Longtime conservative icon Phyllis Schlafly is in the news again. This time, it’s because she has committed the cardinal sin–in the purist conservative rule book– of endorsing Donald Trump. As a result, she’s about to be booted from the throne she has occupied since the 1970s. The rest of the country may not remember her, but liberals in Missouri sure do: In the 1970s, she was the founder and outspoken leader of the “Stop-ERA” organization that later morphed into the “Eagle Forum.” Through the years, it has been an effective, if disproportionately influential, group that opposes just about anything that might guarantee or expand women’s rights—including those of the reproductive variety.

The purpose of this post is not to rehash Schlafly’s ignominious history of standing in the way of progress for women. In fact, my disdain for her and her ideas make it painful for me just to type her name on my screen.

But now, the Schlafly phenomenon has resurfaced–just when I had almost forgotten how much damage she has inflicted through the years—and how much of a hypocrite she was. [She had a prominent career as a lawyer—leaving her young kids, as I recall, with sitters while she went to law school and worked—circumstances that she derided for others and tried to prevent by blocking passage of the Equal Rights Amendment.]

So now, she’s getting a new 15 minutes of fame. She’s 91—and one of the people plotting to oust here from the Eagle Forum is her own daughter. The renewed publicity — delicious, I must admit — has sparked a memory for me. [Do I now need a “trigger warning” for potential, politically traumatic Schlafly flashbacks?”] Fortunately, this is more of a humorous [I hope] memory. Here it is:

Somewhere in the 1970s, the St. Louis chapter of the National Abortion Rights Action League [NARAL] started holding an annual fundraising auction. It usually took place at the fancy home of a wealthy supporter. [It’s still going on, I think. I just don’t go anymore, because it’s gotten too far into the financial, fashion and social stratosphere for me.] But back then, when people came in blue jeans and ponchos, I attended. I usually bought something—often a work of art or photography by someone local—at a bargain price.

One year, as a joke, the auctioneers offered a framed picture of NARAL’s arch-enemy, Phyllis Schlafly. When the item went up for bid, it had the desired effect–everyone laughed. I don’t think the organizers really expected that anyone would pay even a dollar for such a thing. But I was in a lighthearted and generous mood. And it was for a good cause. So I put in a bid, when no one else would.  It was probably for $100 or even less. And I won.

When I went to claim the loathsome thing, I expected to be booed for even touching it. Instead, I received a round of applause and kudos—for my bravery and sense of humor, I guess.

For several years after that, I schlepped that framed photo with me as a “white elephant” gag gift [and it did, indeed, make many people gag] for birthday parties and other events. It got a laugh, but I kept taking it back home with me because no one ever wanted it.

Many years after it had outlived its usefulness as a political joke, I think I tossed it in a trash can. I know it’s out there somewhere, adding to the pollution in a landfill. But today’s development in the halls of power of the Eagle Forum make me almost regret ditching it. The way things are going in this political year, I could use the chuckle.

The post Phyllis Schlafly: Back in the news, and in my memory appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Starting in late March, Michigan women really  started feeling the affects of the “War on Women.” The state’s new law known as “rape insurance”—an additional insurance policy if she wants reimbursement for an abortion—went into effect.

This new law drops coverage of most abortions from existing policies. Women who do not buy insurance through an employer-based insurance plan will not be able to purchase the additional coverage, called an abortion rider, from Michigan insurers.

The medical journal Women’s Health Issues found that 36% of Michigan women lack health insurance, but 69% were paying out of pocket for abortion care. Not only are travel costs an issue, but so is the question of what is more important: is food and rent more important than my abortion? 14% of women who underwent abortions put off paying rent, 16% buying food, and 30% to pay utilities and other bills.

The “War on Women” is real and alive, especially in states like Michigan where women may have to pay out of pocket for a legal, medical procedure. Contact your state legislators and check their stances on abortion. More states cannot afford to have legislation like this.

The post Rape insurance abortion rider goes into effect in Michigan appeared first on Occasional Planet.

