The Right to Choose: Family Lessons

This beautiful piece was written as an exclusive for the Women’s Media Center by Shruti Swamy a writer for India Currents Magazine, currently working toward her MFA in fiction at San Francisco State University. Thanks to the Women’s Media Center for permitting the republishing of this and other articles.Far from a generational divide, the author, as a young feminist, finds sustenance in the ways the women in her family handled their more limited life choices.

It’s hard for me to imagine what my grandmother’s youth was like, spent in rural and then urban India. At 16, she was arrange-married to a man she had met once years before, at 17 pregnant with her first child, by 21 the mother of three young children. There are few pictures of her from that time, so I’ve made them up for myself; Baa on her wedding day in hot, heavy clothes; Baa working in the green fields through her first pregnancy, chewing ginger for strength; Baa with another baby in her arms, cooking dinner for her family.

I had been thinking of her when I first read in the New York Times about a perceived generational divide in feminist responses to the Stupak amendment (“In Support of Abortion, it’s Personal v. Political”). Feminists who remembered a time when abortion was illegal expressed an urgency to take action that they felt was lacking in later generations. Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote that long-time feminists like NARAL Pro-Choice President Nancy Keenan tend to view reproductive choice “in stark political terms—as a right to be defended, like freedom of speech or freedom of religion.” A later blog post for Newsweek quoted University of Maryland assistant professor Kristy Maddux, who specializes in historical feminism, saying younger women “don’t have any reason to believe that it matters if they go out and protest. Instead, they talk about their positions to friends and neighbors.”

Read More

As Senate Continues Health Care Reform Debate, Delaying Tactics Reign

Yesterday’s wrap up report of Senate action from NFPRHA-worth a read to see how the meat grinder of legislation works, and how detrimental the 60-vote rule is to getting anything done. And bless Frank Lautenberg! He just never stops.

December 16, 2009, 5:00 p.m. (EST)

Today, the Senate continued debate on its health care reform bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590). Last night an amendment offered by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) to provide for the importation of prescription drugs did not garner the necessary 60 votes for passage, so while the vote in favor was 56 — 43, the amendment failed. The Lautenberg amendment was intended to improve upon a similar amendment offered by Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) which also failed. Like the Lautenberg amendment, the Dorgan amendment did not get the necessary 60 votes, with the vote in favor only being 51 — 48. A motion by Senator Mike Crapo (R-ID) to recommit the bill (effectively killing the bill by sending it back to the Finance Committee) also failed 45 — 54. An alternative to the Crapo motion, offered by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) which would protect middle class families from tax increases, passed 97 — 1.

Read More

Congressman Stupak and The Oglethorpe High School Cheerleaders

Friedrike Merck, a talented sculptor, passionate philanthropist, and great friend wrote this commentary with a perspective on the health reform battle that I have not seen elsewhere. She has allowed me to share it with you. Let me know what you think.

Recently, some enthusiastic cheerleaders where barred from holding up Bible verse banners for their football team to bust through at the start of a game because the banner practice was considered a breach of the First Amendment, the religious Establishment Clause part. The students cried “censorship”, as did local pastors and politicians, but they could not do an end run around the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that there shall be no establishment of religion, that in a public school it gives the impression that the school endorses religion, and endorsing religion in a government funded institution is unConstitutional.

Recently, some enthusiastic Congressmen rammed their religion based amendment into the health care reform bill but strangely enough no one cried, “Establishment Clause!” If the rosy cheeked cheerleaders of Oglethorpe High can’t jump with Jesus, then how is it possible that a United States Congressman is allowed to? Have the Fundamentalist faction incrementally lulled us over the last three decades into thinking that their religiously motivated politics is OK in Washington and OK in our democracy? The Stupak Amendment brouhaha is giving us an opportunity to do a reality check.

Read More

No More Women’s Unhealthy Healthcare

I want to write an original post for the Women’s Day of Action on Health Care Reform, but I have to work on my book and get ready for tonight’s Body Politic program at The Tank (hope to see you there–doesn’t last night’s election news tell you we need to redouble our work? President Obama, are you paying attention? You need to get out there and make the change we said we needed, not allow yourself to get coopted by big insurance, big pharma, and big financial dudes–but that’s another post I want to write and don’t have time to do today).
Special thanks therefore to Lucinda Marshall over at Feminist Peace Network for allowing me to share this excellent post, to which I can only say “what she said.”

Health insurance provider Humana’s recent announcement of a 65% increase in their 3rd quarter earnings really got my attention because last week I participated in a health care reform rally at their corporate headquarters in Louisville, KY. After an outdoor gathering attended by 150 or so people, many of those gathered walked peacefully into the Humana building to stage a sit-in. One local newscaster breathlessly proclaimed that we had “stormed” the building, even though their own footage showed that clearly didn’t happen. They then gave a Humana spokesman a fair and balanced opportunity to tell viewers that Humana agreed with the protesters that there should be health care reform.

