How did we lose the two decade fight over regulating clinics?

I am an active Democrat and a feminist and, for what it's worth, this is my take.

The Washington Post front-page article on 2/25/11 quotes Senator Dick Saslaw as saying "They slipped one through." The Democratic leadership failed to stop the legislative maneuver that was taking place. They have been accustomed to doing things the same way for so long - stopping anti-choice bills in the Senate Education and Health Committee - that they, as Saslaw said, didn't catch this, even though members of that committee include the most senior and liberal Democrats.

They simply were out-smarted. And, in my view, didn't take it seriously enough. AG Cuccinelli gave fair warning that he was deadly serious about TRAP - Targeted Regulation of Abortion Providers - when he issued an opinion on this in the summer.

Ben Tribbett has some great quotes, worth repeating:

"These amendments are draconian and patriarchal..." Sen. Mamie Locke, D-Hampton. Love that she says patriarchal.

"There has been no state to adopt this type of legislation that would force women to have a first trimester abortion in a hospital. This is unconstitutional under Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood vs. Casey because it puts an undue burden on a woman who is having a first trimester abortion. They should not have to have this simple procedure in a hospital," said Sen. John Edwards, D-Roanoke.

Ben also blames the Democrats - asleep at the wheel. They knew they only had 18 votes.

The Richmond Times-Dispatch has an excellent and comprehensive report on what happened. On a broader note, the Republicans have pounded away at this issue for 20 some years. Their strategy, in VA and nationally, is chipping away. They are not relying on the Supreme Court to overturn what is left of Roe v Wade. They are chipping away at access to services and at what little funding there is; their message machine is enormous. Their allies include the very powerful US Conference of Catholic Bishops. If this matter is litigated and goes to the Supreme Court, we could lose because we will not have a strong enough case that this type of regulation poses a burden on women. Anthony Kennedy will argue as he did in the late-term abortion decision - regulation is good for women (!), women will appreciate it (because we can't take care of ourselves, presumably).

Other factors of concern:
this is a "women's issue" and unfortunately does not carry the weight of being a civil rights issue that the LGBT cause now carries.
Democrats have been willing to compromise away aspects of abortion rights - note Obama's executive order to get Catholic permission to go ahead with health care reform.

I am also angry that Cucinnelli misrepresented - or heck, lied about - Virginia NOW's position two decades ago on this issue. He actually mentioned NOW in his statement crowing about the passage of the amendment. NOW does not favor the kind of regulations that the Republicans want, which will shut down clinics.

Finally, this shows why advocacy groups are key to any fight. We can't let up the pressure and scrutiny, even of our Democratic friends.

Abortion - Why It MUST Be Covered by Health Insurance

"Why would a woman seek an abortion from Dr. Kermit Gosnell?" - a Philadelphia abortion provider who has been accused of murders by the district attorney. Susan Schewel, executive director of the Women's Medical Fund, a high-quality, respected abortion provider in Philadelphia, answers that question with facts that we must not ignore, no matter how monstrous Gosnell may be (if convicted). The case of Gosnell quite simply illuminates the tremendous injustice that will be done if legislative attempts succeed to ban insurance coverage of abortion under health care reform.

Whatever you think about abortion, please read this.

Schewel writes:

Abortion is a legal, common and routine medical procedure. Yet for 25 years, Pennsylvania has banned Medicaid funding for abortion. Abortion is the only routine medical procedure not covered by Medicaid, and this prohibition leaves desperate women vulnerable to substandard providers such as Gosnell.

She reviewed records of women who lived in the neighborhood where Gosnell practiced and who went to him before going to her excellent practice. During January and February 2010, she found six women, ages 21 to 36.

Five were mothers. Four were enrolled in Medicaid; two had no health insurance at all. Two received unemployment checks, and one had just been laid off a few days before she called. One worked at McDonald's and earned $450 a month, $200 of which went to rent.

One was obtaining a protection-from-abuse order against her violent husband. Another was pregnant due to a rape. One was living in a homeless shelter with her young child. She received $316 a month in welfare. The average monthly income of these six women was $503.

When they arrived for their appointments (at Gosnell's office), they were told that they needed $350 to $450 for an abortion procedure. As you can imagine, this seemed like a fortune. And not one had insurance to cover the cost. Thankfully, they turned to us at the Women's Medical Fund, and we were able to help.

The Gosnell story powerfully demonstrates the consequences of the unconscionable public policy under which, if you are poor, pregnant and don't want to be, you are out of luck and on your own. This story reminds us of the lengths to which desperate women will go to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

How do we help these women - and thousands others? Not by closing a bad practice or unnecessary additional regulations.

What will solve the problem is lifting the ban on public funding for abortion and providing equitable health coverage for all.

Yet right-wing (Republican) legislators are intent on doing the opposite - making it impossible or difficult to get abortion coverage in the exchanges that are being set up and due to be operational in 2014. In Virginia, two bills are now in the General Assembly - HB 2147 in the House of Delegates introduced by Delegate Cline, and SB 1202 in the Senate, introduced by Senator Obenshain. Both are - simply - immoral and should be defeated.

The cry "no taxpayer funding for abortion" is simplistic and misleading. It appeals to our worst nature - to a self-righteous desire for punishment - in this case, of the most vulnerable. (Of course, one of "us" would never be in that situation - right?) Pregnancy occurs for many reasons - including that a woman feels compelled to have sex and cannot convince the man to use protection. We are talking about power, not morals or lack of morals. Why are so many Americans convinced it's ok to treat women as moral degenerates - and to give men a pass. Why do we want to blame those who most need help? Why won't we treat women decently, morally, humanely? Why won't we work on lifting up women - not keeping them permanently victimized.

Was I A Criminally Negligent Parent?

Conservative commentator Kate O’Beirne got me thinking about my parenting skills. A few days ago, at a Republican gathering at the Hudson Institute in Washington, DC, called “Less of Washington and More of Ourselves,” she railed against the federal school meal programs as just one instance of the feds “taking over” a responsibility that properly belongs to “ourselves.”