When the conversation gets around to women’s history, and the subject is women’s struggle to win the right to vote, you’ll often hear the term “suffragette.” Many people think that the term describes the women who defied the social norms of the early 1900s by protesting in the streets and lobbying politicians and presidents for the right to make their voices heard on election day. They’re right, but  they’re wrong.

The term “suffragette” was, indeed, used to describe women like Christabel Pankhurst and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. But it was a derogatory term. The suffix “ette” connotes smallness. Those who opposed women’s rights, and who wanted to demean the efforts of the women activists, used the term “suffragette” as what we would now call a put-down.

The women activists called themselves “suffragists.” In an article on Truthout, Ellin Dannin answers the question: “Ette,” vs. “ist” Why make a big deal?

The suffix “-ette” means small things. Tacking “-ette” onto a word turns it into a diminutive – towelette, usherette, cigarette, novelette, statuette and so on. Those who fought for women’s suffrage – the right to vote – were part of a serious movement for civil rights, equality, and ending human bondage.

There was nothing “ette-ish” about the struggle for American women’s right to vote. The women and men who fought for women’s right to vote – the right of suffrage – from the dawn of the 19th century into the 20th century were courageous “-ists” – suffragists.

Women’s right to vote mattered, because the right to vote was – and still is – seen as the means to make all other rights possible. Suffragists wanted more than just ticking a ballot. Woman suffragists wanted women to have the right to attend school, to own property, to have a say in how their children were treated and to have a right to the integrity of their bodies.

Along the way, the suffragists won many battles; however, in a gross miscarriage of justice, the enemies of women’s equality seem to have won the naming rights.

We can change that. Although more than a century late, we can restore the name these activists chose for themselves – Suffragists.

The post Please don’t call them suffragettes appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It saddens me that feminism has come to be associated with elderly Cat Ladies condemning the oppressive institution of matrimony in their solitary existence, and bra-burning hippies denouncing the constriction of monogamy, and with immodest women vending their wares for the world while justifying it as having the morals of a man, and ruthless high-high-heeled business moguls viciously beating out their male counterparts in bouts of reverse sexism.

That’s not feminism. That’s cynicism, psychedelic trances, immodesty, and reverse-anot upon the fronts of masculinity and femininity, but of humanity. Feminism is women being equals to men because they are human. Feminism is believing you don’t have to prostitute yourself to be value, because you are worth as much as any human. Feminism is having human morals. Feminism is human equality.

We, as a society, have universally condemned the Victorian Eras of Wuthering Heights and Middlemarch, as sexist, chauvinistic, oppressive, and generally anti-women, in order to champion women’s suffrage. We agree that until the early twentieth century, women were degraded and treated as inferiors. But is twenty-first century America really that much different than sixteenth century America?

Take a look at these quotes. Which comes from the 19th century and which from the 21st?

“Women feel just as men feel; they need exercise for their faculties, and a field for their efforts, as much as their brothers do; they suffer from too rigid a restraint, too absolute a stagnation, precisely as men would suffer; and it… is narrow-minded [and] thoughtless to condemn them… if they seek to do more or learn more than custom has pronounced necessary for their sex.”

 

“To all my second string bitches trying to get a baby… now you talkin’ crazy.” “Hurry up with my damn massage/ Get the Porsche out the damn garage.”

Perhaps the eloquent prose of the first and the deplorable grammar and vulgarity of the second gave away the answer, but that is a different complaint all together. The content of the first is more likened to modern thinking than the degradation of the second is, yet the truth is our media and music more frequently contain messages resembling Kanye West’s 2013 piece than Jane Eyre (1847). Consider that if any unfortunate child was to be exposed to such music as the second quotation, the message they would readily absorb is that women are good for nothing but sex and housework. If it’s no longer permissible to talk about women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, why is it permissible to talk about them like servants and prostitutes? If you think about it like that, we have actually devolved in our thinking of women.

If you need another example, consider Robin Thicke’s highly popular “Blurred Lines.” If you were fortunate enough not to have heard this degrading song, these lyrics should sum it up:

“Yeah, I had a bitch, but she ain’t bad as you,

So hit me up…. I’ll give you something big enough to tear your ass in two… Nothing like your last guy, he too square for you.

