The War on Women--Part One
Image from Washington Post(Darrell Issa Panel)
Elections have consequences. The push back of the 2010 election have shown the American public, in many ways, what it means to have a two party system--grid lock. The self-interest of the minority has demonstrated their willingness, at least in American politics, and the desire to subvert the nation's ability for success. In states across the nation, the 2010 push back signaled for many in the public square that President Obama's administration had gone too far in domestic welfare programs and not enough in securing jobs for the nation's citizenry.
The economic crisis of 2008 left the nation staggering yet resilient in looking for new alternatives and possibilities in electoral prospects in the consideration of democratic party leaders Hilary Clinton, being the first "electable" female candidate, and Barack Obama, being the first "electable" African American candidate--who later won the presidency. In the following two years, however, the political rancor and political will from the opposition party, the republicans, showed how the light of liberty can become diminished by opportunists and miscreant pundits who wished ill of the evolving civil forum of American social justice.
In the wake 2010 midterm elections, the opposition party retook the US House of Representatives and State Houses around the country. The midterm power shift went to the republicans on the auspices that they would create more jobs. The republican mantra essentially was "jobs, jobs, jobs." Republicans promised to bring jobs back to America and to rein in the budget deficit. The republicans failed miserably for two primary reasons: 1) the culture war reemerged and 2) their desire to create as much gridlock as possible to thwart President Obama being re-elected was a core principle.
Before President Obama was even sworn in to the oval office, the republican party decided to subvert any tangibles proposals by him. Mitch McConnell, in a 2010 interview with National Journal, stated that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Fast-forward to 2012, two years later, economic conditions have improved, to some degree, and the wild-and-woolly-ride of the GOP nomination process has left many observers scratching their heads. Additionally, the citizenry has witnessed during the past two years the political maelstrom and obfuscation by the republican controlled State Houses around the United States, which has included the restriction of women's rights.
The republican controlled 112th US House of Representatives led the way to diminish women's rights after they were swore in with House Bill 3 which mandated that no federal monies be used for abortion. The republican controlled House argued that federal monies still could be used despite the already imposed ban. Later, the US House passed legislation to defund Planned Parenthood, whose overall mandate is to provide accessible healthcare to all families and individuals. Pro-life groups, despite the economic battles over the philosophy of jobs, entitlement reform, budget deficit, and the debt-ceiling, continued press on cultural values and restricting women's rights.
The majority of republican controlled State Houses soon began to make efforts at pushing cultural wars issues in front of "jobs, jobs, and jobs" agenda. Idaho, South Dakota, Kansas, Wyoming, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Mississippi's person hood amendment attempt to outlaw abortion and hormonal contraception. Many more states became battlegrounds for women reproductive rights. In some cases, rational and reasonable discussions were listened to by opponents of abortions, while "emotional" rationalist (as I define them), often rooted in religious belief, argued that no matter what abortion and hormonal contraception protection (pre-and-post) was (and is) murder. In other words, these "emotional" rationalist are persons, no matter what empirical data or evidence that is put before them, that cannot rationally be persuaded.
The pro-life activists and the republican party had the public lulled in the belief with the election of President Obama that the two parties had come to an understanding on social issues. The economy was the priority even Governor Mitch Daniels agreed that social issues were to take a backseat to the economy. Nothing else mattered. Unfortunately, the euphoric expectation of change and perceived cooperation was short lived. Conservative pundits, such as Rush Limbaugh, hoped and plotted for President Obama's failure. This gave permission for the republicans to obfuscate, stall, and hinder any progress toward changing the "culture" of Washington DC. Gridlock and filibusters were the weapons of the republicans, while corporate monied interests set the stage for the long drawn out battle for the Affordable Healthcare Act.
Opponents of the Affordable Healthcare Act felt the passage and signing of the bill was a governmental overreach, which in turn fueled their base and independents (unaffiliated voters) to the polls for the 2010 elections. As stated earlier, the newly elected and republican controlled US House of House Representatives did not offer up job bills but instead enacted legislation to restrict and remove women's rights to healthcare.
In 2011, the run for the presidency began for the republicans, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Perry vied for their party's nomination. As the nomination process played out during the numerous 2011 debate, each candidate stated that they believed in restricting access to abortion. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry signed the pledge of the PersonhoodUSA Amendment.
