Today, January 22, 2008, marks the 35th anniversary of Roe v Wade. If you're reading my blog, you almost certainly know that's the U.S. Supreme Court case that legalized abortion based on the right to privacy in matters as personal as childbearing.
We've kept Roe alive despite a constant tack backward by courts, state laws, and a federal abortion ban that's been upheld by the Supremes. Meanwhile, in pop culture--movies like Juno and Knocked Up for example--abortion has become increasingly cast, if at all, as some clandestine act that nice people would never engage in.
If this trend continues, then life will imitate art and abortion will become clandestine again. So it's time to radically rethink our whole approach. We have to stake out a human rights framework for reproductive justice and go for it from the ground up. I don't care if we thought the battles were fought and won--they were, but that's democracy, folks. We have to do it again, in terms that resonate with the world we live in today. You get past a midlife crisis by doing something different.
Here are a few pieces I wrote:
For Huffington Post,"I Am Roe and I Have Questions for the Candidates".
For Women's eNews: "Roe Anniversary Brings Decisive Moment to Choose"
For Salon: "Roe 35 Years Later"
Read on!
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
Out of the Candidate Closet
Salon's "Let the Voting Begin" has some interesting endorsements. I hadn't been coy or undecided previously, but rather had refrained from lining up with a candidate because I thought that was better for my opinion writing. Seems no one cares and it felt like time to me personally. So there you are.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Headline as Haiku
The headline summed it up so accurately it made my teeth hurt: "Republican Unity Trumps Democratic Momentum".
Robert Pear and Carl Hulse wrote the article that sums up Congressional Democrats’ 2007 accomplishments, or lack of them, in the New York Times, December 21. But whoever wrote that headline gets my vote for the Pulitzer. In fewer syllables than a classic haiku, he or she described perfectly the essence of American politics since the extreme right has held sway over the Republican Party.
The Democrats might have better ideas and public opinion on their side right now, but the Republicans--even when they’re in the minority—still run strategic circles around them.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)said she didn't foresee this would happen. Excuse me, but what sand has her idealistic head been buried in? And what a dumb thing to say even if you think it, power politics being what they are.
But at least she took some responsibility. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)simply blamed the Republicans. Perhaps it’s not surprising that public opinion now ranks Congress even lower than the President.
The conservative right is effective because they stick together and mass their strengths; those on the progressive left not only lack the discipline to stick together, they so distrust power that they sully their own opportunities to advance measures they sincerely believe will make people's lives better—in other words, the very things they were elected to do.
These missed opportunities occur not just because the minority is more highly motivated than a majority to exercise discipline; we’ve seen the Republican majority steamroller brazenly over the Democrats too many times to exonerate the Democrats and their leadership from responsibility for becoming rolees of their own volition. The most obvious example is the continuing flow of money to the Iraq war even after it became clear the Bush administration had lied through its teeth to justify a war that has benefited their Halliburton cronies more than anyone else.
But from the first day George W. Bush took office in 2001, well before 9/11 gave him a free pass, he started to ramrod extreme right wing judicial nominees through the Senate. Democrats, led by wimpy minority leader Tom Daschle, never let the courage of their convictions take precedence over crass vote counting.
Even after the Senate’s breathtaking switch from Republican to Democratic hands when Vermont’s moderate Republican Senator Jim Jeffords switched to Independent and began to caucus with the Democrats in May of 2001, Democratic leaders were still unwilling to seize the opportunity to oppose Bush’s nominees until a large coalition of women’s and civil rights groups poured starch into the senators' spines and perhaps a little fear of reprisal into their hearts.
In one such hearing, Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) looked straight at me and a few other heads of women’s organizations who were observing the committee hearing and angrily accused us of being the problem, rather than Bush’s nominees whose track records guaranteed that they were eminently prepared to eviscerate civil and reproductive rights that are core principles of the Democratic Party.
True, conservatives on occasion fail because they are so heartless in their pursuit of power that the vast silent middle of citizens finally rises up in outrage. The Terry Schiavo
case comes to mind. “Compassionate Conservatism” has been clearly demonstrated during the current Bush administration to be at best an oxymoron and at worst a cruel hoax. And every once in a wonderful while, their rigid acceptance of hierarchy backfires, and the likes of Tom DeLay finally get their due. But most of the time, their discipline to fight out their differences in their party’s caucus and then work the legislative floor together in lockstep allows them to leverage their effectiveness far beyond their numbers.