He don’t smack that ass and pull your hair like that…

Not many women can refuse this pimpin’.”

In case that didn’t quite repulse you, let me just explain his music video (I humbly request you not watch the video if you have any iota of respect for women). It consists of four and a half minutes of naked women strutting past Robin Thicke and his cohorts as they ogle their breasts and dance around them. The women take great pains to seem appreciative of their “attentions.” The men seem to really enjoy themselves. Disgusting.

Continuing to examine modern music, it’s not just male pop stars that treat women as pieces of meat hawked to the highest bidder. Females permit this to continue.

“Are you gonna stay the night? Doesn’t mean we’re bound for life… Come pour yourself all over me.”

Hayley Williams sings in an acknowledgment that women are only appreciable when used for casual sex; she uses her body as the only means to maintain a relationship, essentially telling men it’s okay to think women are good for nothing but sex because women think the same thing. Perhaps Ms. Williams and Mr. West would get on swimmingly.

Lady Gaga, generally known for her antics and self-confidence, seems to surrender on this front as well. Her song “Do What U Want” takes a slightly more feminist approach, but still is largely conducive to permitting men to be womanizers (more on that term later).

“You can’t stop my voice cuz you don’t own my life, but do what you want with my body. Do what you want with my body.”

While, yes, some of her lyrics seem to show a certain resilience and refusal to become an object (as opposed to a human being with feelings), most of it—to a casual listener, at least—seems to be resigned to men using women for nothing but their bodies. For other demeaning songs, see “Get Lucky,” “Suit and Tie,” “Where Have You Been,” “You Make Me Feel,” “Come and Get It,” or (unfortunately) simply tune in to your local radio station.

Just to emphasize the “modern” sentiment, let’s revisit 1920 thoughts with Edith Wharton’s The Age of Innocence.

“I’m sick of the hypocrisy… Women ought to be free- as free as we [men] are.”

In case all that seems too objective, let’s look at some cold, hard facts, too.

• The United States ranks 79th worldwide in female representation in our political system; looking at non-white women, the statistics take another turn for the dismal.
• In 2006, researchers from the University of Maryland set up fake online accounts in chat rooms. On average, feminine usernames received 100 sexually explicit or threatening messages a day to masculine names’ 3.7.
• The term “womanize” literally translates to “to make womanly.” It is most commonly used to describe men who have casual sex with many women. Putting two and two together, a woman must have casual sex to be a “woman” according to linguistic society.
• According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2008, only 6.5% of state police officers and 19 percent of FBI agents were women.
• When a man “gets” a woman that means he has successfully caused her to renounce all claims of a relationship with any other man. This is also his “conquest.”

Before concluding, I’d simply like to say that I am not in any way advocating women’s superiority or innate moral supremacy. Nor am I proposing that our society treat women as “more” than men or the entirely opposite side of the spectrum from Robin Thicke, which would result in validation of Camille Paglia’s claim that “educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood.” I am simply advocating true feminism (see second paragraph) and looking to expose a certain double standard and hypocrisy in our society, both of which are personal pet peeves.

I apologize for the obscenity in this piece as I personally oppose such vulgarity, but I did not want to dilute the repulsion through censorship. I felt a completely accurate depiction could only be achieved without any “sanitizing.

For more startling anecdotes on the unfair treatment of women, see Amanda Hess’s “Why Women Aren’t Welcome on the Internet.”

If you need a little cleansing laugh from the disgust of some of the song lyrics or statistics may have created, see How to Deal With a Mansplainer: Starring Hillary Clinton” for some female empowerment (definition of mansplaining here).

The post The devolution of feminism appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In response to the Virginia General Assembly’s legislative assault on women— “personhood” and mandatory ultrasound legislation—Republicans, Democrats and Independents have formed a PAC called the “Women’s Strike Force.” The creation of this PAC is encouraging and suggests movement conservative politicians—and the Republicans who have gotten in bed with them—will not only lose their war on women, they may lose their jobs. As its formidable name suggests, Women’s Strike Force is not messing around.