Let me say here and now we fed our kids. I’m not positive about breakfast because I usually got up later than they did, but they brown-bagged lunch in elementary school (Mike lived on PBJ for years) and/or got money for lunch (although apparently the lunches in junior-middle-high school were awful and they often brought theirs). We always had dinner but often it involved rice-a-roni or mushroom soup with noodles and tuna, so that might not meet Kate’s standard for acceptable parenting.

So here’s what Kate actually said (no kidding):
“My question is, what poor excuse for a parent can’t rustle up a bowl of cereal and a banana? I just don’t get why millions of school children qualify for school breakfast unless we have a major widespread problem with child neglect. You know, I mean if that’s how many parents are incapable of pulling together a bowl of cereal and a banana, then we have problems… [that] can’t be solved with a school breakfast, because we have parents who are just criminally negligent with respect to raising children.”

Kate, let’s check our facts. First, you really have to have milk with the cereal. But more to the policy issue here, school meal programs are for kids from low-income families – and income level has to do with the availability of jobs and the skills and experience of employees. Parenting ability has nothing to do with it.

Kate, you need to stop by an elementary school in a regular neighborhood (ie, not McLean), where kids are dropped off very early by parents who have to get to work – parents whom you suggest may be “criminally negligent” because they don’t earn much and they’re overworked. These parents do the paperwork to get their kids into a meals program that helps them be better prepared to learn. I’d say that, far from being negligent or abusive to their children, these parents are breaking their backs to earn a decent living and to take care of their kids.

Kate concludes that we should “ask more of ourselves” and less of the federal government. I agree. If we can feed our kids well – no small matter, involving shopping, cooking, putting the meal on the table and cleaning up -- we should. (Or at least call for a pizza.) If we can’t, though - if we work two jobs, work overtime, are going to school to get ahead, have aging parents to care for - should we let them be hungry or underfed? Should we trust to the often unpredictable state to allocate funds? Should we throw outselves on the mercy of non-profits that are always scrambling for money (usually from the feds)? Or the profit-driven private sector?

Who’s criminally negligent then?

Abortion - Winning Issue for Democrats

Will wonders never cease? Politico says that" Abortion was winning issue for Dems." An article by Alexander Burns on November 13 makes these points (but if you're an abortion rights advocate, you should really read the whole article - it's at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/45069.html ):

"By branding Republican challengers as outside the cultural mainstream on the issue, Democrats managed to hold on to at least a slice of the political center..." Moderate women made the difference in a handful of key states.

This was counter to what the Dems did in 2006 and 2008, when they ran candidates whose positions on abortion were closely attuned to the socially conservative areas where they sought office.


Dems made abortion a central concern in a handful of battleground Senate races — and they won as a result.
In Colorado, Sen. Michael Bennet beat Ken Buck — a tea party-backed conservative with down-the-line anti-abortion views — after defeating him by 17 percentage points among women.

In Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pummeled Republican challenger Sharron Angle for opposing abortion in all cases — and in particular, for telling an interviewer who asked about abortion in the case of a rape that some women were able to turn “what was really a lemon situation into lemonade.” Reid won women voters by 11 percentage points and nearly tied Angle among men, losing by just 2 points.

Highly touted Republican Senate candidates also found themselves on the wrong end of the issue in blue-state Washington and California. Washington Sen. Patty Murray ran ads accusing challenger Dino Rossi with wanting to “turn back the clock” on abortion. In California, Planned Parenthood sent out a mailer comparing Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina to former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, charging that both “want to make criminals out of women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them” and branding both GOP women “too extreme for California.”

For some voters, the issue appeared to serve as shorthand for a larger network of social and values-related issues. “Candidates’ positions on choice do serve a signaling function, in terms of the kind of person they are and if they are standing up for women or not,” said Deirdre Schifeling, political director of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.

20 Reasons to Vote Democratic

This piece about the upcoming congressional elections was written by Bob Tiller, a politically savvy guy I used to work with. It says it all. It's worth reading and passing on. Go vote!!! Thanks, Bob!

"...Although some people claim that these elections don’t matter, I believe that they do – enormously. All elections have consequences for our lives, and that is true of this fall’s contests.

I decided to do some digging about key issues that Congress has been dealing with, to educate myself before the election. I have finished my research, and I can now tell you that when I go into the voting booth, I will enthusiastically vote for Democratic candidates for the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives. I want the Democrats to retain their majority, and I want to tell you why. Here are ten reasons.

1. The Democratic-led Congress enacted major reforms to the federal student loan program for college students, freeing up an additional $60 billion for students that would have gone for bank fees and profits.

2. The Democratic-led Congress enacted a “bill of rights” for credit card holders that will prevent credit card companies from gouging ordinary people and wrecking their credit. You are already seeing the results of that law.

3. The Democratic-led Congress enacted major reforms to the banking and financial sectors, reining in corporate excesses and restructuring many things, so that our nation will not soon be wracked by the same type of recession that hit us in 2008. One part of that law is a new consumer financial protection agency, an entity sorely needed.

4. The Democratic-led Congress enacted a significant income tax cut for middle-class and working families last year. The Republicans don’t want you to know about that, so they claim that Democrats oppose tax cuts. But the Republicans are wrong on this – Democrats cut income taxes for the middle class. If you don’t believe me, please look it up.

5. The Democratic-led Congress also enacted significant tax cuts for small businesses – more than once. Republicans enjoy ranting about how Democrats hurt small businesses, but they are wrong on the facts. Democrats have taken numerous steps to help small businesses, including tax cuts. If you don’t believe me, please look it up.

6. The Democratic-led Congress enacted legislation to provide better and more comprehensive health care to combat veterans from our recent wars, as well as benefits to their caregivers.

