidates.

Contrary to the posturing of politicians and bishops alike, religious freedom is not the core issue. Consider, for example, the Catholic hospitals, schools and universities that have, for many years and with little fuss, provided insurance that covers birth control in the states that require them to do so.

The reality is, as it was 40 years ago in Uptown, that the debate about birth control is firstly and fundamentally about women -- their rights and their lives. From Biblical times on, women -- who bear the brunt as well as the joy of childbearing -- have struggled to curtail unwanted pregnancies, often resorting to extreme measures in the face of possible death or the poverty that another child might bring.

More than 500,000 women die around the world each year from pregnancy-related causes, according to the World Health Organization. A majority of those deaths occur in developing countries, but only a century ago American women faced similar fates.

It was not until the 20th century that pregnancy-related death rates in the United States declined -- a result of modern medicine, better sanitation and the advent of modern female contraception. According to a 2011 study, more than 99 percent of “sexually experienced” American women, including 98 percent of such Catholic women, use or have used non-natural (i.e., not abstinence or the “rhythm method”) birth control.

In the past year, as elected Tea Partiers have aligned themselves with religious fundamentalists, Republicans in the House have introduced eight anti-choice bills, each of which received the support of the same 225 GOP representatives. In the first half of 2011, close to 1,000 measures related to reproductive health and rights -- from those curtailing contraception to those mandating transvaginal ultrasounds -- were introduced into state legislatures.

Of the 28 states controlled by Republicans, 26 have passed laws that limit women’s reproductive choices. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 55 percent of American women of reproductive age lived in states characterized as “hostile” to abortion in 2011 -- up from 31 percent in 2000.

The danger is to women, but among us also lies the remedy. Perhaps we owe a debt of gratitude to the Limbaughs of the world -- they have brought to public view and hopefully to public attention the attack on women’s reproductive health and rights that has been steadily building over the past years.

And while it would be uplifting to get Limbaugh off the air, the real task is ridding our nation’s legislative bodies of misogynists. Women fought for and won a great deal in the last century. It’s time to say on the Web, in the streets, and of most importance and effect, in the ballot box: We’re not going back.

[An anti-war and civil rights organizer during the Vietnam War, Marilyn Katz helped organize security during the August 1968 protests at the Democratic National Convention. Katz has founded and led groups like the Chicago Women’s Union, Reproductive Rights National Network, and Chicago Women Organized for Reproductive Choice in the 1960s and 1970s, and Chicagoans Against War in Iraq in 2002. The founder and president of Chicago-based MK Communications, Katz can be contacted at mkatz@mkcpr.com. This article was also published at In These Times. Read more articles by Marilyn Katz on The Rag Blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Freedom of Choice : No Nanny State

The Marlboro Man: The picture of Lance Cpl. James Blake Miller, now an Iraq War vet, raised a stink among anti-smoking activists when it appeared in scores of newspapers in 2004. Photo by Luis Sinco.

It does not matter whether it's the right trying to force religion on me or the left trying to force 'healthiness' on me -- it is tyranny either way, and I categorically reject it.

By Ted McLaughlin / The Rag Blog / July 16, 2009

Anyone who has read very many of my posts knows that I hate conservatives who want to force everyone into accepting their own particular religious and political beliefs. But some may be surprised to learn that I hate the "nanny state" liberals equally as much.

To me, freedom means having the ability to make my own choices, and allowing everyone else to do the same. As long as my choices don't hurt someone else, then no one should be able to force me to do something different. It does not matter whether those choices are "good" for me or not.

There are liberals who want to tell us what we can't eat such as a ban on certain cooking oils or fatty foods. They want to tell me what I can't drink such as carbonated soft drinks. And of course, they want to keep me from using tobacco products. These people don't care that I'm an adult, perfectly capable of making my own choices. They have already decided what is best for me and will happily codify it with a law.

This is not freedom. It does not matter whether it's the right trying to force religion on me or the left trying to force "healthiness" on me -- it is tyranny either way, and I categorically reject it. Whatever happened to letting each citizen make his or her own choices?

In a free country, you have the right to try and convince me of anything you want -- until I ask you to stop. Write articles, send mail, buy advertisements and try any other non-invasive measures to change my mind if you want. But you have stepped over the line when you try to force my compliance with a law or a ban, because then you are taking my freedom of choice away. And I will not willingly give up ANY freedom!

The latest freedom-grabbing measure is aimed at the very soldiers who are fighting for our country in a war zone. A "study" commissioned by the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs has decided that their own views of tobacco use should be forced on our military troops -- the same troops who are supposedly fighting for our "freedom".