The Women’s Strike Force PAC will concentrate its efforts on recruiting and supporting candidates to oppose any elected official who supported the recent “personhood” or mandatory ultrasound legislation. Seven of the founding members of the PAC are retired women lawmakers. They will mentor and train candidates to run against VA legislators who have demonstrated, through their voting record, that they do not respect women’s right to control their own bodies. According to the PAC’s website, all funds raised for the Women’s Strike Force will be used to unseat every Virginia Legislator who voted in favor of HB1 (personhood law) or HB462/SB484 (mandatory ultrasound law)

The creation of this non-partisan PAC demonstrates that women (and men) across the political spectrum—when it comes to women’s reproductive rights—will not tolerate a return to the dark ages. They are demanding that abortion services be available without having to submit to forced ultrasounds or other punishing and restrictive measures, and, they are fighting the ludicrous law that a fertilized egg, from the moment of conception, is a person. The personhood law would expose a woman to prosecution under Virginia murder laws for “suspect” miscarriages, and for the use of IUDs and other forms of contraception, which prevent implantation of a fertilized egg. Radical conservatives treat both zygotes and corporations as persons but are quick to deny rights to actual human beings.

The event that sparked the founding of the PAC was Virginia Republican delegate Dave Albo taking to the floor of the Assembly to joke with his colleagues that his vote for the ultrasound bill caused his wife to deny him sex. If Women’s Strike Force is successful, he, and his friends who supported the bill, will be looking for a job.

Movement conservatives, who are noted for taking the long view, have worked for decades to infiltrate state legislatures. Now that they and their opportunistic Republican friends have won majorities, their perseverance is paying off  in the passage of laws designed to keep women barefoot, pregnant and home schooling. But, these days, to survive economically, most couples with kids need two adults working outside the home, as well as the ability to control the size of their family. Polls show that the electorate overwhelmingly supports birth control coverage under the Affordable Care Act. For example, 98% of Catholic women have used birth control at some point in their lives, even though the church hierarchy forbids its use.

It’s impressive that the Women’s Strike Force PAC is a multi-party effort. It could serve as a model for moderate Republicans, progressive Democrats, and Independents in other states to join forces to unseat radical right wing politicians who have extreme views that are anti-woman and out of step with mainstream America.

The post Women’s Strike Force PAC fights back against legislative assault appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The war on women’s bodies is back in full swing. The Catholic hierarchy is trying to equate contraception with abortion. And, who knew the breast cancer charity, Komen for the Cure, is run by right wing anti-abortion activists who want to destroy Planned Parenthood? The GOP is whipping up a fight over abortion, contraception and the Affordable Health Care Act because they have nothing else to run on. It’s so deja vu, like we never left the 70s.

Only this is 2012 and the world is different today. We have the Web, social media, and the fact that a majority of women in this country have used birth control and/or expect to have access to it. For example, 98% of Catholic women have at some time in their lives used birth control even though the church hierarchy forbids it.

Forced trans-vaginal ultrasounds and all male panels on contraception

The trans-vaginal ultrasound soon to be required for a legal abortion in Virginia, and the all male panel that just testified before the House on contraception, are causing outrage among women and the men who support them. This flyer seems like a blast from the past, but it is a statement by women waking up in the present. It will be fascinating to watch as a new generation of women takes on these issues in the context of social media and 24/7 cable news. For example, this photo was published on Facebook.

Meanwhile senator Roy Blunt (R-MO) has introduced an amendment to a transportation bill to allow companies, institutions or health care providers to deny contraception based on “moral conscience.” Actually, the amendment allows them to deny any health care based on their “moral conscience” i.e. mammograms, well women exams, or diabetic treatment. They can even deny care because they “morally object” to the price of that care, and, their objection doesn’t have to be based on religious belief. It appears Blunt wants CEOs to have the final say on women’s health. But right wing men and women have made a mistake because this is a fight they are going to lose. And it is a fight that will help get Obama reelected.