7. The Democratic-led Congress raised the minimum wage to $7.25 per hour. When the Republicans held the majority, they stonewalled any increase for years and years, exacerbating poverty and homelessness for working Americans. The Democrats also enacted a law guaranteeing equal pay for women after the super-conservative, super-activist Supreme Court said that existing law did not guarantee such equality.

8. The Democratic-led Congress passed a landmark health care bill that we should all be thankful for. Among its many provisions are these: 32 million people who have been without coverage will soon be able to have it; insurance companies can no longer impose lifetime expenditure limits on anyone, even those with major illnesses; no one can be denied health coverage because of pre-existing conditions; all of us now have a “patients’ bill of rights;” and Medicare is strengthened for years to come. (Furthermore, everyone can keep their current health coverage if they wish.) These are huge steps forward for our nation. Ironically, on the very day that several of these provisions took effect, Republican leaders declared their fundamental opposition to such progress and vowed to repeal health care reform, including these common-sense provisions, if they obtain a majority in Congress. In addition to the comprehensive health care bill, the Democratic-led Congress expanded the SCHIP program that provides health care for at-risk low-income children, and strengthened the Medicaid program for low-income adults.

9. The Democratic-led Congress faced up to the recession and extended unemployment benefits for those who are out of work and unable to find work, while Republicans strenuously opposed such payments to those in great need.

10. Finally, there is the stimulus package, enacted by the Democratic-led Congress. Republicans rail endlessly about how terrible it was, but a majority of unbiased economists declare it a solid achievement, a real success. Every American should be thankful for Democrats’ thoughtful and prompt action on the stimulus package, because it helped to halt our steep slide into recession, and put millions of unemployed folks back to work. The stimulus package was and is a solid, practical response to difficult times, a true building block for the economic recovery.

Those are ten significant accomplishments by the Democrats, ten reasons why they should be entrusted to continue leading Congress. Not convinced yet? Well, here are ten more.

11. The Democratic-led House enacted a major clean energy jobs bill that will benefit our nation in numerous ways. Senate Republicans have so far blocked it in that chamber, but Democrats will keep trying to achieve bipartisan approval.

12. Democrats have proposed a thoughtful, workable plan to deal with immigration issues. Republicans have no plan beyond rounding up millions of immigrants and sending them back, plus placing more troops at the Mexican border.

13. Democrats in Congress are striving to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” so that every American who wants to serve in the military will be permitted to do so. Republicans have blocked repeal because they fundamentally oppose full freedom for gay people.

14. Republican leaders have pledged to increase the nation’s deficit even further in order to cut taxes for the super-rich. They attempt to scare the rest of us by suggesting that President Obama’s proposal for somewhat higher taxes on the super-rich will translate into higher taxes on everyone, even though there is no evidence for that.

15. The Democratic-led Congress enacted an increase in vehicle fuel standards that will both decrease our dependence on foreign sources of oil and clean up our environment.

16. Several Republican candidates for Congress are committed to privatizing Social Security, while Democrats strongly oppose such an effort. Imagine what pain and anguish would have set in among our nation’s seniors during this recession if their monthly Social Security checks depended on the stock market. Democrats will protect Social Security and make it solvent for decades to come. (In a further attack on seniors, one Republican candidate has even pledged to work for the elimination of Medicare.)

17. The Democratic-led Congress worked closely with President Bush in 2008 to enact the TARP bill, which prevented the recession from becoming much more serious than it was. We hear Republicans routinely decry that bill, but it was actually a stunning bipartisan success, saving many American companies and jobs. Although the initial projection for TARP expenditures was $700 billion, the success of the program and the rapid rate of repayments now point to a final cost to taxpayers of less than one-tenth of that amount.

18. Republican leaders announced their goal to remove reasonable rules and controls on Wall Street, so that investment bankers can return to their Wild West approach and make themselves richer.

19. The Democratic-led Congress voted to penalize American companies that ship jobs overseas, while Republicans opposed that legislation.

20. Finally, the Republicans have several candidates who are truly beyond the pale. A Republican House candidate in Ohio enjoys wearing a Nazi uniform in public and re-enacting Waffen-SS atrocities. The Republican Senate candidate in Alaska urged repeal of the 17th Amendment, which provides for senators to be elected directly by the people; he wants to go back to the days when state legislatures chose senators, with lots of backroom horse-trading. The Republican Senate candidate in Kentucky called for repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Some Republicans are backing repeal of the 14th Amendment, which enabled the slaves to become full citizens of this country.

So, there is a summary of the choice that we face. We can re-elect the Democrats, the party that works to improve our nation and its people, or we can bring back the Republicans, the party that promotes fear, opposes progress and undermines liberty. We can re-elect the strong, thoughtful Congress that has been in place for the last four years, or we can bring back the party that let business run amok, creating economic collapse.

Here is another way to think about it: the Democrats in Congress will do a better job on practically every issue than the Republicans. Beyond the 20 points above, take a minute to think about: military spending, nuclear weapons treaties, public education, terrorism, reproductive choice, farm policy, climate change, stewardship of natural resources, religious liberty, labor issues, meals-on-wheels, transportation and Indian affairs. I trust Democrats to handle all of those matters in a more thoughtful and appropriate way than Republicans.

As I said at the outset, elections have consequences, and this year is no exception. Voting for Tea Partyers and their cohorts is gambling with everything that makes up America – our economy, our health, our jobs, our infrastructure, our security, our liberty.

Big money is flowing to the Republicans in this election, hoping to buy a Congress that will ignore the interests of ordinary people. Earlier this year the conservatives on the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to democracy when it essentially removed limits and controls on secret financing of election campaign ads; the result is that tens of millions of dollars have flooded into Republican coffers. We need to fight back with people power.

If you agree with this analysis, please consider taking the following steps:
(1) Forward this message widely. Sent it to everyone in your address book. If you only like parts of it, forward the parts you like. If you want to cut and paste, feel free. If you want to plagiarize, feel free. If you want to print it out and distribute hardcopies, feel free; it is not copyrighted. Just get it out quickly and widely.
(2) Go out and work for Democrats between now and November 2nd. Knock on doors, host a gathering, work at phone banks, hand out leaflets, give some money to candidates."

