Tag Archives: Roe v. Wade

Here’s the short take: Stokely was right

I’ve probably told this story once or twice, but I’ll tell it again for good measure. Back in 1980 I was a student at S.U.N.Y. New Paltz and during the course of that year I had the opportunity to hear Stokely Carmichael speak on campus. He shared the stage with a Palestinian activist – sadly, I do not recall who that person was. In any case, a goodly portion of their talk centered on Israel/Palestine and the Palestinian liberation struggle.

There were several middle-aged people in the audience that day who challenged the speakers on Israel/Palestine. I can’t say that I recall the exact wording of some of the challenges, but one question they put forward – not an uncommon one at that time – was that with over a dozen Arab countries in the region, why isn’t there room for one Jewish state? This and their other questions were not going over well in the room, which was packed with students. At one point one of the middle aged men referenced the holocaust, and Stokely’s response went something like this:

“When you said ‘holocaust’, I thought you meant MY holocaust. But now I know you were talking about the Indians.”

First impressions

I was a leftist back then, pretty much as radical as I am today, though less knowledgeable (if you can believe it). When I heard Stokely say this, I felt I knew where he was going with it, but I thought it was kind of hyperbolic and incendiary. At some point, though, in the decades that followed, I came to understand what he meant. His people did experience a holocaust, as did first peoples in America. But instead of ending, the black holocaust has shape-shifted, adapted, and transitioned into the current reality – one where Black Americans have less than one quarter the wealth of white Americans on average, where Black mortality and morbidity rates are higher than whites, and so on.

What’s more, white people have never atoned or particularly regretted the holocaust perpetrated on African-Americans. There has been no de-Nazification, no reparations. New ways to extend the legacy of chattel slavery keep being innovated, like the recent overturning of Roe v. Wade, subjecting those who can become pregnant to forced gestation, one of the central pillars of American slavery.

The holocaust against first peoples is too similar to the Nazi mother of all crimes to be denied. For the longest time, it was minimized, justified as part of a civilizing mission, etc. But in the end, millions were here … and then they weren’t.

Increasingly hard lesson to learn

Of course, now we’re seeing Republican-driven legislation to bar any discussion in school of either holocaust (and to some extent, even the Nazi holocaust) for fear of making white kids uncomfortable. It seems like the overriding objective of this policy is to return education to where it was when I attended grade school. The teachers in my grammar school didn’t talk about anything that would make white people uncomfortable – that was their entire audience, I should add. New Hartford School District (New York state) is more diverse today, but back in the sixties it was white as a sheet.

Most of my learning about race took place outside of the confines of school, in any case. And at 63, I’m still learning. I think one of the most effectively educational pieces of media I have seen on this topic is The Underground Railroad – not because it is a factual account, but because it so effectively uses the tools of video storytelling to reproduce for white audiences some element of the terror that black Americans have been subjected to. It hits you like a boat paddle upside the head, frankly, and that’s what we need to shake us out of our stupor and acknowledge that this was a holocaust, pure and simple.

Stokely was right, man. It took me decades to get there, but better late than never, right?

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

The right to be forced into childbirth

Let me put this right on the table. I am a cisgender white male, born into considerable privilege (though not rich) and raised in a rock-rib Republican town that is also home to Congresswoman Claudia Tenney. Unlike Claudia (who is currently warning on Twitter of yet another election-year migrant “caravan” coming north from the brown countries), I am pro-abortion rights, 100%. And if I were against abortion, no one should listen to me …. because I am a cisgender white male who will never need the procedure, and should shut the fuck up.

In light of the leaked Alito draft opinion on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, I feel as though I should map out my reasons for supporting women’s bodily sovereignty. None of my thoughts on this are unique or particularly original, but this is a time when people should voice their opposition to the Taliban-like edicts of our robed overlords on the Supreme Court, in hopes of mobilizing even broader opposition. Aside from organizing, volunteering and donating, it’s all we’ve got left at this point.