Obama is gaining support among women

In the last few months, Gallup polls have shown Obama gaining support among women. By way of disclosure, I am one of those progressives who have been highly critical of Obama’s corporate and bank friendly polices, his less than stellar record on civil rights, his pro oil and nuclear energy policies, and his escalation of the use of drones. Not what I signed up for. But, I can’t deny he has moved the country forward in some significant ways—not as much as I would like, or as much as he could have—but significant none-the-less. That said, it is extremely important that he and other Democrats win in November to stop the damage that will happen to this country if the GOP keeps the House and gains control of the Senate and the White House.

So, not only will I vote for Obama, I will enthusiastically work on his campaign. If he doesn’t win, and if Democrats lose ground in the House and Senate, (and at the state level) the reactionary Republican war on women’s bodies will continue, as will the war on social safety nets, and on children and the elderly. In our weakened economy, this right wing assault will be devastating for women, children, the elderly, and most working families. In other words, if you think things are bad now, you haven’t seen anything yet.

Republican overreach may help Obama win second term

Because of Republican overreach on social, labor and economic issues, at both the state and federal level, Democrats stand a good chance to retake the House and gain more seats in the Senate. Also, Republcians lack of enthusiasm for their current crop of presidential candidates is not helping their chances. So, even in these difficult times there is hope. It may be that our collective national consciousness is evolving toward a more humane and compassionate public policy. Having experienced the reality of right wing policies, we may be returning to a more democratic ethic that places value on public good, and leaving behind  the Republican ethic of extreme individualism cynically promoted by corporate interests. The Occupy Movement has helped the 1% vs the 99% meme to enter the mainstream lexicon, and the extremism of the corporate backed Tea Party is losing it’s appeal

It could also be that we have evolved more than the GOP realizes when it comes to social issues—such as women’s reproductive rights. Polls are showing that the electorate is more progressive on these issues than loud right wing media and conservative religious institutions would have us believe. Consider the swift and vocal rebuke of the Komen Foundation’s attempt to defund Planned Parenthood, and the fact that the backlash Republcians wanted against contraception being provided by the Affordable Care Act is simply not happening. A recent CBS News/New York Times poll suggests that only Republican men oppose covering the full cost of contraception under the Affordable Health Care Act.

Sexist billionaire’s joke falls flat on MSNBC

We may be witnessing, in the draconian legislation of the radical right, a desperate grasping onto power by those who stand to lose the most, conservative white males who will eventually be in the minority of a our increasingly racially diverse nation.  This group of men—who make up much of the 1%, and the hierarchy of conservative religions—still hold on to the medieval idea that they have a right to control women—their bodies, their sexuality and their reproductive capacities. They, and the misguided conservative women who insist on their own disempowerment, are becoming fossils of a reactionary past. Witness the chortling white haired billionaire who appeared on MSNBC a few days ago and suggested women use an aspirin for birth control by putting it between their knees. Not only were women not laughing at his joke, but even Republicans cringed at his insensitivity.

When awakened, women can be a powerful force in electoral politics, and it could be that reactionary Republicans have met their match. The tired old Republican wedge issues of contraception and abortion may no longer work for them.

The post Republicans may lose the war on women’s bodies appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The recent, manufactured controversy over insurance coverage for birth control coincided with receipt of my copy of a small book with facts about my Irish ancestors on my mother’s side of the family.  I have an 8 x 10 photo of a prim and proper looking family of nine children and their father taken in the living room of one of their homes, the lace curtains stained with oil lamp smoke.

Set off to the side of this grouping is a large photo of the missing family member,  Anna Murray Loftus.

Married at age 25, Anna Murray Loftus delivered her first baby before her first wedding anniversary.  She gave birth to nine more babies in the next 18 years and died in her 40’s along with the 10th baby. I can only wonder what her everyday life was like.  Her husband was a farmer and then a carpenter, so I’m sure they didn’t have much money.  I suspect she delivered all those babies at home without medical attention.