Bob concludes by saying: Thank you for reading this and thinking about it.
Bob Tiller

Teresa Lewis - Nothing More to Do

September 23 - I thought all day about Teresa Lewis. At times I actually had a physical sensation of her - and I thought about her all summer, too, believing that such a miscarriage of justice - her getting the death penalty, the two gunmen getting life - would be an obvious cause for commuting her sentence. Yet I wasn't surprised when Governor McDonnell refused to commute her sentence.

Tonight, at about 8:30, I went to the vigil organized by Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty at the Clarendon Metro – a site chosen for visibility. It wasn’t a very spiritual or soulful or even mournful event – it was a public education and awareness event, as the leader, a young man named Tobias, clearly said. (After all, what could be done?) We stood in a circle – at least a dozen of us – talked for about 10 minutes, joined hands for a minute at about 9, then talked for 15 or so minutes until someone learned via their phone that she was dead (pronounced dead at 9:13), and then we held hands for another minute and went our ways. There really wasn’t anything more to do.

I had had various questions about the gender issue as I visited her website and read about the case in The Post: did she get the death penalty because she was a woman (to oversimplify the matter), did that figure in at all, did her being a woman drive her behavior, was Bob McDonnell being truthful when he said gender did not play a role in his decision to decline her appeal? At the vigil, a young attorney who had worked on the case at Steptoe and Johnson talked about the gender aspect. He said psychologists had testified that Teresa had “dependent personality disorder,” a DSM -recognized condition, and had always done what men told her to do. As a woman, I can relate to that behavior – it’s almost instinctive at times, there’s such a strong pull to “obey” (although it doesn’t justify committing a crime, of course). I think of the young woman sentenced to a long prison term – in Virginia – for carrying dope for her boyfriend.

But what really upset me – what I still can’t shake – is the unfairness of the sentences. My gut feeling is that Teresa was seen as a jezebel, an evil power, using sexuality to manipulate and for gain – a prostitute. The triggermen - Matthew Shallenberger (who committed suicide in prison) and his former roommate and friend Rodney Fuller – were sentenced to life terms at their separate trials. (One of them negotiated a deal.) But the judge deemed Teresa the crime's mastermind and called her "the head of this serpent"- which some interpret as a biblical reference alluding to Eve (or at least it sounds like it’s biblical). Most of the photos of her made her look deranged, brutish, capable of any and all cruelties. In the one on her website, she looked like the lady next door - and then there was the one of her as a little girl.

Sexuality permeated just about everything in this sordid story (or at least what I know about it). The most recent Post story made Teresa seem like a pimp because she encouraged her daughter to have sex with Fuller (Teresa was sleeping with Shallenberger). The attorney at the vigil dismissed the importance of this, saying Teresa thought her daughter would like Fuller! The repeated references to Teresa's "young lover" were rhetorically loaded - they made her seem like a horny old gal who'd do anything for a hot young guy...anything.

Then there was the huge matter of whether Shallenberger was using Teresa – whether when he met her at Wal-Mart (talk about the banality of evil!), he thought she was an easy mark, so he could get the insurance money. His IQ was said to be 113 – her IQ, 72 or 73, borderline mentally retarded. Lewis’ attorney, James E. Rocap III appealed Monday to Governor McDonnell to reconsider his decision to deny clemency to Lewis, claiming there was new evidence that should spare Teresa the death penalty. He argued that Shallenberger later - in jail - claimed he manipulated Teresa, "to dupe her into believing he loved her so that he could achieve his own selfish goals." Shallenberger wrote about this in a letter, which he destroyed – by eating part of it (if I understood the attorney at the vigil correctly). The letter, or what was left of it, was never introduced as evidence – but couldn’t McDonnell have taken it into consideration? Weren’t there many things he could have taken into consideration? After all, he is pro-life - or is that just for embryos and fetuses?

Besides being borderline retarded, Teresa took a massive amount of pain medication, which disoriented her, according to the attorney at the vigil. Personally, I believe that over-medication is a gender issue – as is depression. Men can and do over-medicate and are depressed but the causes can be quite different from those affecting women. Both over-medication and depression need to be considered in light of gender norms - you get a fuller picture of Teresa's mental state and her capabilities when you pair her over-medication with the gender-related "dependency disorder."

Was Teresa even capable of masterminding a plot like this – Teresa as described by The Post this evening (post-execution) as a woman “who plotted with her young lover to kill her husband and stepson for insurance money” and in another news report as “scheduled to die by injection Thursday for providing sex and money to two men to kill her husband and stepson in October 2002 so she could collect on a quarter-million dollar insurance pay out.” Teresa who apparently had never done anything violent before? That’s a complex scheme for a non-violent, not very bright, not very aggressive or directed, very gullible lady, or at least it would be in my experience. (And let's remember she met him at Wal-Mart.)

A NOW friend wondered what could be done to stop the execution of another woman when there are clearly unresolved issues and questions– and she noted that two of the three women on the Supreme Court, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, voted to stop the execution. Perhaps more women on the court? Would Teresa have been saved during the Kaine administration? Kaine commuted two sentences, so she might have fared better, if there were legal grounds for a commutation. Apparently the Supreme Court didn’t think there were.

Maybe I’ve been a feminist too long, maybe I see everything through a gender lens, but on balance, I think Teresa got shafted (yes, I know that word has connotations) because she came off as a manipulative woman – a bitch. The mental picture of her standing there while her husband bled to death – standing there coldly, is the usual phrase - is enough to put the fear of God in any man. I think that and a less-than-adequate defense did her in. (Interestingly, if I understood the attorney at the vigil correctly, she might not have been sentenced to death under new guidelines adopted after her crime).