Thus far and no farther

First point: I have long felt that our bodies are our own personal nation, and that we are the sovereigns of that nation. Sure, we can’t control everything that happens within our borders, so to speak, but we should have the final word on any interventions from the skin inward. That seems pretty minimal to me in the way of human rights. Men insist on this, and rightly so – no forced vasectomies, thank you very much. And I intend on keeping my gall bladder, so there!

Okay, so when a woman is pregnant – and guys, I hope you’re reading this carefully – the pregnancy happens inside of her. That small province of internal space should be totally within her control. You’ve heard the old saying about politics stopping at the waters’ edge? Well, the law should stop at the skin. If a woman wants to bring the pregnancy to term, that’s her right. If she wants to end it, prevent it, whatever, that’s her fundamental right as well. It’s a question of sovereignty, you see.

Freedom from religion

Last time I looked at the First Amendment, it appeared to say something like this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This is our guarantee not only of freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. Now, when you hear right-wingnuts and religious zealots talking about when life begins, it’s important to remember that they are expressing a religious belief. The idea that “life” begins at conception has no basis in science. If they are passing laws that force us to comply with this warped take on human biology, by any reasonable standard that amounts to compelling us to live according to the strictures of their religion.

This is indefensible on first amendment grounds. Unless, of course, our hyper partisan Supreme Court decides otherwise.

Card-carrying justices

Let us face it, the Supreme Court is an overtly political institution. Regardless of what they say at their confirmation hearings, conservative justices are only going to vote on way, regardless of the facts or the law. As Elie Mystal has pointed out many times, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were bred to overturn Roe v. Wade – no amount of argumentation will convince them otherwise.

If the Court decides to overturn Roe, people like me have to stand up. We all know multiple women who have relied on this constitutional right at one point or another. We need to ally with women, support them, and fight for justice. That’s the only way forward.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

The best way to make your vote count

I know this is not a week when people want to hear about lost elections, but somebody has to say it. This is such an elementary point, I don’t understand why there’s so much resistance to it, but elections have consequences. I feel the urge to tell my leftist friends that (a) I’m further left than they are, (b) the revolution is not just around the corner, and (c) voting strategically doesn’t take anything away from organizing.

This week the Supreme Court gave us their best reason yet to use voting as a political strategy. We are looking at a 5-4 reversal of Roe v. Wade, a decision that will cause enormous hardship for millions of working class and poor women across the country. That five-vote majority could not be arrived at without the appointment of Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh to the court. If a Democratic president had filled even just two of those seats, it’s doubtful that Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health would have even made it to the court in the first place.

Not our first rodeo

The sad fact is, because of flaccid support for flaccid Democratic candidates over the past twenty years, we have missed multiple opportunities to flip the Supreme Court over to the centrist-liberal side. There were several points at which a Democratic senate majority and/or Democratic president could have taken advantage of serendipitous vacancies, but alas, they simply were not there. The Republicans have managed to be in the right place at the right time in each instance.

It happened in the Reagan years, but without delving back into the stone age, the first instance I’m thinking of is 2005, right after Bush’s reelection, when Chief Justice Rehnquist died of thyroid cancer. If Kerry had won in 2004, Rehnquist would not have been replaced with Roberts. Neither would Sandra Day O’Connor have been replaced with Alito that same year. Then, of course, there was 2016, when Scalia dropped dead. Much as I couldn’t stand Clinton, she would not have appointed Gorsuch to replace him. And if we had held the Senate in 2014, confirmation of Obama’s nominee would have been assured.

Harm reduction 101

There are plenty of fair complaints on the left regarding how Biden has handled things, how the Democratic House and Senate have used their majorities, etc. But the principle obstacle to better policy is the lack of a firm majority in the Senate. That’s the reason why the Child Tax Credit was not renewed, even though it had cut child poverty in half. That was a wildly successful program that missed renewal by a whisker – really just one vote short in the Senate.