I had never given much thought to how much a pregnancy takes out of a woman until I got involved in the puppy mill controversy last year.  I learned appalling facts about the damage done to the females by overbreeding.  They lose most of their teeth early on.  The muscles and bones deteriorate to the point that many of them can barely stand up.  I heard that some breeders actually hang the female in a sling to inseminate her although I find this really hard to believe.

My great-aunt Mary, the oldest daughter, raised her siblings.  She was only 17 when her mother died.  She put off getting married herself until later so she could raise her brothers and sisters. One of the brothers had meningitis and lost the use of both legs.  She took care of him as well as the youngest brother who was, for some reason, not able to function very well on his own.  Aunt Mamie, as we called her, never had children of her own, probably because she married late in life.

One of the younger sisters was my grandmother, Josephine Veronica Loftus Rockwell.  Her husband died in an accident and left her with two small children.  Times were tough.  “Nana” cleaned houses to earn enough to feed the kids and, after they were grown and married, she came to live with us.   I have no doubt that, if her husband had lived, she would have had many more children.  That’s just the way it was back then.

When I was married in the Catholic church in 1962, I assumed I would have a baby every year.  My older sister was already on the 3rd of her 8 pregnancies when I married.  In fact, any married woman who wasn’t pregnant by her first anniversary was the topic of worried gossip.  Maybe something was “wrong with her.”  Not to disappoint, I delivered my first baby almost exactly nine months after the wedding.  Then a 2nd one 16 months later and a 3rd one 20 months after that.  The second baby, a boy, was born with a serious heart defect, possibly because I was teaching school during the last major German measles epidemic in 1964-65 and many of my students contracted the disease.

In 1966, my husband was assigned to Grand Forks AFB in North Dakota, and the birth control pill was just becoming a common form of contraception.  Knowing that my son would need heart surgery soon, I talked to the Catholic chaplain on base about using the pill.  He had just returned from duty in Vietnam and had much more important things on his mind than birth control.  Keep in mind, this was back when there were pamphlets in the back of the church saying that babies who died before being baptized went to “limbo” as well as all the “potential babies” who never had a chance to be born because of birth control.  Limbo was not quite hell and not quite heaven and there was no getting out.   The chaplain, a priest, told me my decision was between God and myself.  I decided God would want me to be with my son after his surgery in a hospital 400 miles away, so I chose the pill.

Long story short, I stopped taking the pill after my son’s successful heart surgery and got pregnant again.  Sadly, John Christopher died four months after surgery because his lungs couldn’t manage the increased oxygen supply.  He suffocated at home in his own bed.

So I know what it’s like to have multiple pregnancies and to lose a young child.  When I read stories of pioneer women dying in childbirth, I can “be there” with them.  When I read about them burying their babies and young children along the trail westward, I feel their pain.

I can’t imagine why any compassionate person would want women to return to those days and that kind of suffering.  I question whether men should even have the right to make those decisions for us.  Prior to the women’s movement of the 1960’s and 1970’s, I never would have questioned a man’s decision.  Now I question them all the time.

The post Keeping us barefoot and pregnant appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Susan G. Komen for the Cure, the famous breast cancer charity, recently announced privately to Planned Parenthood that it will stop funding the organization for mammograms and related services to low income women. David Crary reports for the Huffington Post:

The nation’s leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates—creating a bitter rift, linked to the abortion debate, between two iconic organizations that have assisted millions of women.

The change will mean a cutoff of hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants, mainly for breast exams.

Planned Parenthood says the move results from Komen bowing to pressure from anti-abortion activists. Komen says the key reason is that Planned Parenthood is under investigation in Congress–a probe launched by a conservative Republican who was urged to act by anti-abortion groups.

The Susan G Komen Foundation claims it temporarily ended the relationship because the family planning organization is currently under investigation by Congress. As of last year, Komen has a new rule that says they can’t contribute funds to organizations that are under investigation at the local, state, or federal level. Coincidently, the rule came into effect when Republican legislator Rep. Cliff Stearns, of Florida opened an investigation seeking to determine whether Planned Parenthood spent public money improperly on abortions.

