The War on Women-Part Two
In part one of this blog on, the War on Women, try to inform you, the reader, the context of how the declination of women's rights have impacted the public square in 2012. In part two, the purpose of this article is to set the context on why the latest assault on women's rights has become troublesome and a degradation civil rights for all.
In January of 1973, the United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade set a precedent that became far reaching for not only for women but how the citizenry of the United States viewed itself. The conflation of faith, political ideology, and morality as a nation in the years that followed tested American public's attitudes on its perception on when life began.
In January of 1973, the United States Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade set a precedent that became far reaching for not only for women but how the citizenry of the United States viewed itself. The conflation of faith, political ideology, and morality as a nation in the years that followed tested American public's attitudes on its perception on when life began.
The US Supreme Court ruling of Roe v Wade energized the evangelical protestant base in trying to change the growing public policy towards personal individualism and reset the country's puritanical roots to conservancy and collectivism. Before the turn of the 20th century, the evangelical movement, known as the Great Awakening in Christianity, believed that the United States was straying away from its core principals. This movement ended approximately in 1910, but simmered for the next fifty-years with an occasional eruption from time to time.
In 1960, the evangelical movement saw itself staggering in decline with upheaval of the civil rights movement, the election of country's first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, and the clearance of the birth control pill (briefing link). With the "pill" coming to the market, it gave women greater control of their bodies and more opportunities to enter the work market. The "pill" also allowed husbands and wives to offset fertility.and better plan family needs.
In 1965, the U. S. Supreme Court decided in a landmark case, Griswold v Connecticut, that the State did not have the authority to interfere in private decision matters, such as family planning, and that the use of the "pill" was a personal matter.
In 1972, in another landmark case of Eisenstadt v Biard, determined that single individuals have the same rights to privacy, in terms of contraceptives usage and found the Massachusetts discriminatory. And finally, as mentioned before, the U S Supreme Court's 1973 decision of Roe v Wade fueled towards the precipice of political polarization.
In totality, the refutation by the United States Supreme Court of States' interference of personal matters to their own citizenry, in terms of personal family matter and moral behavior, expanded civil liberties to the chagrin of religious and evangelical leaders. And this in turn, in fact, would help lead to the full ascension of another Great Awakening. In addition, the cultural upheaval of the 1960s, with popular culture, in terms of movie and television, shifted the dynamic of how the country viewed itself leads to the push back of beliefs, political views, and values.
After 1973 ruling of Roe v Wade, the country suffered a setback in the political body with the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon. The presidential resignation came as the result of Nixon's involvement and ensuing cover up of the Watergate break in. The United States populous was left demoralized and reeling back on its heels as it watched on television the Watergate hearings. In addition, the Vietnam War was wending down and the perceived defeat set into motion the long stint of national pessimism and looking for answers.
To some, these answers could be found in Christianity's Evangelicalism and restoring the country's puritanical beliefs and ideals. Evangelicals,such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Francis Schaeffer, and others led the pathways to the social political right and the culmination to the resurrection of the Great Awakening; and in turn, coincided with the other fanaticism of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 (quick link 1), the neo-conservative elections of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1979 (quick link 2) and President Ronald Reagan in 1979 (quick link 3), and a new appreciation of Catholicism in the selection of Pope John Paul II selection in 1978 (quick link 4). The listed above confluence of events are some of what culminated in changing the geopolitical nature of the planet for years to come.
In the United States, domestic terrorism came in many forms, but it was especially expressed in the form of murdering "abortion doctors" and bombing of "abortion provider clinics." This shift began in 1984, when the bombing of a Pensacola, Florida clinic set off on Christmas Day, brought a new term "anti-abortion" movement -- terrorism. For the religious fanatic, the movement into Christian Terrorism is justifiable.
The Christian terrorist believes that they are in the service to God, in that, they are coming to the "defense of others" and the "acts of violence" they commit is in the "interest of the fetus." The "justifiable homicide" acts portrayed by these "true believers" has cemented the fringe element of Christian radicalism into the base of the republican party ever driving further right to extremism.
Fast forward to 2012, past the midterm elections of 2010, and the new wave of republicanism that has taken hold of State Houses around the country and aided the fringe of Christian radicalism in the reduction of women's rights. As of April 2012, the number of State House legislatures, according to the Guttmacher Institute, have proposed or passed a number of bills (944) to reduce or restrict women's reproductive healthcare decisions. Of the number of 944 proposed, 75 propositions or bills have had at least passed one branch of the State legislative houses.
In 1960, the evangelical movement saw itself staggering in decline with upheaval of the civil rights movement, the election of country's first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy, and the clearance of the birth control pill (briefing link). With the "pill" coming to the market, it gave women greater control of their bodies and more opportunities to enter the work market. The "pill" also allowed husbands and wives to offset fertility.and better plan family needs.