How do you fix that problem? Elect more progressive Democrats. Failing that, elect more Democrats who will at least support core policies, like reducing or ending child poverty, protecting a woman’s bodily sovereignty, and so on. It’s one of those necessary but not sufficient measures. Voting for Democrats will not solve our most serious problems by itself. It will keep things from turning into the dumpster fire we’re seeing now.

Do it for the downtrodden

Hey, I know … it sucks to have to support a lousy candidate. You work like hell in the primaries to get somebody decent on the ballot, and then end up with some watery moderate like Biden. Bad enough, but you know what’s worse? Republicans. And it may not affect you directly, if you’re well situated economically, but for working class and poor people, there is a significant difference between the parties.

So mark your ballot, then march. You can spend the whole year doing the latter. The former will just take you a few minutes.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

Making half of us second class citizens

I heard a few moments of oral arguments in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health while they were underway. I didn’t, however, get the chance to dig into it until about a week later, when Michael Moore ran the full audio feed on his podcast, Rumble. You can also read the transcript posted on the Supreme Court’s web site, if you prefer.

Either way you access it, it’s pretty ugly, but that’s not surprising. The fact is, we’ve been seeing this slow-motion train wreck coming for decades, and many, many of us chose to do nothing to stop it. But before I get into that familiar diatribe, I want to comment briefly on some of what was said during these oral arguments – specifically, a few reactionary hot takes as analyzed by someone who is not a Con Law expert.

Being neutral on a speeding train

If you listen to the entire proceedings, you will hear Justice Kavanaugh dive into a discussion of precedent. Kavanaugh cited cases like Brown v. Board of Education as fodder for his argument that sometimes it’s appropriate to overturn decisions that are wrongly decided. Legal experts have pointed out that most if not all of his examples were cases that expanded rights, whereas overturning Roe would take rights away from Americans. But he also contended that the court should be “scrupulously neutral” on the question of abortion because, he claims, the Constitution is neutral on abortion.

Kavanaugh affects to consider Plessy v. Furguson as wrongly decided – fair enough. But wasn’t Plessy effectively the court’s way of saying that they were neutral on “separate but equal” Jim Crow laws? After all, the majority wasn’t forcing all states to adopt these laws. If a state wanted to do so, it was up to them. In light of that, what was Plessy, then, if not “scrupulous neutralism”? How can he describe this kind of neutralism as being a positive thing?

Fetishizing enumerated rights

Both Justice Thomas and Justice Kavanaugh appeared to agree with Mississippi’s Solicitor General that abortion was not a right explicitly laid out in our 18th Century constitution. If they mean the word does not appear in the text, they are correct. However, it seems more than unreasonable to expect that the only human rights we should honor must be spelled out in our founding documents.

For instance, is there anything in the Constitution about a right to breathe? How about walking across the street – is that buried somewhere in Article II? Reactionary Supreme Court Justices play this little game all the time. Now, I’m not even just an old country lawyer, but I’ll say this much. It seems to me that what happens under your skin should be your own damn business. That strikes me as the closest thing to a natural right as anything I’ve ever heard.

Ladies choice, please

I have a suggestion for the Justices. Your honors, take this as you will. If you are considering a decision that will relegate women to second-class citizenship, it seems only fair that the decision should be made by those amongst you who are best situated to understand the full ramifications. I’m speaking of the women currently seated on the Court. Let’s let them decide how to move forward on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health. You boys just wait in the cloak room until they work it out.

Hey – if you don’t have a uterus, you should have a say in this. Simple as that.

luv u,

jp

Check out our political opinion podcast, Strange Sound.

Roe v. Squee.

As I write this, we are witnessing a shameful pissing match between the state legislators and governors of Republican-dominated states to see which group of Christian Taliban can pass the most restrictive abortion ban in the nation and spawn the lawsuit that will result in the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Ohio and Georgia were taking the lead last week, the latter passing a “fetal heartbeat” bill that would make the procedure a felony after six weeks, no exceptions other than saving the life of the mother. (The bill was signed by Georgia’s illegitimate governor, Brian Kemp.) Not to be outdone, Alabama this week sent to its Nazi governor (Kay Ivey) a very near to total, outright abortion ban, again, criminalizing the procedure. Texas, not surprisingly, is working on making abortion a capital crime.