But there’s more to the story. John Aravosis of Americablog reports that in April of 2011, Karen Handel became the Foundation’s Senior Vice President for Public Policy. Who is she? In 2010, Karen Handel ran unsuccessfully in the Republican primary for governor of Georgia. She was endorsed by Sarah Palin and ran on an anti-choice, “pro-life” platform, vowing that if elected, she would defund Planned Parenthood. According to Americablog Handel wrote on her campaign website:

I will be a pro-life governor who will work tirelessly to promote a culture of life in Georgia. . . . I believe that each and every unborn child has inherent dignity, that every abortion is a tragedy, and that government has a role, along with the faith community, in encouraging women to choose life in even the most difficult of circumstances. . . . since I am pro-life, I do not support the mission of Planned Parenthood.

If elected, she promised to eliminate funding for breast and cervical cancer screenings provided by the organization as well as funding for “a Healthy Baby Initiative.”

Lets see: A person who appears to have a personal mission to destroy Planned Parenthood takes a high-ranking policy position in an organization that provides funding to Planned Parenthood, and soon, that organization defunds Planned Parenthood. But according to Komen Foundation spokeswoman Leslie Aun, the cutoff of over $600,000 in funds to Planned Parenthood for services to low-income women is just about internal rule following. And, if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

Think Progress weighs in:

According to Planned Parenthood, in the past five years support from Susan G. Komen allowed their health centers to provide nearly 170,000 breast exams and 6,400 mammogram referrals. The charity’s decision has succeeded only in depriving low-income women of cancer screenings that could save their lives—a move that flies in the face of Komen’s mission.

And, to add to that, it is especially appalling to me that an organization dedicated to helping women cure themselves of breast cancer would deny those same women the right to control their own bodies.

The post Komen Foundation defunds Planned Parenthood appeared first on Occasional Planet.

In early August, Mayor Bloomberg unleashed a new initiative that would make sex education in New York City schools mandatory. That means for middle and high school students, things like condom use, the appropriate age for sexual activity, and specific information on STDs will now be readily available. It is part of an ongoing effort from the Bloomberg administration to improve the lives of poorer urban teenagers who are at a considerably higher risk for things like teen pregnancies and STDs. When you look at the data and see that five of the poorest neighborhoods have the highest rates of gonorrhea and chlamydia for those aged 15-19 or that girls in Brooklyn are twice as likely to have teen pregnancies than those in wealthier Manhattan, it’s obvious that some parents have dropped the ball when it comes to sex education. Which brings up the question, why isn’t sex education mandatory everywhere?

As it stands now, only 20 states have mandatory sex education in public schools. In most cases the local boards of education get to decide what their students learn (if anything) about the birds and the bees. Compare that to the fact that 33 states have mandated HIV education. That’s right, it’s more desirable for your child to learn about HIV/AIDS prevention than about safe sex. (Is it any wonder we’re the developed nation with the highest teen birth rate?) Another thing to take under consideration is that in many states, laws have been passed to dictate the content of the sex education students are taught, even when the curriculum isn’t mandatory. 36 states have laws requiring that abstinence be either covered or heavily stressed in sex education. Only 13 states are required to talk about the negatives of teen pregnancy. It’s obvious that there is a huge common sense gap in our nation’s sex education.

Now the fault shouldn’t be entirely thrust upon our education systems. We live in a society that glamorizes sex and there are a slew of highly publicized teenage mothers (Bristol Palin, Jamie Lynn Spears, MTV’s 16 & Pregnant) who make it seem like a normal rite of passage. I’m not saying we should publicly shame those people, I’m saying we should reevaluate our priorities and make good sexual education & healthy sex habits higher on the list. Parents should be involved as well as the schools. We need to get comfortable talking about contraceptives and abstinence. It’s the only realistic way to decrease the spread of STDs and lower teenage pregnancy rates.

If you’re curious about how sexual education is handled in your state, the Guttmacher Institute has a list of what is mandated and where.

