While Obama Gives Lip-Service To Our Reproductive Rights We Must Communicate More Effectively With Our Elected Officials

The following note I'm enclosing at the bottom of this post was a response to the Feminist Advisory Board for Obama regarding a letter that was sent to the President asking for a public statement denouncing the murder of Dr. Tiller. A form letter response was sent with a generic "thank you" but it was non-committal. Like race relations (the denial of racism, anger over accountability) control over a woman's reproductive rights is constantly being challenged. Usually it's by the same people - except for some fools who work against their own interests. This is part of a larger movement from those armed and racist who want to want to see women chained to the house and blacks sent back to Africa. After his huge mistake defending black woman betrayer/hater Skippy Gates don't expect President Obama to say anything that will further incite the angry white men with guns. In fact he has flipped from his earlier decision to lift the ban on abortion funding by letting the fundamentalists (which includes Democrats) dictate the terms of our healthcare coverage.

From CBS News - - President Obama on Tuesday said he would "rather not wade into" the issue of whether or not health care reform should include federal funding for abortions. 

The president told CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric that he is "not trying to micro-manage what benefits are covered." 

My reply - If you're in charge you tell your subordinates what is on - and off the table for negotiation. You don't leave it up to the whims of others.

"I'm pro-choice, but I think we also have the tradition in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government-funded health care," he said, adding: "My main focus is making sure that people have options of high quality care at the lowest possible price."  

If you are in support of something you should be all-in. There are no ifs, ands or buts. In trying to get this health care plan -which is now being called a health insurance plan passed, if it's nearly gutted and ineffective it's DOA for all of us non-politicians who don't have their plan. Or their cheap rates.

Coming on the heels of the most recent vote by the House Energy and Commerce Committee to pass an amendment excluding abortion services from the "essential" health benefits package as defined by the government it would seem Obama is NOT IN SUPPORT OF ABORTIONS for any woman who can't pay for one. So low-income workers, immigrants, youth and the usual marginalized population are going to be (*&$ out of luck unless some private funding will cover these costs. What's next on the chopping block....birth control pills?  

We have so many forces in opposition to any progress we must strategize how we approach tackling them. Our goals must be firm. We're going to have to FIGHT people because they are not giving an inch. Obama doesn't have our backs any more than his backside is being covered. He will cave unless we make it a disadvantage for him to do so. Here is one suggestion on how to approach politicians that I think may prove useful:

"Don't read too much into the response you got to your letter. Most congressional offices have standard replies as well. The best way to get a more personal response is to put more than one issue into a letter that you write. Still, more than likely some staff member is writing that letter due to the number of letters members of congress get and I assume that the Presidency is the same way.

I have to say having interned in a congressional and a senate office has deterred me from writing letters and even signing many petitions non-anonymously to it because I know how these offices process the information and I ALMOST completely agree with their methods - they get so much mail and petitions that its hard to deal more personally with what they receive. But, I do wish that more members would read at least some constituent letters and maybe even choose to respond to a few - from my knowledge I know of some members who respond to Tweets and FaceBook messages but unsure about older forms of communication. I have heard that the President does read like 3 letters a day to keep himself grounded (his words). So I don't know if we should give up on letters completely.

Honestly, I have not found an effective method of reaching out to my representatives. The best I have observed is trying to get a meeting with that member or a staff person and doing so constantly. This is hard though because if you get on their "bad side" they do not take your issues seriously. So I'm still trying to figure this out myself. Also with the President its not like you can get a meeting with the POTUS with out donating money to his party and winning that random drawing to have "Lunch with Obama."

To close, didn't expect to say all this, maybe we as a group can organize to meet with our representatives in person during recess sessions - especially summer recess - in the future over an issue. Also, many members participate in local events at this time and it is the best way to try to connect with them (but I am also from a small state that if you are somewhat involved in any industry the member covers you have met and interacted with them. So they are generally more responsive). Anyway, I do think that especially in the age with all of this technology, that nothing beats face to face.

P.S. So of course now I remember a way that may be more effective - Doing a policy memo as to why a member or in this case, the President, should support an issue. In the case of congress, their staffers need to do this to their member to co-sponsor a piece of legislation. The letter is short and basically builds a case as to why they should support a bill based on both the merits of the bill and how the bill will benefit/affect the people in their state. I would try this angle - you still may get a form letter back but you may get a staffer that may care enough to either forward this on to the member or tweek it a bit and try to convince their member to co-sponsor that piece of legislation - especially since a lot of the leg work is done for them. Final statement I promise - getting to know staff members in key offices is help ful and probably the best method - it works for the lobbyists." -- from DNMP Politico

Abortion: Why Not Talking About It Lets the Terrorists Win

You know I give out a weekly "Award of Shame" and it's serious but I try to present it while being tongue-in-cheek. Yesterday's went to "White Men Howling At the Moon". Apparently some of them feel their death grip on power slipping and they must maintain control - or else. Historically we've seen what those with power will do to maintain order and exert control over others. We saw the emergence of the Klu Klux Klan after the period of forced enslavement ended. We see the continued rage-a-thon by the Republicans against the current Democratic President that is being supported by corporate media.