The Republicans are power mad. The Democrats are power averse.
So what did Pelosi and Reid expect when they took their majority leadership positions last January? Will they learn from their defeats and come out with agendas blazing and party unity next January in order to set a more favorable context for their party in next November’s elections?
Hope springs eternal.
© Gloria Feldt 2007
www.gloriafeldt.com
Tuesday, December 04, 2007
Henry Hyde's Hypocrisy: Rest Not in Peace
I posted this on Huffington Post late yesterday. Best to read it there so you get all the links, but I did include the comments so far. What do you think? Let me know here or at HuffPo or both.
I was in Arizona awaiting my grandson Eli's birth in March, 1997, when I received a panicked call from my Washington, D. C. staff. "We've been summoned to appear before the joint House of Representatives and Senate Judiciary Committees to testify about the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Act. It's going to be a witch hunt," they told me. "You have to come back and prepare. It's a really big deal--you'll be under oath and intense media scrutiny."
This would be my first face-to-face encounter with Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), the silver-maned, vociferously anti-choice, then-chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who died on November 29. It'd be my first congressional testimony since I had become national president of Planned Parenthood the previous year, when President Clinton vetoed in play again.
The Federal Abortion Ban, as I call it because it is, had engendered as much controversy within the pro-choice movement as within the Congress and public. In my view, that internal angst came about because the abortion ban wasn't immediately outed for the frontal assault on Roe v Wade it has since proven itself to be. (A full rendition of this brilliantly deceptive legislation's history is in my book, The War on Choice.)
Green though I was to the federal political theater, I knew we had to reset the agenda and change the terms of the debate. And one thing I'd learned from the frontlines during 22 years at the helm of Planned Parenthood affiliates in bright red West Texas and Arizona was that the hotter the flames of controversy, the more they got people's attention and illuminated what we had to say.
I grumpily boarded the plane to Washington, hoping the baby would await my return. Perusing Hyde's voting record, I found something striking: in all his years of strident opposition to abortion, the man had never voted to support family planning programs that would lessen the need for abortion. What kind of hypocrisy was that? Not only was he the author of the infamous Hyde Amendment that since 1977 had robbed women relying on Medicaid for health care of coverage for abortion, but he had done absolutely nothing to help them prevent unintended pregnancy in the first place.
In the imposing hearing room, Committee members sat behind tables on a high, well-lighted platform looking down upon the testifiers below in what felt like a pit. Behind us sat an audience of advocates from both sides. News cameras lined the back of the room.
The prepared testimony of the four pro-choice organization leaders called to testify had been carefully vetted by our staffs, legal advisors, and media consultants. Tension was thick.
But one thing you can depend on is that a zealot will eventually hoist himself on the petard of his own extremism. Hyde didn't even attempt to cloak himself in the charade of the abortion ban bill's supposed moderation. Instead, he roared his first question: "Ms. Feldt, does it trouble you that there are so many abortions?"
"Mr. Hyde, if it troubles you," I went off script to reply, "why have you never once voted for family planning services?"
The chamber erupted in applause; the hearing chairman cautioned them to quiet down or be ejected. The previously timid committee Democrats perked up. The lion had been bearded in his lair. Hyde's response can only be described as "blub, blub", while he attempted to deflect the palpable shift in energy. Then he began to attack me in earnest, and Sen. Ted Kennedy leapt to my defense and cut him off.
The other testifiers similarly took energy from this confrontation so that in the end, the hearing was not the rout anti-choice forces had hoped for and pro-choice forces had feared. But it was a line of demarcation between a pro-choice strategy of defense and one where we would put forward a positive agenda.
Afterward, I stepped to the platform to shake hands with the Congress members. When I got to Mr. Hyde, he leaned over the table and looked searingly into my eyes. I expected he would either compliment me for taking him on or lecture me on the error of my ways.
Instead, he leered, "Your organization hires the best-looking women."
I wish I could say I had a clever retort, but I burst out laughing at this typical male technique for diminishing a woman.
I made it back for Eli's joyfully awaited birth. But America has yet to ensure every woman can enjoy the blessings of motherhood in freedom.
Hyde would go on to lead the impeachment process against President Clinton, only to have his own hypocrisy revealed again: he'd had an affair -- which he excused as a "youthful indiscretion" though when it happened, he was married with children and in his 40's.