Photo credit: Tomizak @Flickr Creative Commons

The post Why are we abstaining from sex education? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

It hasn’t been a banner century for progressives. Not too long I re-read a book that my grandmother, Lucille Milner, wrote in 1954, The Education of an American Liberal. She was truly an activist who was engaged in virtually every area of social reform in the early 20th Century. The work that she and millions of others did paved the way for numerous accomplishments by 1920. These included women’s suffrage and the creation of organizations such as Planned Parenthood and the League of Women Voters.

So we’re now less than eight and a half years from 2020. What have progressives accomplished so far in this first fifth of the twenty-first century? It seems as if we’ve been steamrolled by friend and foe alike.

RH Reality Check recently published a most interesting article in AlterNet called How Abortion Caused the Debt Crisis. You’re probably saying, “Say what?” Actually I think that it makes very clear sense. It’s a reflection of the kind of outside the box thinking that progressives need to utilize more.

If I understand Reality Check correctly, he/she is saying that the anti-choice movement after Roe v. Wade launched a relentless effort by extreme conservatives to do damage to progressives wherever possible. Conservatives were so offended by women having the fundamental right of choice that they ramped up an effort to challenge liberal ideas in every area of public policy.

It was government, specifically the U.S. Supreme Court, that provided the protection that women needed to have control of their reproductive rights. Some of us may have forgotten that Roe v Wade was decided in 1973, during the Nixon Administration. As much as Richard Nixon has been demonized by progressives, he presided over the continuing of and creation of a number of liberal programs while he was president. An insightful description of Nixon’s comfort level with using the federal government to help people in need is presented in an excellent op-ed by Kurt Anderson in the New York Times on August 5, 2011. It is of interest that when David Frost was interviewing Nixon for 28 hours in 1977, none of the four topics that he covered related to domestic policy. They were “Watergate,” “Nixon and the world,” “War at home and abroad,” and “Nixon, the man.”

But extremists on the right saw Roe v Wade as just one area of “federal intrusion” into people’s lives (ironically Roe v Wade actually reduced government intrusion into people’s lives). Conservatives began a full-scale attack on the federal government. Ronald Reagan won the presidency in 1980. While statistics show that he strengthened federal programs, that was not the perception. Even George W. Bush strengthened some government programs because he had no regard for deficit spending (two discretionary wars which were not funded as well as huge tax cuts for the wealthy).

Reality Check’s piece on “How Abortion Caused the Debt Crisis” made me to a 180o turn on a belief that I had held since April, 1970. The first Earth Day was April 22 of that year. Even though I obviously favored environmental protection, I resented the Earth Day movement because I felt that it was siphoning off energy needed to continue to address the issues of civil rights and America’s presence in Vietnam. The “narrowcasting” position that I took over forty years ago possibly had merit then. However conservatives have clearly shown in this century that the way to bully progressives is to “wage war” on all fronts. They don’t give up an inch of ground on any issue unless they are forced to do so.

Thus my suggestion to progressives who want economic reform including as many stimulus programs as are needed to successfully put America back to work is to engage conservatives wherever they choose to do damage to the welfare of the American people. We can no longer back off from engaging in discussion on abortion. We need to protect rights and expand affordability and accessibility. We can’t be silent about gun control when a Congresswoman is shot while conducting an informal outdoor meet and greet. We can’t look the other way when the Environmental Protection Agency is being stripped of its powers. We cannot pretend that the National Endowment for the Arts is not constantly threatened with extinction.

Like conservatives, progressives are currently very active utilizing social media. Facebook is an excellent way to pass the word around and sometimes organize. But this digital town hall does not provide us with commitment to vital issues. We need to augment our use of social media with a renewed effort to challenging conservatives on all social issues that are important to us. We have been intimidated into thinking that these issues are too risky to address. If that is so, what will we say when the limited protections that we have now are further diminished?

My thanks to Reality Check for thinking outside the box and giving me a perspective that I previously did not see. As if I needed another reason to support abortion rights, now I do. It’s all part of a movement to convince the American people that the federal government is very capable of meeting their needs and it is the one institution that can truly protect their rights. Maybe in another forty years I’ll change my mind, but I’m good for now.

The post Social issues trump social media appeared first on Occasional Planet.