They want to ban tobacco use on all military bases, and ban the sale of all tobacco products on military bases. They even want to extend this ban to military troops stationed in a war zone. Fortunately Secretary Gates has refused to do this. He cites as his excuse the high stress levels in a war zone. He should just say that soldiers who fight for freedom should have the freedom to make their own choices.

Frankly, this is a stupid thing for a country to do -- especially when that country is having trouble filling its military enlistment quotas. They are telling all tobacco users that they don't respect their freedom to choose, and really don't want them to join the military.

I am left to wonder exactly what this "freedom" is that is so celebrated and that so many have given their lives to establish. Is it just the freedom to follow the orders of those in power? That's not freedom -- that's tyranny wrapped in an American flag. And tyranny wrapped in an American flag is no better than any other tyranny.

How about you? Do you want the freedom to make your own choices, or are you happy to left those in power make your choices for you?

[Rag Blog contributor Ted McLaughlin also posts at jobsanger, an excellent Texas political blog.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

Bishop Takes Pawn : The Real Meaning of 'Pro-Life'

U.S. Catholic bishops listening to Pope Benedict XVI. Photo by Alex Wong / Getty Images.

The present effort to politicize the church and marginalize pro-choice will drive away more of the flock and quickly shed the intellectual credibility it so laboriously earned.

By Sherman DeBrosse / The Rag Blog / June 10, 2009

My friend Lee recently entered an art competition and won first prize with a moving painting on the folly of war. His other entry was entitled “Right to Life.” In the upper left-hand corner was a mitered bishop proclaiming that life begins at conception and that all life is sacred.

In the lower right, the same bishop is busy denying medical assistance to the poor, childcare, and other forms of help to those who need it.

Of course, the bishops do not actively speak against helping the poor, but their political activism seems to have had the same effect because the large minority of political bishops who back the Republicans, are in effect, joining the GOP’s crusade against the poor and marginalized. They have also rounded up the votes that enabled George W. Bush to continue the war in Iraq and to torture prisoners.

Many Americans see only that a substantial minority of Catholic bishops appear to have become Republican operatives and are busy turning local churches into Republican political club houses. Lee and many others do not read the documents churned out by the U.S. bishops. He and others only see only see the political bishops refusing to allow pro-choice Catholic politicians to receive communion. They hear harsh, uncharitable, condemnations and altogether too few words trying to explain their positions to people not subject to their religious authority. In the recent debate over Notre Dame’s granting President Barack Obama an honorary degree, we saw 70 political bishops denouncing some of their co-religionists.

We would hope that the bishops would not resort to medieval threats and uncharitable language. These are bright, highly–educated men who should be able to make their case in terms that people who rely upon science and reason could respect. When the bishops copy the language and tactics of their right-wing Protestant political allies, observers simply conclude that these Catholic bishops are similarly thoughtless and uncivil.

In their defense, it should be noted that the U.S. bishops conference is on record as supporting the entire Roman Catholic peace and social justice agenda. The trouble is that the American bishops did not exert themselves in supporting the Vatican’s opposition to the Iraq war or its call for an even-handed position in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Too often their positions on social justice issues appeared to be muted or even lip service. Critics cannot be blamed for concluding that the bishops care a lot more about their teachings on abortion and stem cell research than about these other questions. Has any Congressman been denied communion because he supported the death penalty and opposed extending unemployment benefits or including assistance for the destitute in the stimulus package?

The late Joseph Cardinal Bernardin tried to explain the great bulk of Roman Catholic teachings in terms of the fundamental belief in the dignity of every human being. It would be helpful if the bishops tied their views on abortion and stem cell research to the Catholic positions on peace, the death penalty, and a host of issues addressed in the social encyclicals. Of course, they would need to be willing to exert as much energy in opposing an unjust war and defending the poor as they expend now in defense of abortion policies that are very unlikely to become public policy in the near future. Roe v. Wade is probably settled law, and there are many political reasons to explain why both parties are not likely to change the status quo.

Above all they need to abandon the harsh language and medieval threats. Such behavior leads many to forget that these men are highly educated and to group them with the right-wing Protestant allies who often seem to lack civility and an ability for nuanced judgment. Some of us wonder if all the harsh language might inspire unhinged individuals to seek to kill abortionists.