PersonhoodUSA was the same organization of the voted down Mississippi referendum, which would had made it illegal for an abortion and banned most hormonal contraception. Meanwhile, policy was being formed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on the status of religious institutions affiliates. A policy that would bring women contraceptive behavior and reproductive health into the public square.
In the initial policy ruling of HHS, the department had stated religious institution affiliates had a year to resolve how to pay for FDA approve contraceptives including some abortifacients for their employees and family members. In late January, however, the republican party polarized the ruling as an issue of religious liberty even though 28 other states have similar policies. The controversy blared over the airwaves and cable networks for almost two weeks, but it was later resolved by President Obama's compromise. The revised policy by HHS now allowed hospitals, charities, and affiliated institutions to be part of the religious exception but women contraceptives and reproductive services would still be covered by insurance companies.
Yet, the republican leadership, Catholic Bishops, and pro-life groups found the compromise to be unsatisfactory, in that, most religious organizations were self- insured and still on the hook. US House Representative Darrell Issa, on his Oversight and Government Reform Committee, empanelled a hearing on whether (and duly named) "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" The first batch of witnesses to testify was an all-male panel of religious and conservative figures. Somehow, Darrell Issa couldn't find a single conservative female figure, religious or otherwise, to pontificate in the panel stacked favor. Nor, did the Issa's first panel want a witness by the democratic party (who happened to be female) to testify either.
The stonewalling by the Issa's panel changed the optics of the debate, in that, it solidify the framing of the issue on social issue long held settled--birth control vs religious liberty. In 1965, the US Supreme Court in Griswald v Connecticut decision held that married couples had the right to decide to prevent contraception. In other words, married couples had the right to decide the size of their family, which included the prevention of actual conception as well. Later, in a 1972 decision, the US Supreme Court -- Eisenstadt v Baird --held that the Massachusetts law did not follow a rational basis for exclusion of contraception to single individuals. These two decisions ultimately led to the pivotal case for women and the privacy of their person -- the US Supreme Court 1973 decision of Roe v Wade.
The US Supreme Court of the 1960s and 1970s understood that, despite being made up of all males, decisions are private and to be determined by the family and individuals (women) and not to be the intruded upon by the majority or the government. Furthermore, the series of decisions of the 1960s and 1970s had long followed a proscription of precedents that civil liberties are inherit and therefore inalienable. Decisions during this time, by the US Supreme Court, ingrained the rights of the individuals and further evolved the understanding of what the role of the State in terms of privacy and the Freedom of Choice. For instance, in the case Loving v State of Virginia, the US Supreme Court had determined that inter-racial couples are protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In this decision, Chief Justice Warren explained that "Under our Constitution the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
The rulings by the US Supreme Court illustrated that the evolution of a civil society was (and is) grounded in law and that the institutions of the State and the Federal government should not be imposed upon an individuals' liberties. The passage of the 13th and 14th Amendmentsled the way in enshrining and developing the civil liberties of the 20th Century. The 19th Amendment, Women's Suffrage, expanded women's rights and liberties in the public square and began to shift women's access to power.
This shift in access and power allowed women to assert themselves, but the autonomy over their body left them hindered from antiquated laws. Laws on the books left women powerless and unable to have a say over their own due to a patriarchy and chauvinism rooted in religious and pre-modern ideals of the structure of the family. Margaret Sanger (biographical briefing) however, a women's advocate and activist, led the charge in changing the perception of human sexuality and coined the term "birth control." She pushed the American Medical Association (AMA) to recognize that birth control was a "legitimate practice" and held the position that women were the best arbiter for their health (Sanger biographical briefing part 2).
Controversial sex studies of the 1950s (Kinsey) and the development and approval of the birth control in 1960 allowed women (and men) to view their sexuality in a different light. Cultural, political, and civil right liberties became blended and the societal upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s. The "sexual revolution," civil rights legislation and 24th Amendment (barred poll tax), and the post 1950s women movement for equal rights (brief history of Equal Rights Amendment) led to a push back by religious evangelical leaders along with social conservative social politicians of the right with the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980.
It was the social conservative right's angst of the 1980s that began reversal and the restriction of women's choice and the war on women. Those of the citizenry that has a living memory of history saw the erosion of community, families, and opportunities for minorities and women with the measures of austerity moderation style under President Ronald Reagan. Yet, republican and democratic leaders understood that women's privacy in the matters of contraception was her own. It would take another 28 years for the republican base to think otherwise....
end part one.