Oh really? Nothing says your definition of “reform” is slightly suspect like a 65% increase in profits while increasing premiums in double digit amounts and denying coverage for reasons that defy human understanding.

And that is truly the crux of it. Despite months of cynical political maneuvering in Washington, there really is nothing to debate about health care. Health care is not a commodity, it is a human right. What is being debated now is whether we will allow our health to continue to be commodified to satisfy corporate greed. And the answer to that absolutely must be NO.

Read More

At the UN, Criminalizing Rape as a Weapon

By Bia Assevero, a dual French-American citizen and a graduate of the American University of Paris with degrees in international politics and international communications.

A Women’s Media Center exclusive, reprinted here with permission of the WMC.

In the last week of October, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made headlines and sparked anger in travels to Israel and Pakistan. Her role some weeks earlier was less controversial yet critically important, as she led UN diplomats forward in an action that could ease the suffering of countless women and girls living in conflict zones around the world.

Last year, the United Nations classified the deliberate use of rape as a tactic of war and a major threat to international security. On September 30, 2009, the Security Council went one step further.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chaired the session as the Security Council unanimously adopted a U.S. sponsored resolution (S/Res/1888) that called for the appointment of a special envoy charged with coordinating the efforts to combat the use of rape as a weapon of war and assist governments in ending impunity for the perpetrators. Having met with women who survived rape and violence in her recent visit to the Congo, Clinton said in remarks to the council, “The dehumanizing nature of sexual violence doesn’t just harm a single individual or a single family or even a single village or a single group. It shreds the fabric that weaves us together as human beings.”

Read More

Why Do I Consider Myself a Feminist?

[caption id="attachment_1493" align="alignright" width="209" caption="Rita and 4 generations"][/caption]

Thanks to my great friend and an activist who has always put her convictions into action, Rita Harkins Dickinson for this guest post. She wrote this moving personal essay after attending a WomenGirlsLadies inter-generational panel.

After attending the Feldt-Barbanell Women of the World Lecture at Arizona State University recently, I have questioned if I can honestly call myself a feminist. I always thought of myself as one, but do I deserve to wear the badge? The remarkable women on the panel had defining moments that justified them considering themselves feminists. I don’t have one “aha” moment. My sense of feminism is more organic.

My childhood was glorious. I am a Boomer, but June Cleaver was only a fantasy character on television. Conversely, I didn’t have militant women in my life either. Women surrounding me were strong, independent, and smart. Although our family is small, I had eight significant female relatives within reach: my mother, my grandmothers, my great-grandmother, my aunt, two great aunts and a great-great aunt.

Most of the significant influences in my childhood were subtle, yet extremely fond memories. I remember attending graduate classes with my mother, taking colored pencils and newsprint (we weren’t allowed to have coloring books – they would stifle creativity). We spent a great deal of time outdoors; we went to the beach, and we camped every summer. None of this is remarkable, except that my mother had survived polio when pregnant with my older brother, resulting in paralysis from the waist-down.

Read More

Women Weigh in on Barack Obama’s Nobel Win

Guest post by regular contributor Lee Reid Taylor.

Barack Obama and the world woke up Friday morning to the unexpected news that the president had received the Nobel Peace Prize. Women’s responses to the announcement ran the gamut: from accolades, to shock and even disbelief. Some question whether the award is premature, while others believe it is a call for Obama to act on his political oratory of peace.

Obama is the third sitting president, following Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, to receive the honor. The first recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize was a woman, Bertha von Suttner, in 1901. Female recipients of the Peace Prize include: Jane Addams, Ayn San Suu Kii, Betty Williams, and Wangari Maathai (just to name a few). Of the ninety-six Nobel Peace Prizes awarded, only nineteen were given to women. The fact that Obama is now a recipient leads some to ask, “Why him, and why now?”

Women have different interpretations of why this award was given and what impact it will have on the president’s policies.

Read More

Daylight Lessons from Letterman’s Late Night Escapades

Guest post By Ellen Bravo, originally published as a Women’s Media Center exclusive.

The author, an expert on the prevention of sexual harassment and other issues of women in the workforce, suggests that human resources professionals and corporate executives take the occasion of David Letterman’s revelations to revisit their companies’ policies with the understanding that “sexual favoritism is sexual harassment.” I’m posting her commentary here because I think it is one of the best and most realistic about 21st century sexual mores for the workplace that I’ve read on the Letterman affair(s). Your thoughts? Read on…

I don’t know David Letterman or any of the staffers he had sex with.