Teresa’s attorney, Rocap, called her "a good and decent person" and said she was being put to death “because of a system that is broken" (according to the news report, he was referring to the decision by the Supreme Court and McDonnell's rejection of clemency). I don’t know that she was all that decent (I can only wonder, how could a decent person ever fall to such depths, absent some crushing burden or total mental collapse?) but I believe she was a victim of a system that treats people who commit the same or similar crime differently, that penalizes those who fail to “play” the judicial system to maximum advantage, that discriminates against the powerless and the less capable. And I wonder – what in her life ever indicated she would cause murder to be committed – would cold-heartedly take the lives of her husband and his son. And what was her daughter up to – never saying a word (she went to jail for five years for that)?

As person after person said at the vigil, the death penalty is a moral issue. Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty opposed the execution of John Mohammed. Someone mentioned that Teresa's death certificate would give the cause of death as "homicide" - the very crime she was convicted of committing. A young woman at the vigil said she opposed the death penalty because there is always the possibility for change for the better - as long as there is life. Another young woman said she opposed the death penalty because all life is sacred, all life hs value. As for me, if even one person is executed wrongly, a monstrous evil has occurred;. And the fact that so many Black men are executed is clear proof the death penalty is discriminatory on the basis of race.

Tonight, I am resolved to actively oppose the death penalty. In the case of Teresa, it seems that there was more evidence to be heard and that doubts remain. There is something very wrong about killing her and allowing the other two to deal their way out of death. Death is irreversible, the ultimate silencer.

God does death – not us. I feel cold and aching - like I have been hurt, lost something, been diminished.

Thank you for reading this.

McDonnell Brags, Women Suffer

This past week, Bob McDonnell bragged to right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham that the Hyde Amendment has been enacted in Virginia. "It was a great win for a pro-life cause," he said.

According to the Washington Post:
"The General Assembly in April approved an amendment to the state budget that will limit funding for abortions to those performed in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother* is at risk. Nothing in state law had previously banned Medicaid-funded abortions in instances when the health of the mother* was in jeopardy."
*This should say "woman" or "pregnant woman." You're not a mother until the baby is born!

The Post continues:
"A small number of abortions -- paid for with state funds -- in cases of deformities can still be performed. But McDonnell, a Catholic who has long opposed abortion, argued that the change will essentially bring Virginia in line with federal law."

McDonnell had promised to defund Planned Parenthood. But it will still receive some state funding - and Ingraham criticized the Gov for that because "Any money they get ends up helping them offset [the cost of] abortion services.''

According to the Post:
"McDonnell said he is not allowed to withhold money from Planned Parenthood -- or other Medicaid providers -- which are required by law to provide abortions and other services."

The Post reports:
Planned Parenthood serves 30,000 women in the state a year. It had been receiving about $35,000 in state funds a year and more than $275,000 from health-care claims.

Jessica Valenti on Sarah Palin and Feminism

Fun factoid: Sarah Palin got a lot of publicity when she spoke to the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List recently and appropriated the feminist label, calling for a "pro-woman sisterhood." The president of the Susan B. Anthony List - an organization that has used unbelievably vicious language about abortion rights in some of its direct mail - is a woman named Marjorie Dannenfelser, who formerly owned the house I live in. Interesting - same first name, diametrically opposed politics (her husband, Marty, is a right-winger as well). She's nice in person but her organization is hateful and shamefully distorts the facts and abuses the ideal of feminism.

Jessica Valenti, the founder of Feministing.com, provides a good analysis of Palin's remarks to the Susan B. Anthony List in the May 30 Washington Post Outlook section, which I'll summarize here (anything in quote marks and italics is from Valenti's article in the Post) :

After telling CBS's Katie Couric in 2008 that she was a feminist and then telling NBC's Brian Williams that she would not "label myself anything," Valenti writes that today, Palin is

"...happily adopting the feminist label...It's not a realization of the importance of women's rights that's inspired the change. It's strategy. Palin's sisterly speechifying is part of a larger conservative move to woo women by appropriating feminist language."

The anti-abortion tactic of saying abortion "hurts women" is pretty well known and never fails to enrage me - I'd say non-consensual sex and an unwanted child hurt a lot more. Valenti brings up another mind-boggling bit of nonsense - the Independent Women's Forum argument against addressing pay inequities: that "the salary gap is a result of women's informed choices - motherhood, for example - and that claims of discrimination turn women into victims." Are women identifying with their oppressors?

So, Valenti asks, why do women listen to these pseudo-feminists? Because Palin and others align themselves with the suffragists and are "not-so-subtly saying that women in America have achieved equality. In fact, they don't believe that systemic sexism exists." In other words, we have the vote - what more do we want?

How does Palin rally women if everything is fine and dandy? By painting "actual feminists as condescending hypocrites who simply don't believe in young women" and who - by supporting abortion rights - send a message to young women that they're not strong and capable enough to have a child - an unintended one - and pursue their education and career at the same time. Holy mother, it's not about equality - it's about convincing young women not to have an abortion!

Valenti continues:

"So Palin's 'feminism' isn't just co-opting the language of the feminist movement, it's deliberately misrepresenting real feminism to distract from the fact that she supports policies that limit women's rights."

Valenti makes a few other good points - "feminism" encompasses a tremendous range of viewpoints, no one owns the label, saying you're a feminist doesn't mean you act like one (ie, feminists can be bigoted). But bottomline, "certain things are inarguable" - "Feminism is a social justice movement with values and goals that benefit women. It's a structural analysis of a world that oppresses women, an ideology based on the notion that patriarchy exists and that it needs to end."

We who ARE feminists need to reclaim the term for real. We can't let Palin and her buddies steal what we have worked so hard to establish, in word and deed.

At the Virginia NOW state conference recently at James Madison University, we talked about feminism. One student said that the challenging thing about women's studies is that once you have knowledge about oppression, you have a responsibility to do something about it. I think about that a lot when young women tell me about the discrimination they face in the workplace...when the UVA lacrosse player got killed by her violent ex-boyfriend...when I think about how hard it is to raise a child in a family-unfriendly society such as ours. Once you have knowledge, you have a responsibility to act on it.