Now we have the murder of Dr. George Tiller, an OB/GYN in Witchita who was shot to death while at church. Let's chew on that one for a minute. The man was at church and murdered by another (white) man who didn't like the fact that amongst all of the services he provided, one of them was pregnancy termination.  Abortions are a controversial subject to be sure. I do believe that if men could get pregnant all the fighting over reproductive choices would not be an issue. Let's get to nitty gritty, shall we? Personal feelings and religious dogma aside this has always been about control over what a woman (or girl) can and can NOT do with her own body. 

From having sex to engaging in sex work, laws and religion interpreted by men from a male perspective for the benefit of men have usually ruled the day. Women who were independent thinkers have been branded witches. The role of women who were early followers of Christ have been downplayed by those interpreting the Bible. The Inquisition focused on courtesans. The Pope wanted Queen Elizabeth I assassinated.  Women don't get pregnant by themselves but they bear the burden of living with whatever consequences occur. 

In a perfect world there'd be no need for abortions. Women wouldn't be raped, molested or abused either. Governments - esp the United States would actually put their money where they claim their values are and provide top-notch (free or low cost) health care, child care and paid time off for both parents. Housing wouldn't cost some people 2/3s of their income. We wouldn't have to work 50+ hours just to try to make ends meat. Now I'm certain in this capitalistic, material-possession obsessed country living below one's means has a profound effect on the self-esteem of many. Yet why allow companies to keep putting out new shiny unaffordable objects every six months?

The President made a statement about how "acts of violence" don't resolve the "difficult issue of abortion", but this is about domestic terrorism! Health care providers should never have to be forced to decide whether to assist others when their own personal safety is at stake be it from a war-torn area, to a lower-income neighborhood to gender-based services. Obama needs to make it clear these acts will not be tolerated in this country anymore. 

Dr. Tiller had been under constant threat, his clinic bombed and he'd been previously shot! Operation Rescue - which should be classified a terrorist organization - posted Dr. Tiller's home address and church. Yet he still provided care. Please tell me why law enforcement doesn't take it up a notch or three when such an act of violence occurs? It may be about a medical facility today but will be about a power plant tomorrow if they don't learn to respond to these attacks appropriately. 

Where's a woman to go if providers refuse services out of fear of retribution and violence? Or refuse them for "religious" purposes? It isn't going to stop the need for such services. I realize many are opposed to abortion - even those that have them - but this is not the time to stay in your protective bubble. Just like the rise of degradation in music that has specifically denigrated Black women, the tide will keep rising until it reaches your door. Living your life of quiet dignity does nothing to help those exposed to the harshness of reality or a less sheltered and protected existence. When we allow bad things to go unchecked we are in fact contributing towards the demise of the greater society as a whole. 

Again personal beliefs and religion aside we have the (concept of) separation of church and state for a reason. We who have been marginalized in some way must take special heed to not turn on others lest we wind up in an even worse predicament than before. Those of us who know better must not shut our doors and stick fingers in our ears until "it all goes away". That's about recognizing how the actions of militant groups, to television commentators making up controversies, to how the "entertainment" industry reinforces a gutter mentality is a threat to our greater society as a whole. That's not focusing on negativity - it's a reality check. We have to see these actions as another battle in a very long war being waged in this country. If successful it will spread to other things that some of us hold dear. By then it will be too late. We'll have no one else to blame but ourselves if we stood by watching passively as the world crashed around our feet.

Bea Arthur Tribute: Maude's Dilemma Pioneered Reproductive Rights Before Roe V. Wade

Actress Bea Arthur passed away yesterday and many have mentioned her career as one of the premier comediennes of her generation. Many fondly recall the series Golden Girls from the 80's which was a definite precursor to Sex and the City. I still watch reruns from time to time and that show was very funny and ahead of its time. It also covered many issues around social justice before it became trendy i.e. "safe" to do. 

Her earlier series from the 70's Maude isn't one that I recall in detail except that Esther Rolle was featured before her character was spun-off to the series Good Times. Yes, there was a time when Blacks used to count the other Black people on television because there were so few of us. Now the fact that so many women were playing maids is another story...

I do recall the episode that caused a lot of brouhaha back in the day. Bea played the title character where Maude has an unexpected pregnancy and debates whether or not to have an abortion. This character is middle-class and married but at the age of 47 doesn't want to raise a child. It actually aired before Roe v. Wade completed its course through the legal system and the creators took a chance on it passing. So it was ahead of its time and controversial. 

You'd be hard-pressed to find a show today where the lead character decides whether or not she will have an abortion. The writers/producers almost always cop out and the woman has a miscarriage or almost loses the baby, has a change of heart and completes the pregnancy to term. It's not as if I'm advocating abortion, but it is a choice that's made by many women. Men who often are so resistant to the idea of having children don't take the steps they need to make sure they won't impregnate a woman by mistake. I'm certain it's a no-win situation for the woman but since the idea of motherhood is worshipped by so many, yet the quality of life for (poorer, non-white) children is so disdained it's not a surprise.

Now that the Dominican Republic has amended its constitution to outlaw ALL abortions it will be those least equipped to handle child-rearing, the poor as well as survivors of sexual abuse and rape who will pay the price. As always there's the element of personal responsibility for our choices and the consequences we may face when we make mistakes. Yet it goes without saying we're talking about women being left to shoulder the burden of them in these situations - usually alone.

This was a 2-part story arc which you can continue viewing here. There's been critical analysis of the impact of this storyline at The Beachwood Reporter. I'll let you view to find out what happens.