The economic crisis of 2008 left the nation staggering yet resilient in looking for new alternatives and possibilities in electoral prospects in the consideration of democratic party leaders Hilary Clinton, being the first "electable" female candidate, and Barack Obama, being the first "electable" African American candidate--who later won the presidency. In the following two years, however, the political rancor and political will from the opposition party, the republicans, showed how the light of liberty can become diminished by opportunists and miscreant pundits who wished ill of the evolving civil forum of American social justice.
In the wake 2010 midterm elections, the opposition party retook the US House of Representatives and State Houses around the country. The midterm power shift went to the republicans on the auspices that they would create more jobs. The republican mantra essentially was "jobs, jobs, jobs." Republicans promised to bring jobs back to America and to rein in the budget deficit. The republicans failed miserably for two primary reasons: 1) the culture war reemerged and 2) their desire to create as much gridlock as possible to thwart President Obama being re-elected was a core principle.
Before President Obama was even sworn in to the oval office, the republican party decided to subvert any tangibles proposals by him. Mitch McConnell, in a 2010 interview with National Journal, stated that "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Fast-forward to 2012, two years later, economic conditions have improved, to some degree, and the wild-and-woolly-ride of the GOP nomination process has left many observers scratching their heads. Additionally, the citizenry has witnessed during the past two years the political maelstrom and obfuscation by the republican controlled State Houses around the United States, which has included the restriction of women's rights.
The republican controlled 112th US House of Representatives led the way to diminish women's rights after they were swore in with House Bill 3 which mandated that no federal monies be used for abortion. The republican controlled House argued that federal monies still could be used despite the already imposed ban. Later, the US House passed legislation to defund Planned Parenthood, whose overall mandate is to provide accessible healthcare to all families and individuals. Pro-life groups, despite the economic battles over the philosophy of jobs, entitlement reform, budget deficit, and the debt-ceiling, continued press on cultural values and restricting women's rights.
The majority of republican controlled State Houses soon began to make efforts at pushing cultural wars issues in front of "jobs, jobs, and jobs" agenda. Idaho, South Dakota, Kansas, Wyoming, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Mississippi's person hood amendment attempt to outlaw abortion and hormonal contraception. Many more states became battlegrounds for women reproductive rights. In some cases, rational and reasonable discussions were listened to by opponents of abortions, while "emotional" rationalist (as I define them), often rooted in religious belief, argued that no matter what abortion and hormonal contraception protection (pre-and-post) was (and is) murder. In other words, these "emotional" rationalist are persons, no matter what empirical data or evidence that is put before them, that cannot rationally be persuaded.
The pro-life activists and the republican party had the public lulled in the belief with the election of President Obama that the two parties had come to an understanding on social issues. The economy was the priority even Governor Mitch Daniels agreed that social issues were to take a backseat to the economy. Nothing else mattered. Unfortunately, the euphoric expectation of change and perceived cooperation was short lived. Conservative pundits, such as Rush Limbaugh, hoped and plotted for President Obama's failure. This gave permission for the republicans to obfuscate, stall, and hinder any progress toward changing the "culture" of Washington DC. Gridlock and filibusters were the weapons of the republicans, while corporate monied interests set the stage for the long drawn out battle for the Affordable Healthcare Act.
Opponents of the Affordable Healthcare Act felt the passage and signing of the bill was a governmental overreach, which in turn fueled their base and independents (unaffiliated voters) to the polls for the 2010 elections. As stated earlier, the newly elected and republican controlled US House of House Representatives did not offer up job bills but instead enacted legislation to restrict and remove women's rights to healthcare.
In 2011, the run for the presidency began for the republicans, Mitt Romney, Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, Ron Paul, Tim Pawlenty, and Rick Perry vied for their party's nomination. As the nomination process played out during the numerous 2011 debate, each candidate stated that they believed in restricting access to abortion. Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Michele Bachmann, and Rick Perry signed the pledge of the PersonhoodUSA Amendment.
PersonhoodUSA was the same organization of the voted down Mississippi referendum, which would had made it illegal for an abortion and banned most hormonal contraception. Meanwhile, policy was being formed by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on the status of religious institutions affiliates. A policy that would bring women contraceptive behavior and reproductive health into the public square.