Sarah Palin has no knowledge - and the only action she's taking is trying to get publicity and possibly get elected. We have to stop her and the other so-called feminists who oppose fundamental justice and equality for women.

Orgasm & Masturbation on TV!

Did anyone else see Two and A Half Men Monday on CBS April 26, 2010? Charley (Charlie Sheehan) is troubled because his girlfriend, Chelsea, did not have an orgasm when they had sex. They discuss it. She admits she actually did have one - and when he asked, "When?" (because he either thinks he didn't notice or can't figure out how he missed it?), she replied, "When you were downstairs getting a beer?"

So not only was orgasm discussed - masturbation was also, or at least alluded to.

They have sex again - and she does have an orgasm and promptly falls asleep (and snores) while he starts to discuss his feelings.

This may be the most feminist program I've seen on TV in a long time!

Grandbaby

What's it like to have a new grandson - a first grandchild?

I mean aside from the obvious amazement - because a new baby is a miracle. Just look at that perfect ear, with all its swirls and dips and ridges and intricate designs. I understand the biology - but it just isn't enough to explain the miracle of that perfect ear, of that new life. And those long eyelashes - just like Sean's!

A grandchild affirms the strength of life. That life will find its way over, above, around, past, through all obstacles. It will struggle to emerge and, in our awe, we will circle around to protect it. A grandchild reminds me of my priorities - creating and caring. Reminds me that it's not about me.

Time collapses with a grandchild. I wonder - what happened to the past few years (33 since his mother and her twin sister were born)? Wasn't I just having a baby? The memory of that buoyancy - that surge of energy and hormones that enables us to endure sleeplessness and pain - is in my bones.

Welcome, James.

40+ and Hot!

Hey, Sexy Women and Men Who Love Us (or will once they get it) -

Pearls of wisdom from 60 Minutes Correspondent Andy Rooney:

As I grow in age, I value women over 40 most of all. Here are just a few reasons why:

"A woman over 40 will never wake you in the middle of the night and ask, 'What are you thinking?' She doesn't care what you think.

If a woman over 40 doesn't want to watch the game, she doesn't sit around whining about it. She does something she wants to do, and it's usually more interesting.

Women over 40 are dignified. They seldom have a screaming match with you at the opera or in the middle of an expensive restaurant. Of course, if you deserve it, they won't hesitate to shoot you if they think they can get away with it.

Older women are generous with praise, often undeserved. They know what it's like to be unappreciated.

Women get psychic as they age. You never have to confess your sins to a woman over 40. Once you get past a wrinkle or two, a woman over 40 is far sexier than her younger counterpart.

Older women are forthright and honest. They'll tell you right off you are a jerk if you are acting like one. You don't ever have to wonder where you stand with her.

Yes, we praise women over 40 for a multitude of reasons. Unfortunately, it's not reciprocal. For every stunning, smart, well-coiffed, hot woman over 40, there is a bald, paunchy relic in yellow pants making a fool of himself with some 22-year old waitress. Ladies, I apologize.

For all those men who say, 'Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?', here's an update for you. Nowadays 80% of women are against marriage. Why? Because women realize it's not worth buying an entire pig just to get a little sausage!"

Things I Forgot...

The Virginia election is over. It was consuming (for me, starting early 2009 when son Mike announced his bid for lt. gov.). It continues to dominate my thoughts (see http://virginianow.wordpress.com). But other things demand attention. So here, few and dear readers, they are:

Grandmotherhood is near (March), and where is a great place for a baby shower? And what about day care!!!???
A marriage (mine) ends after decades, quietly in the Wedgewood-blue Alexandria courthouse.
Love doesn't always look or feel like what we thought (or maybe it never does).
Abortion is a big issue in health care coverage. Will the Catholic bishops succeed in bullying Congress to exclude coverage for abortion - to codify the Hyde Amendment in law?
The NOW National Board struggles to keep it together in light of the election of new officers and differing ideas about what to do next. Younger feminists chafe at the attitudes of older fems - is this like a family meltdown, with daughters pissed at know-it-all mothers? Or is it not?
We learn (from the Shriver Report) that women are more than half the workforce - and we still don't have a family leave policy that makes sense (and what does the gut-wrenching stress of family-work demands do to marriages - and how does that relate to the high divorce rate?).
Turns out, yellow "summer" squash and zucchini can withstand near-freezing temperatures. Root vegetables like carrots and beets are fine throughout the winter but now I know I CAN garden above-ground into mid-November.
Sunshine and laughter are the best medicines.
We have to keep a close watch on the McDonnell administration!

Breastfeeding - What's a Girl to Do?

Being in a room recently with two breastfeeding women - two gorgeous, glowing, healthy, happy moms - brought back memories of breastfeeding my own children. Not all warm and fuzzy. Cracked nipples (remedy: lanolin). Leaky boobs (remedy: get that babe sucking). Fear of falling asleep and crushing nursing baby (remedy: try to get more sleep?). At what age to stop (remedy: lots of people staring in disbelief). So it wasn't all milk and honey, although it was cheaper than canned formula, did seem to calm the colic, and aided in weight loss (mine). Didn't seem to affect the all-important breast shape much, either.

Some of the talk in that room was about the "normalcy" of breastfeeding. According to historians of the practice, it fluctuates, like the stock market - sometimes there's lots of women doing it, sometimes not. It's related to socioeconomic status, too - sometimes better off women favor it, sometimes poorer women do. Go figure.

A real shocker for me was a feminist friend who just had a baby - I asked if she was breastfeeding and she replied, "Do I look like a cow?" I thought for a feminist, breastfeeding would be natural. It's not. For this lady, who is devoted to her children, it's an imposition on her body and perhaps her life.