Hyde's relentless opposition to a woman's human right to make her own childbearing decisions, including his consistent record, through his retirement last year, of voting against preventive family planning services, continues to cause immense human suffering and injustice.
Let Henry Hyde rest, but not in peace.
Comments (31)as of 12/4/ at noon
1 comment pending
FAQ: Comments & Moderation | FAQ: Huffpost Accounts
Post a comment
Tip
NEW expand collapse Goofy (See profile | I'm a fan of Goofy)
Bravo!! This country is in a civil war, and this is not the time to comfort the enemey ...
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:41 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse rucognizant (See profile | I'm a fan of rucognizant)
jumundstuk, REREAD............That was 1997 NOT 1977!
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:18 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse retarius (See profile | I'm a fan of retarius)
I have no particular axe to grind on abortion: from my perspective it is a private issue between the folks that were involved in the pregnancy (that is 'folks' rathrr than 'folk' or 'woman'...ie in my opinion the man should have a say as well)...but I'm glad that this filthy hypocrite has finally died...if there were any justice he would have died years ago, after a long, painful, disfiguring and disabling illness...it is times like these that I wished that I believed in some sort of afterlife, since the thought of this silver-maned turd roasting in hell would have warmed my heart.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:26 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse jmundstuk (See profile | I'm a fan of jmundstuk)
Nice post and story, except that Hyde couldn't have been chair of the House Judiciary Committee in 1977. The Democrats were in the majority and would remain so until the 1994 election. Maybe you testified before a joint committee, which would explain why Kennedy, a senator, was present and maybe Hyde was ranking member or something. Makes a better story your way, but facts do matter.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 02:21 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse retarius (See profile | I'm a fan of retarius)
1997
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:20 am on 12/04/2007
NEW expand collapse GloriaFeldt (See profile | I'm a fan of GloriaFeldt)
Just to clarify- he was chair of the Judiciary committee in 1997. The Hyde amendment went into effect in 1977. It's easy to transpose those two dates when you are reading.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:41 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse Lisette (See profile | I'm a fan of Lisette)
Thanks for the great post. Many people agree with you, including me.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 11:48 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse nunzia (See profile | I'm a fan of nunzia)
I echo Lisette's comment. Great post. Thanks.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:10 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse jimhum (See profile | I'm a fan of jimhum)
Instead, he leered, "Your organization hires the best-looking women."
I wish I could say I had a clever retort, but I burst out laughing at this typical male technique for diminishing a woman.
-----
Now why on earth would that be considered diminishing? There is nothing more beautiful than a beautiful lady. That is a compliment. I get sick and tired of ladies who dress to be seen, and complain if anyone looks.
The other day the cashier in the bank bent down to her counter, and I could almost see her belly button. I laughed and said, "That"s beautiful, but did you know that when you got dressed this morning." She laughed and admitted she had no reason at all to complain when a man got the nice view.
Here"s a question that I have posted many times, and have yet to get an answer, "Are you one of those who watch TV news stories of starving babies, then cheer, and say, At least she didn't get an abortion!"
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 10:57 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse MsLiz (See profile | I'm a fan of MsLiz)
"Now why on earth would that be considered diminishing?"
The author was at the hearing to address an important issue. She was old enough to be a grandmother. Instead of saying something along the lines of "thank you for your testimony, nice to meet you," he revealed that he had evaluated her solely in terms of what she had to offer his libido. It was a discount of her knowledge and views.
As to your second question: No.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 12:46 am on 12/04/2007
NEW expand collapse GloriaFeldt (See profile | I'm a fan of GloriaFeldt)
MsLiz and Jimhum-
I generally am quite happy to be praised for my appearance. These days I even wear a little cleavage from time to time in honor of Hillary. But a Congressional hearing is supposed to be the height of decorum for one thing (hence I wore a very conservative brown suit and pearls that day as I recall). For another, Hyde liked to appear gentlemanly even when he was skewering you, and for a traditional man like him to skewer a woman, he had to resort to diminishing me by reducing me to a physical being rather than acknowledging characteristics that would equal power in the political realm.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:51 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse Ravenlea (See profile | I'm a fan of Ravenlea)
Try the situation in reverse. You have just appeared before Congress and done a fine job of it. Nancy Pelosi rather than thanking you or complimenting you on your presentation, leers at you and remarks that "your company sure hires good-looking men." I doubt you'd be just thrilled to your toe-nails that the nice important lady said you were attractive or swoon with delight.