In 1965, the U. S. Supreme Court decided in a landmark case, Griswold v Connecticut, that the State did not have the authority to interfere in private decision matters, such as family planning, and that the use of the "pill" was a personal matter.
In 1972, in another landmark case of Eisenstadt v Biard, determined that single individuals have the same rights to privacy, in terms of contraceptives usage and found the Massachusetts discriminatory. And finally, as mentioned before, the U S Supreme Court's 1973 decision of Roe v Wade fueled towards the precipice of political polarization.
In totality, the refutation by the United States Supreme Court of States' interference of personal matters to their own citizenry, in terms of personal family matter and moral behavior, expanded civil liberties to the chagrin of religious and evangelical leaders. And this in turn, in fact, would help lead to the full ascension of another Great Awakening. In addition, the cultural upheaval of the 1960s, with popular culture, in terms of movie and television, shifted the dynamic of how the country viewed itself leads to the push back of beliefs, political views, and values.
After 1973 ruling of Roe v Wade, the country suffered a setback in the political body with the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon. The presidential resignation came as the result of Nixon's involvement and ensuing cover up of the Watergate break in. The United States populous was left demoralized and reeling back on its heels as it watched on television the Watergate hearings. In addition, the Vietnam War was wending down and the perceived defeat set into motion the long stint of national pessimism and looking for answers.
To some, these answers could be found in Christianity's Evangelicalism and restoring the country's puritanical beliefs and ideals. Evangelicals,such as Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Francis Schaeffer, and others led the pathways to the social political right and the culmination to the resurrection of the Great Awakening; and in turn, coincided with the other fanaticism of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 (quick link 1), the neo-conservative elections of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in 1979 (quick link 2) and President Ronald Reagan in 1979 (quick link 3), and a new appreciation of Catholicism in the selection of Pope John Paul II selection in 1978 (quick link 4). The listed above confluence of events are some of what culminated in changing the geopolitical nature of the planet for years to come.
In the United States, domestic terrorism came in many forms, but it was especially expressed in the form of murdering "abortion doctors" and bombing of "abortion provider clinics." This shift began in 1984, when the bombing of a Pensacola, Florida clinic set off on Christmas Day, brought a new term "anti-abortion" movement -- terrorism. For the religious fanatic, the movement into Christian Terrorism is justifiable.
The Christian terrorist believes that they are in the service to God, in that, they are coming to the "defense of others" and the "acts of violence" they commit is in the "interest of the fetus." The "justifiable homicide" acts portrayed by these "true believers" has cemented the fringe element of Christian radicalism into the base of the republican party ever driving further right to extremism.
Fast forward to 2012, past the midterm elections of 2010, and the new wave of republicanism that has taken hold of State Houses around the country and aided the fringe of Christian radicalism in the reduction of women's rights. As of April 2012, the number of State House legislatures, according to the Guttmacher Institute, have proposed or passed a number of bills (944) to reduce or restrict women's reproductive healthcare decisions. Of the number of 944 proposed, 75 propositions or bills have had at least passed one branch of the State legislative houses.
In addition to the State Houses, violence against women healthcare clinics has increased. See the recent broadcast by MSNBC's The Rachel Maddow Show.
In Georgia a number of burglaries of women healthcare clinics and OB/GYN offices had been targeted due to their opposition to further restriction on abortions. What's more, two of the women healthcare clinics had fires intentionally set and are being investigated by the ATF. According to Atlanta Constitutional-Journal, women clinics are on high alert (May 25, 2012 article). And, on top of all this the United States House of Representative's continues to go after access to reproductive and women's healthcare. For instance, H.R. 4970, the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 reauthorization, has been conflated in the latest round of women healthcare issues.
Plus, on April 27, 2012 the US House Representatives continued the marginalization of women by inserting a poison pill attachment to the college student loans bill that would prevent interest rates doubling in July 2012. The US House Representative pays for this measure by "repealing" the Prevention and Public Health Fund, which includes paying for women's cervical and breast examinations (link). It should be noted by repealing this fund it not only affects women, but also marginalize lower socioeconomic communities access to healthcare for treatment, such as diabetes, obesity, immunizations, and sexually transmitted infections (STIs).
In totality, the restriction, the reduction, or the "assault" on the marginalization of women is not "imaginary" or a political messaging by the liberal, socialist, or main stream media it is a reality. The republican party through its economic conservancy and its religious fanaticism on the far right continue to devolve the socioeconomic benefits that women have gained over the last half century. The distraction of which the republican party has used to obfuscate these facts should be a concern. A failure to push back puts our democracy and civil liberties at risk; and, a failure to challenge to these contractions against the political theocratic zealots is matter of concern for us all. If allowed this will set further precedent and give further permission to contract other liberties gained over the past two centuries as a country.
Comments