In the initial policy ruling of HHS, the department had stated religious institution affiliates had a year to resolve how to pay for FDA approve contraceptives including some abortifacients for their employees and family members. In late January, however, the republican party polarized the ruling as an issue of religious liberty even though 28 other states have similar policies. The controversy blared over the airwaves and cable networks for almost two weeks, but it was later resolved by President Obama's compromise. The revised policy by HHS now allowed hospitals, charities, and affiliated institutions to be part of the religious exception but women contraceptives and reproductive services would still be covered by insurance companies.
Yet, the republican leadership, Catholic Bishops, and pro-life groups found the compromise to be unsatisfactory, in that, most religious organizations were self- insured and still on the hook. US House Representative Darrell Issa, on his Oversight and Government Reform Committee, empanelled a hearing on whether (and duly named) "Lines Crossed: Separation of Church and State. Has the Obama Administration Trampled on Freedom of Religion and Freedom of Conscience?" The first batch of witnesses to testify was an all-male panel of religious and conservative figures. Somehow, Darrell Issa couldn't find a single conservative female figure, religious or otherwise, to pontificate in the panel stacked favor. Nor, did the Issa's first panel want a witness by the democratic party (who happened to be female) to testify either.
The stonewalling by the Issa's panel changed the optics of the debate, in that, it solidify the framing of the issue on social issue long held settled--birth control vs religious liberty. In 1965, the US Supreme Court in Griswald v Connecticut decision held that married couples had the right to decide to prevent contraception. In other words, married couples had the right to decide the size of their family, which included the prevention of actual conception as well. Later, in a 1972 decision, the US Supreme Court -- Eisenstadt v Baird --held that the Massachusetts law did not follow a rational basis for exclusion of contraception to single individuals. These two decisions ultimately led to the pivotal case for women and the privacy of their person -- the US Supreme Court 1973 decision of Roe v Wade.
The US Supreme Court of the 1960s and 1970s understood that, despite being made up of all males, decisions are private and to be determined by the family and individuals (women) and not to be the intruded upon by the majority or the government. Furthermore, the series of decisions of the 1960s and 1970s had long followed a proscription of precedents that civil liberties are inherit and therefore inalienable. Decisions during this time, by the US Supreme Court, ingrained the rights of the individuals and further evolved the understanding of what the role of the State in terms of privacy and the Freedom of Choice. For instance, in the case Loving v State of Virginia, the US Supreme Court had determined that inter-racial couples are protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. In this decision, Chief Justice Warren explained that "Under our Constitution the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."
The rulings by the US Supreme Court illustrated that the evolution of a civil society was (and is) grounded in law and that the institutions of the State and the Federal government should not be imposed upon an individuals' liberties. The passage of the 13th and 14th Amendmentsled the way in enshrining and developing the civil liberties of the 20th Century. The 19th Amendment, Women's Suffrage, expanded women's rights and liberties in the public square and began to shift women's access to power.
This shift in access and power allowed women to assert themselves, but the autonomy over their body left them hindered from antiquated laws. Laws on the books left women powerless and unable to have a say over their own due to a patriarchy and chauvinism rooted in religious and pre-modern ideals of the structure of the family. Margaret Sanger (biographical briefing) however, a women's advocate and activist, led the charge in changing the perception of human sexuality and coined the term "birth control." She pushed the American Medical Association (AMA) to recognize that birth control was a "legitimate practice" and held the position that women were the best arbiter for their health (Sanger biographical briefing part 2).
Controversial sex studies of the 1950s (Kinsey) and the development and approval of the birth control in 1960 allowed women (and men) to view their sexuality in a different light. Cultural, political, and civil right liberties became blended and the societal upheaval of the 1960s and 1970s. The "sexual revolution," civil rights legislation and 24th Amendment (barred poll tax), and the post 1950s women movement for equal rights (brief history of Equal Rights Amendment) led to a push back by religious evangelical leaders along with social conservative social politicians of the right with the election of President Ronald Reagan in 1980.
It was the social conservative right's angst of the 1980s that began reversal and the restriction of women's choice and the war on women. Those of the citizenry that has a living memory of history saw the erosion of community, families, and opportunities for minorities and women with the measures of austerity moderation style under President Ronald Reagan. Yet, republican and democratic leaders understood that women's privacy in the matters of contraception was her own. It would take another 28 years for the republican base to think otherwise....
end part one.
Comments