While in some contexts a good compliment is enjoyable, there are other times when it is either not offered to make the recipient feel good but to objectify and thereby diminish them or it's just inappropriate.
Men often use such comments to dismiss smart women. Some men think it's charming. It's not. It's creepy.
And what does this issue have to do with being for or against abortions? (I'm pro abortion, by the way.)
I hope you're an old fart like me, because I have deluded myself into thinking that younger men have more awareness than the men of my generation did/do.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 01:21 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse dgrffy (See profile | I'm a fan of dgrffy)
A vile editorial. The disrespect and 'who cares if they don't agree with us' attitude speaks volumes for our culture. When I read things like this, it reminds me why I am never surprised when kids walk into schools and open fire. Why shouldn't they? Where are their examples? He sucked, he was evil, I'm glad he's dead? And we have the gall of acting shocked when one of our youngsters (those 3 out of 4 who weren't aborted) walk into a room and open fire. Why wouldn't Henry be a hypocrite? If he wasn't, he would have been a lonely man in a country filled with them.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 09:25 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse DonL (See profile | I'm a fan of DonL)
I think you missed the point. Hyde wasn't evil, he was in a position to actually help stop abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancy and instead he chose to take sides and fight those with whom he disagreed. What should bother you is that in this country, it has become acceptable to go to war with your opposition instead of trying to work with them, to posture and moralize instead of accepting that someone might have a different set of values to which they are entitled. Where does a school shooting come out of this?
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 10:50 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse dgrffy (See profile | I'm a fan of dgrffy)
What you said is true - but for all involved. Hyde merely did what everyone does, and that is pick one side against the other, then fight. Where the school shootings come from is a generation of children watching adults act worse than the children of bygone days. When adults call each other evil, when they speak of others as worthless because of a host of reasons, when they all but crow over the demise of those with whom they disagree - because they feel nothing but contempt - it has an impact on those generations that follow. The hatred and contempt and lack of respect that the adults show in public discourse is being watched, and watched by the kids who will one day run our country; run it if they should live so long.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 11:06 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse Ravenlea (See profile | I'm a fan of Ravenlea)
Ms Feldt didn't say she was glad he was dead. You are putting words into her mouth that aren't there.
Hyde was a hypocrite across the board. One of the problems these days - one of the reasons this country is in the mess that it's in is because people are choosing sides to be popular or to get ahead, rather than trying to do what's right. Hyde stood against abortion but did nothing to prevent the need for abortion. He made sanctimonious speeches about Clinton's infidelity when his own extra-marital affair wrecked another man's marriage. Now we hear that he supposedly opposed impeachment but didn't want to go against the crowd in power. Talk about the root-cause of high school shootings! Children who do those shootings are almost always outsiders who have been bullied by the in crowd. And that kind of thing goes on because people who know bullying is wrong do nothing to stop it.
I agree that there is too much meanness in the world right now, too much name-calling. But I don't subscribe to the view that it's wrong to criticize people who deserve criticism.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 01:39 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse dgrffy (See profile | I'm a fan of dgrffy)
Of course it isn't wrong to criticize issues, or the people with whom we disagree. But it's how. No, she didn't say she was glad he was dead, though others have. She did, more or less, spit on his grave over various issues. It is a mark of the lack of respect in our culture. Folks are free to disagree and criticize. It's how you do it that says so much. Especially because our kids are listening.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:12 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse texanna (See profile | I'm a fan of texanna)
Sweet Karma would be his return as a girl, born to a poor woman who had too many children already and no resources for her latest offspring.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:21 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse rollingdivision (See profile | I'm a fan of rollingdivision)
The author's closing remark speaks volumes.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:32 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse sorenmeetsdylan (See profile | I'm a fan of sorenmeetsdylan)
How indecent can you get, to wish ill to a man who is deceased?
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:22 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse davedave (See profile | I'm a fan of davedave)
not ill.
he is dead, way beyond ill.
but one can express relief...
d
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:52 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse Superfelo (See profile | I'm a fan of Superfelo)
Well, let us say we cannot get as indecent as being a hypocrite; not voting for family planning programs; cheating on one's wife, while married with children; being a Republican; never speaking out against Racism; that, it seems to me, goes beyond the limit of indecency; almost as indecent as tapping on the filthy floor of a bathroom stall.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:12 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse Dlynne14 (See profile | I'm a fan of Dlynne14)
Like Mr. Falwell, who passed away this year, Mr. Hyde is your typical, hypocritical right wing Neocon man.