Breastfeeding has benefits. I fervently believe it contributes to lifelong health. I don't care what science says - or if it says anything at all (I have no idea.) It's nice to cuddle the baby, at least it was for me. I didn't have to hold up a bottle or prop one up (which I didn't like doing). I could doze off without fear. Less gas and burping than with a bottle. I didn't change my diet (although I didn't have a spicy diet to begin with). I never had to run out to buy more formula. I didn't have to buy anything - the milk was free (and how cool is that). I had two hands free (a bottle required using one hand).

Apparently contemporary disadvantages to breastfeeding (my children range from 25-36) include that many women are at work and can't spend so much time with their babies and that women want to have a life besides baby. For me, having a baby pretty much was a life. Breast pumps of course keep the whole breastfeeding enterprise flowing - or to be more accurate, they enable babies to have breast milk and mothers to have a job and a life.

And this was where the conversation in that room got interesting. Is it breast milk or breastfeeding that is important to baby and mom? I maintain you shouldn't separate them - except during the work day as necessary and occasional outings. But I'm out of step with the times, it seems. More young women consider the pump to be part of their breast - not an occasional respite or work-related necessity.

So many things are mechanized. Women's lives changed radically when automatic washers and driers became available - so, too, with frozen food and other labor-saving devices. And so, too, I guess, with the breast pump. Simpler - and removed from the human touch.

I prefer the old way, and I'm glad I did it and fortunate I could. I don't think it made me less of a feminist or disempowered me. I felt connected to something primal and universal - kind of earth mother-y. Feminine and a feminist. I think breastfeeding can make you happy.

(Note - One of the worst things that can be done to any woman is to make her feel guilty or unnatural or unfit because of her choices about how to give birth, whether to breastfeed, etc.)

Women Deserve Better Than Bob - Better Than Theocracy

Today's Washington Post (Sept. 2, page B 1-2) reports on my actions Sunday morning when I read the Post article about GOP gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell's "thesis." The Post said - correctly - I read the article at 11 am and was soon on my way to protest at a Women for McDonnell event in Fairfax, homemade poster in hand. (Just so you know - I also took a shower and had to pay $8 to get into that park.) They did not mention the insults and pushing and shoving of the pink tshirt-clad "Women for McDonnell" and one of their male companions to block my sign when the McDonnell van arrived. (And here I thought Republican women prided themselves on being lady-like.) Here's the article and the specific part about me:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103492.html?hpid=moreheadlines
"Countering McDonnell's efforts are those of women such as Arlington County resident Marjorie Signer, who serves as president of the Virginia chapter of the National Organization for Women. Signer said she read about McDonnell's thesis in the Washington Post at 11 a.m. Sunday and immediately left home to picket a Women for McDonnell rally at Lake Burke Park in Fairfax.

"Signer stood on the side of the road with a sign that read 'Women Deserve Better than Bob.'

'It is not a comfort to me that he has women in his staff or in leadership of his campaign or his daughters are working women,' she said. 'That is not comforting to me. I'm concerned about who he truly is in the sense of his worldview.'"

That image of me standing at the side of the road makes me seem like the lone, inevitably disshelved malcontents at the park by the White House, fighting for an obscure lost cause. Lesson: you talk to a reporter, you take your chances.

Nevertheless, they did quote me saying "worldview." What does that mean?

It helps to read the thesis
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/29/AR2009082902434.html . The whole thing. It's long.

About 5-8 pages in, I realized that this was a worldview consistent with that of theocratic Christians who want a religious state that abides by biblical principles (as they define them). I’ve done some research on this and also saw it in the Mark Earley campaign for governor, as well as in several other instances in Virginia. They are all consistent with Christian theocracy – which is hostile to modernity, pluralism, equal rights, women’s autonomy and of course hates homosexuality.

Reproductive rights is critical in this worldview because of the importance to Christian theocrats of male control of the family - and the state. Virginia has actually been a hotbed of Christian theocracy - and I'll be writing about that in future posts.

For now, it's sufficient to say that McDonnell is the antithesis of the freedom, equality and justice that NOW and our social justice allies stand for. He may have changed his opinion about a law or a specific policy position since he wrote his thesis but his worldview remains what it was - that of a Christian theocrat with a specific worldview based on biblical principles (as defined by theocrats) that put men at the head of the family and the state. Don't take my word for it - read the thesis. Anyone who believes in equality in any way should take this very seriously and should work to defeat McDonnell.

A Sabbath Prayer for Secularists

Amidah

Let these words
Of my mouth
Be sound

The creations
Of my heart
Be light

…Bless what forces us to invent
goodness every morning and what never frees
us from the cost of knowledge, which is
to act on what we know again and again.

All living are one and holy, let us remember
As we eat, as we work, as we walk and drive.
All living are one and holy, we must
make ourselves worthy.

We must act out justice and mercy and healing
as the sun rises and as the sun sets,
as the moon rises and the stars wheel above us,
we must repair goodness.

We will try to be holy,
We will try to repair the world given us to hand on.
Precious is this treasure of words and knowledge and deeds that moves inside us,
Holy is the hand that works for peace and for justice,
Holy is the mouth that speaks for goodness
holy is the foot that walks toward mercy.

Let us lift each other on our shoulders and carry each other along.
Let holiness move in us.
Let us pay attention to its small voice,
Let us see the light in others and honor that light.
Remember the dead who paid our way here dearly, dearly

and remember the unborn for whom we build our houses,

Praise the light that shines before us, through us, after us, Amen.
Marge Piercy

The ERA Is BACK - and Baby, It Is Hot (Hopefully)!

My friends who are passionate about the Equal Rights Amendment are unyielding on the subject - we have to have it. I fear a backlash - no, I predict a backlash. Worse, I predict lack of interest, especially among young women who have no idea what it was like before the women's movement took on discrimination, harassment and all the other little things that demean women (we now call them sexism). [Does this mean I will be stripped of my feminist credentials?] On the other hand, I've seen people get really excited that it's back - even younger women, who haven't experience the kind of discrimination their mothers did but nevertheless get that it's crucial to have constitutional protection of all their rights. We might thank George W. Bush for showing them how bad it can get.