The nub of the abortion problem is that many intelligent people think the embryo is part of our human species but they do not think it is yet a person. That is a defensible position, and the church, while disagreeing, should recognize this. The union of the sperm in the egg is part of a process and can no longer be ascribed to a precise moment. Why not admit that? On the other hand, none of this damages the Catholic position, in the words of John Paul II, that “the mere probability that a human person is involved would suffice to justify an absolutely clear prohibition or any intervention aimed at killing a human embryo.”

This is not much different from the position of Immanuel Kant, the great defender of human dignity. It is a reasonable position. It would be more persuasive if the church coupled it with its other concerns for human dignity in a wide variety of areas from labor law to health care for poor children.

By giving the appearance that the Catholic Church in the United States is becoming an arm of the Republican Party, the bishops have re-ignited a latent anti-Catholicism. Their nearly criminal handling of the sex abuse scandal has alienated the larger part of a whole generation. It is no wonder that so many women see the church as anti-woman. It offers a lame explanation for not ordaining women -- women do not come with the same physical equipment as men. If the church were to adopt Cardinal Bernadine’s “seamless garment” argument and give as much attention to children’s health matters as to abortion, more women might accept the sincerity of its arguments and perhaps write off the refusal to ordain women as simply an inability to shed some very undesirable cultural baggage.

The present course of the American bishops seems to be part of the ancient “faithful remnant” outlook. In the time of Christ, his righteous opponents, intent upon absolutely strict observance of the law as they saw it, sought to separate out a holy remnant, but it is very doubtful that he was interested in doing the same thing. Maybe the bishops should see pro-choice advocates as Christ saw the tax collectors as neighbors and try to win them over.

The present effort to politicize the church and marginalize pro-choice will drive away more of the flock and quickly shed the intellectual credibility it so laboriously earned. Catholics will be viewed more and more as something akin to the evangelicals and fundamentalists -- politically oriented and opposed to full dialogue and engagement. However, the bishops will enjoy the support of wealthy right-wing Catholics and they will have high visibility and some influence when Republicans are in power. Their rewards will be lip service on abortion and photographs of churchmen with important people. If they are not serious about the rest of the Catholic agenda, this might be their best course.

[Sherman DeBrosse, the pseudonym for a retired history professor, is a regular contributor to The Rag Blog and also blogs at Sherm Says and on DailyKos.]

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...

America is Pro-Choice, Any Questions?

In support of a woman's right to choose:

'According to a recent Gallup poll, we are in the majority by a long shot'
By DarkSyde / August 23, 2008

Is anyone still unsure where We the People stand on choice? That right-wing noise machine is effective, listening to the mighty roar of Fake News and tut-tutting talking heads, it's easy to think reproductive choice is a shrinking minority. But according to a recent Gallup poll, we are in the majority by a long shot, and have been since the poll was founded over ten years ago. A few tidbits:

Most Americans oppose the idea of passing laws to outlaw abortion and they soundly reject the idea of overturning Roe. v. Wade.

More broadly, a majority of Americans favor keeping abortion legal in the first trimester but would make it illegal in the second and third trimesters.

Only about 20% or less of those polled over the last decade feel abortion should be illegal in all cases -- the only possible, rational conclusion for anyone who truly believes that a viable embryo at any stage of development is a person with full Constitutional Rights. Almost two thirds of the sample want restrictions to remain the same or be further loosened. A little over half of those polled do not want to see Roe V. Wade overturned while less than a third want it overturned.

The data goes on and on like this. And what's remarkable about these numbers is how consistent they've remained for more than a decade of polling. Anti-choice talking points have been liberally poured into the nation's conscious for twenty or thirty years, backed by almost limitless political, religious, and financial resources. The net result of all that right-wing effort is at best maybe a few, scattered points here and there on the margins.

That explains why the most extreme right-wing control freaks in almost a century were notably less than eager to eliminate choice. Tax breaks for billionaires, sweetheart deals for Big Oil, protection for communist sweat shop owners, all sailed through Tom DeLay's House of Horrors and Bill Frist's Senate as fast as American jobs sailed overseas. But that same crew of sanctimonious blowhards didn’t even try to put up anything other than a token effort to end what they referred to as mass infanticide, they didn’t try even when they had control of both branches of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the White House. They know damn well it was 1) unpopular, and 2) too useful an issue politically to risk losing. Whatever else we disagree with the grass roots socially conservative right on, and it's quite a long list, this is one thing we can recognize: they got royally screwed by the Republicans. The question is, do they finally recognize it, and if so, what are they going to do about it?

Source / Daily Kos

The Rag Blog

[+/-] Read More...

[+/-] Summary only...