And he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Freedom for his love of the unborn???!!! What a joke. What about the love of the already born?
It is so sad that these foolish, self centered men, who could never walk in the foot steps of a woman, have the power to dictate what he believes is best for them.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:19 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse mediamarv (See profile | I'm a fan of mediamarv)
I had forgotten that he died! I was traveling and not at the computer where I get my news....
I won't miss him and I don't care what the HuffPo interns think about that!
Now, puttiing together my Christmas wish list......
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:03 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse Desiderata (See profile | I'm a fan of Desiderata)
Hyde's sanctimoneous speeches during the impeachment hearings over Bill Clinton's morals opened the pandora's box of personal destruction to overturn the will of the majority of the American electorate.
That attempted coup birthed the treason of the Supreme Court in Bush vs Gore.
Rest in Hell.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:35 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse rollingdivision (See profile | I'm a fan of rollingdivision)
Do you have a link to Hyde's sanctimonious speeches you referred to in your post?
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:38 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse MsLiz (See profile | I'm a fan of MsLiz)
http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/hyde-imp.htm
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 12:51 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse MsLiz (See profile | I'm a fan of MsLiz)
Here's more:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE0DA1630F934A25752C0A96F958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/H/Hyde,%20Henry%20J.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 12:59 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse nunzia (See profile | I'm a fan of nunzia)
Desiderata -well said.
Hyde, rest in hell.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:14 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse Joeseo (See profile | I'm a fan of Joeseo)
Amen.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:05 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse Ravenlea (See profile | I'm a fan of Ravenlea)
Brava! Once again there is an effort at death to revise who someone was in life and make them seem better than they were. Hyde seems to me to have been the embodiment of hypocrisy and I see no reason to praise him simply because he is dead. Good for you beating him at his own game at the hearings. Must have felt good.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:07 pm on 12/03/2007
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
I was in Arizona awaiting my grandson Eli's birth in March, 1997, when I received a panicked call from my Washington, D. C. staff. "We've been summoned to appear before the joint House of Representatives and Senate Judiciary Committees to testify about the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Act. It's going to be a witch hunt," they told me. "You have to come back and prepare. It's a really big deal--you'll be under oath and intense media scrutiny."
This would be my first face-to-face encounter with Rep. Henry Hyde (R-IL), the silver-maned, vociferously anti-choice, then-chair of the House Judiciary Committee, who died on November 29. It'd be my first congressional testimony since I had become national president of Planned Parenthood the previous year, when President Clinton vetoed in play again.
The Federal Abortion Ban, as I call it because it is, had engendered as much controversy within the pro-choice movement as within the Congress and public. In my view, that internal angst came about because the abortion ban wasn't immediately outed for the frontal assault on Roe v Wade it has since proven itself to be. (A full rendition of this brilliantly deceptive legislation's history is in my book, The War on Choice.)
Green though I was to the federal political theater, I knew we had to reset the agenda and change the terms of the debate. And one thing I'd learned from the frontlines during 22 years at the helm of Planned Parenthood affiliates in bright red West Texas and Arizona was that the hotter the flames of controversy, the more they got people's attention and illuminated what we had to say.
I grumpily boarded the plane to Washington, hoping the baby would await my return. Perusing Hyde's voting record, I found something striking: in all his years of strident opposition to abortion, the man had never voted to support family planning programs that would lessen the need for abortion. What kind of hypocrisy was that? Not only was he the author of the infamous Hyde Amendment that since 1977 had robbed women relying on Medicaid for health care of coverage for abortion, but he had done absolutely nothing to help them prevent unintended pregnancy in the first place.
In the imposing hearing room, Committee members sat behind tables on a high, well-lighted platform looking down upon the testifiers below in what felt like a pit. Behind us sat an audience of advocates from both sides. News cameras lined the back of the room.
The prepared testimony of the four pro-choice organization leaders called to testify had been carefully vetted by our staffs, legal advisors, and media consultants. Tension was thick.
But one thing you can depend on is that a zealot will eventually hoist himself on the petard of his own extremism. Hyde didn't even attempt to cloak himself in the charade of the abortion ban bill's supposed moderation. Instead, he roared his first question: "Ms. Feldt, does it trouble you that there are so many abortions?"