In solidarity and in trust of the judgment of those I respect (ie, Ellie Smeal and Virginia NOW women who fought so hard for the ERA in the 80s), I will do everything I can to support the ERA in Virginia - either the three-state strategy of picking up the remaining three states (including Virginia) needed to move the amendment to adoption or the new bill that was introduced July 21 to start all over.

This photo was taken at the press event to announce the new ERA bill, with Carolyn Maloney of NY presiding. Carolyn is a terrific advocate for women and her book is chock full of good information. Jerry Nadler and Sheila Jackson-Lee also gave a huge boost to the cause, although we need some moderate voices - please god, send us a Republican or two with feminist cred to get behind this bill. Terry O'Neill did a good job representing NOW - on her first day as national president. Many thanks to LuAnn Smith for taking photos.

Talking About Sex

We need more talk about sex. Funny coming from me - I never uttered the word vagina until I saw the Vagina Monologues in my 50s (which basically forced me to say it). Did I ever willingly talk about sex to my kids? I shuddered at sex-talk in movies. Clapped my hands over my ears. But once I started talking - relatively recently - it was easy to say all sorts of words that I hadn't said. (What's hard is trying not to get hung up on those words - italicized here. Gotta be an adult.)

A couple of things triggered these thoughts. One was the story the other day about the British goverment issuing a pamphlet recommending sex for teens and for older people as healthy, good exercise, fun. The British?? Exemplars of stiff upper lip. Another was watching the HBO series on John Adams on DVD - the sexual relationship that he and Abigail had was so happy. And they were so horny when they spent time apart. And the July 21 Politico story about those miserable hypocrites in the C Street "Christian fellowship" house - John Ensign, Zach Wamp - and their soulmates, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, David Vitter, Mark Sanford. And their upright enablers - Tom Coburn, Sam Brownback. What's the fellowship about, exactly? Protecting adulterers?

Mostly, though - and here's the feminist bit - it was reading Jessica Valenti's Full Frontal Feminism that did it. I'm reading this book to try to figure out what Third Wave feminists think. So far as I can tell, it's the same as Second Wave Feminism- but bolder, raunchier and definitely with lots more sex. And the more sex words she used, the more I got comfortable.

Jessica and Wave 2 share concerns about reproductive rights, workplace issues (pay and job equity), violence, gender stereotyping, outrageous physical excesses such as obsession with body image (make-up's ok if you like it), politics (get women elected and good men), global issues such as CEDAW, all that stuff NOW and Fem Majority hammer away at all the time. (Did I miss it - no mention of the Equal Rights Amendment. That would be a big departure from Wave 2.)

But Jessica is much more into sex. Major endorsement of masturbation as a sexual norm. Funny piece about words for masturbation. Major section on cultural perversions such as "Girls Gone Wild." Lesbian sex is fun to try, even if you're not lesbian. Feminism makes for better sex, she says - because feminists are into themselves and their bodies and feel (like men) that anything is good in search of an orgasm. (As an aside - this is funny - the mega-bestseller author Nora Roberts says, "a day without [French] fries is like a day without an orgasm.” Make of that what you will.)

Jessica says:
"Feminism tells you it's okay to make decisions about your sexuality for yourself." She also stresses - be responsible.

"And perhaps most important, feminism wants you to have fun. Sex isn't just about having babies after all, despite what young women are being taught."

And this: "Full frontal feminists make sure you can get off."

Now I may be wrong but I really can't recall a NOW conference where we talked about sex in that way, with such enthusiasm. But as I said, I can't recall - so it certainly could have happened before I got involved or I just could have missed it. There was one great Arlington NOW meeting around Valentine's Day where we did a great quiz about love and sex -very pro both. That was fun. But bitching about abortion rights and such isn't talking about sex.

So maybe in re-energizing and re-organizing NOW, we need to talk about sex. Have talk-about-sex parties. Have sex advisers. Share sex tips. Talk sex. Not abortion - not sex ed - SEX.

It would be fun. Like sex, fun is good for you!

Thank you...

to people who leave comments. I'm thrilled - and flattered - you check out this blog. I'll try to post comment-worthy stuff, nothing trite, no party-lines be they political or social. Let me know what you think.

"Stand By Me"

I've listened to this about a thousand times. It doesn't get old. I love the dad dancing with his daughter, the old man, the stone-faced Moscow cellist, the intense Dutch calypso artist, the dreamily in-sync South Africans. Visualize the tune connecting us all. Feel the hope. (In case you think I'm losing my bitchy edge, as it were- why aren't there more women in this?) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Us-TVg40ExM

Sexist Joke of the Day

With thanks to the wonderful Paula of Martinsville for passing this on - and a profound thought - I have to be able to laugh at myself - how about you?

A 16-year-old boy came home with a new Chevrolet Avalanche and his parents began to yell and scream, 'Where did you get that truck???!!!' He calmly told them, 'I bought it today.' 'With what money?' demanded his parents. They knew what a Chevrolet Avalanche cost. 'Well,' said the boy, 'this one cost me just 15 dollars.'

So the parents began to yell even louder. 'Who would sell a truck like that for 15 dollars?' they said. 'It was the lady up the street,' said the boy. I don't know her name - they just moved in. She saw me ride past on my bike and asked me if I wanted to buy a Chevrolet Avalance for 15 dollars.'

'Oh my Goodness!,' moaned the mother, 'she must be a child abuser. Who knows what she will do next? John, you go right up there and see what's going on.' So the boy's father walked up the street to the house where the lady lived and found her out in the yard calmly planting petunias! He introduced himself as the father of the boy to whom she had sold a new Chevrolet Avalanche for 15 dollars and demanded to know why she did it.

'Well,' she said, 'this morning I got a phone call from my husband. (I thought he was on a business trip, but learned from a friend he had run off to Hawaii with his mistress and really doesn't intend to come back). He claimed he was stranded and needed cash, and asked me to sell his new Chevrolet Avalanche and send him the money. So I did.'

Are women good or what?