I believe fidelity is the business of only one person, the philanderer’s partner.

Extortionists aren’t whistle-blowers—they’re criminals, and should be put away.

But whenever I hear the justification, “I didn’t violate company policy and no one complained,” my hackles jump up.

Let’s talk about why it’s bad business for the boss to sleep with subordinates.

Read More

Helen Zia: A Disobedient Daughter and Her Passion For Justice

[caption id="attachment_1519" align="alignright" width="210" caption="Lee Taylor and Helen Zia"][/caption]

I am delighted to welcome a very powered young woman, Lee Taylor, as a regular guest poster. Lee is a writer and feminist activist who is a senior at SUNY Purchase College majoring in History and minoring in Women’s Studies. She is currently working on her senior thesis about Helen Rogers Reid, her great-grandmother, and former President of the New York Herald Tribune. After she graduates she plans on teaching high school. I’m especially thrilled that her first post here is a profile of my friend and Women’s Media Center board member sister, Helen Zia.

Helen Zia was born into a Chinese American family in New Jersey in 1952. Although the fifties was a time Lee Taylor and Helen Ziaof great conformity, the seeds of revolution were sown the day that Zia was born. Zia was brought into an immigrant family which observed traditional Confucian beliefs, including the Three Obediences: a daughter must obey her father, a wife must obey her husband, and a widow must obey her son; the trajectory of Zia’s life proves that she was truly a radical visionary and community organizer who broke seemingly insurmountable social and cultural barriers.

Helen Zia graduated from Princeton University in the first class that accepted women. She was also breaking racial boundaries as one of the few female, Asian American members of the prestigious university. Zia attended Princeton on a full scholarship, working her way through school and majoring in the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.

She was highly conscious of and became an active participant in the political transformations taking place in her young adulthood. Zia and her generation witnessed the nascent feminist movement, and the full-fledged civil rights movement, as well as the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King. Hers was the baby boom generation – huge numbers of young people who were dissatisfied by their government’s war in Vietnam and inequality at home – they were idealistic about the opportunities for peace and sisterhood.

Zia’s career experiences after Princeton, however, showed that the youth-led social justice movements had not reached all areas of society. After graduation, Zia enrolled in Tufts Medical School in Boston. She moved to Boston’s South End; a neighborhood then predominantly inhabited by low-income Chinese, Puerto Rican, and African Americans, far from the glamorous place it is today. Helen soon discovered that medicine, a conservative white and male institution at the time, was not a friendly place for an Asian American woman committed to progressive social change. After two years of medical school, Zia felt a sincere urge to get involved in grassroots efforts to change troubled communities – she quit medical school and became a construction worker in her South End community, which offered Zia a way to create change, educate herself on community needs, and pay the bills.

Read More

Rovian Reality Bites Make My Blood Boil

When I read the New York Times front page story today, showing the extent of Karl Rove’s involvement in the iregular firings in 2006 of a number of U.S. attorneys who weren’t toeing the Rove-Bush line, my blood boiled. Not that this was big news–it was merely a reminder of the many Bush administration abuses of power. I asked my friend, BILL ISRAEL, a former University if Massachusetts Amherst faculty member now at St. Mary’s University, San Antonio, Texas, and the author of the forthcoming book Stealing Reality: the Rise of the Right, the Fracture of News, the Lessons of Karl Rove, to share his thoughts on the matter with me and Heartfeldt readers.

The extent of Karl’s involvement in the purge of U.S. attorneys in the Justice Department is no surprise to anyone who’s known him well. During Watergate, he worked as understudy to Donald Segretti, convicted for performing campaign dirty tricks for Richard Nixon. So I learned a great deal from Karl in the course of teaching “Politics and the Press” with him at the University of Texas at Austin, while he revved up the campaign of George W. Bush to become president.

Unlike Segretti, Karl, to date, has never been convicted. Yet he remains a specialist in wreaking havoc with his opponents, putting deniable distance between himself and responsibility, then arguing that, like Valerie Plame, all opponents are “fair game.” The “hit parade” of his experience in hitting political and other opponents is Chapter 7 of my forthcoming book.

What’s different about the era of Karl, as opposed to the era of Segretti, is that while Karl remains a central coordinator for the political Right, he is also one of its chief beneficiaries. He is among a legion of young conservatives who since the 1960s have been schooled in literally hundreds of right-wing institutions founded since 1935 in a calculated and carefully-coordinated plan to change the ideology of the United States — to push it to the right. The success of that effort accounts for the incredible success of the Right in dominating American politics since the 1970s — and in its efforts to stop health care and health insurance reform now.

Read More