Probably the only good thing that can be said about this orgy of ignorance is that we don’t have to listen to these right-wing boneheads claim disingenuously that they care about the health and safety of pregnant women – a trope we frequently heard in defense of TRAP laws that required hospital-grade specifications in women’s health clinics and hospital admitting privileges for providers. Cold comfort, to be sure. Based on some of the comments I’ve heard from these “pro-life” legislators, I have no confidence that they have any inkling of what the consequences of this legislation will be, and I’m sure they don’t care. And these are far from simple questions. For instance, if you live in Georgia and you travel to New York for an abortion, I understand that you will be subject to prosecution under the new law. What if you live in New York, get an abortion in New York, then move to Atlanta? What sanctions will that carry?

What would Squee do?

I have heard a lot of speculation on whether any of these recent bills will be the trigger for Roe’s demise at the Supreme Court, now fully constituted with the illegitimate justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh (i.e. Squee’s buddy). Some have suggested that the Roberts court prefers a more gradualist approach to sending women back to the middle ages; that the reactionary majority is more likely to sign off on something like the Louisiana TRAP legislation than these more recent, far more draconian measures. I will believe this when I see it. I know Roberts is reputed to care deeply about the reputation and public perception of the high court, but will he resist reversal of Roe when it is served up to him and the pressure from the right is at full volume? Again … we’ll see. I’ve got a bad feeling about this.

Moral of the story? Simply this: we didn’t get to this place by doing the right thing. By letting the GOP win race after race, in 2010, 2014, 2016, and yes, 2018 (in the Senate), the attack on women’s reproductive rights was practically guaranteed. Whatever else we do as activists and citizens, WE NEED TO VOTE IN OVERWHELMING NUMBERS. That is our last hope for women, for the environment, for sane public policy.

luv u,

jp

In the white room.

Three big Supreme Court decisions this week, all stemming from one big electoral decision we all made two years ago. If one were to make the point that elections have consequences, one could hardly do it more effectively than by offering these disastrous judicial outcomes as evidence. For the life of me, I will never understand why Americans on the left side of the political spectrum do not consider the makeup of the Supreme Court (and the federal judiciary more broadly) as a voting issue of primary importance. I may be thinking about a lot of things when I mark that ballot, but no single item more than that of who will be deciding these cases for the next 30 years.

Trump's new BFF.This fact is about to be brought home to us all in a far more profound way: Justice Kennedy has announced that he will retire at the end of next month, and I have no doubt that Trump and McConnell will ram a nominee through the confirmation process faster than anyone can imagine. That will lock in a 5-4 reactionary majority on the Court that will be with us for a generation, reversing Roe v. Wade, detonating the remnants of the Voting Rights Act, and generally demonstrating that the Court cannot be relied upon to serve as a bulwark against aggressive extremism. I was never a big fan of Kennedy. Sure, he was the fifth vote on some crucial cases affecting LGBTQ rights and so on, but he is a stingy old stick who apparently isn’t even giving a second thought to allowing this unstable president to choose his successor.

It’s revenge of the white people. With the demographic tide turning against Republicans, the only way they can continue to win elections is through gerrymandering, voter fraud accusations, and an attack on the franchise wherever and whenever brown people dare to exercise it. They’ve made their way into power, and now they are bending every effort to close and lock the door behind them. They are able to keep us in their little white room because, since 2009, we have been either unable or unwilling to stop them from building and consolidating their control of government at every level.

So, what we have now is the same problem we had two, four, eight, and ten years ago. We just need to be willing to fight back in as many ways as are available to us. One is voting. Another is protest. But first and foremost, contact your senators and tell them to dig in, pull out the stops, and do whatever they can to keep Trump from appointing another Gorsuch.

luv u,

jp