"Mr. Hyde, if it troubles you," I went off script to reply, "why have you never once voted for family planning services?"
The chamber erupted in applause; the hearing chairman cautioned them to quiet down or be ejected. The previously timid committee Democrats perked up. The lion had been bearded in his lair. Hyde's response can only be described as "blub, blub", while he attempted to deflect the palpable shift in energy. Then he began to attack me in earnest, and Sen. Ted Kennedy leapt to my defense and cut him off.
The other testifiers similarly took energy from this confrontation so that in the end, the hearing was not the rout anti-choice forces had hoped for and pro-choice forces had feared. But it was a line of demarcation between a pro-choice strategy of defense and one where we would put forward a positive agenda.
Afterward, I stepped to the platform to shake hands with the Congress members. When I got to Mr. Hyde, he leaned over the table and looked searingly into my eyes. I expected he would either compliment me for taking him on or lecture me on the error of my ways.
Instead, he leered, "Your organization hires the best-looking women."
I wish I could say I had a clever retort, but I burst out laughing at this typical male technique for diminishing a woman.
I made it back for Eli's joyfully awaited birth. But America has yet to ensure every woman can enjoy the blessings of motherhood in freedom.
Hyde would go on to lead the impeachment process against President Clinton, only to have his own hypocrisy revealed again: he'd had an affair -- which he excused as a "youthful indiscretion" though when it happened, he was married with children and in his 40's.
Hyde's relentless opposition to a woman's human right to make her own childbearing decisions, including his consistent record, through his retirement last year, of voting against preventive family planning services, continues to cause immense human suffering and injustice.
Let Henry Hyde rest, but not in peace.
Comments (31)as of 12/4/ at noon
1 comment pending
FAQ: Comments & Moderation | FAQ: Huffpost Accounts
Post a comment
Tip
NEW expand collapse Goofy (See profile | I'm a fan of Goofy)
Bravo!! This country is in a civil war, and this is not the time to comfort the enemey ...
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:41 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse rucognizant (See profile | I'm a fan of rucognizant)
jumundstuk, REREAD............That was 1997 NOT 1977!
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:18 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse retarius (See profile | I'm a fan of retarius)
I have no particular axe to grind on abortion: from my perspective it is a private issue between the folks that were involved in the pregnancy (that is 'folks' rathrr than 'folk' or 'woman'...ie in my opinion the man should have a say as well)...but I'm glad that this filthy hypocrite has finally died...if there were any justice he would have died years ago, after a long, painful, disfiguring and disabling illness...it is times like these that I wished that I believed in some sort of afterlife, since the thought of this silver-maned turd roasting in hell would have warmed my heart.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:26 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse jmundstuk (See profile | I'm a fan of jmundstuk)
Nice post and story, except that Hyde couldn't have been chair of the House Judiciary Committee in 1977. The Democrats were in the majority and would remain so until the 1994 election. Maybe you testified before a joint committee, which would explain why Kennedy, a senator, was present and maybe Hyde was ranking member or something. Makes a better story your way, but facts do matter.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 02:21 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse retarius (See profile | I'm a fan of retarius)
1997
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:20 am on 12/04/2007
NEW expand collapse GloriaFeldt (See profile | I'm a fan of GloriaFeldt)
Just to clarify- he was chair of the Judiciary committee in 1997. The Hyde amendment went into effect in 1977. It's easy to transpose those two dates when you are reading.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:41 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse Lisette (See profile | I'm a fan of Lisette)
Thanks for the great post. Many people agree with you, including me.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 11:48 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse nunzia (See profile | I'm a fan of nunzia)
I echo Lisette's comment. Great post. Thanks.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:10 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse jimhum (See profile | I'm a fan of jimhum)
Instead, he leered, "Your organization hires the best-looking women."
I wish I could say I had a clever retort, but I burst out laughing at this typical male technique for diminishing a woman.
-----
Now why on earth would that be considered diminishing? There is nothing more beautiful than a beautiful lady. That is a compliment. I get sick and tired of ladies who dress to be seen, and complain if anyone looks.
The other day the cashier in the bank bent down to her counter, and I could almost see her belly button. I laughed and said, "That"s beautiful, but did you know that when you got dressed this morning." She laughed and admitted she had no reason at all to complain when a man got the nice view.
Here"s a question that I have posted many times, and have yet to get an answer, "Are you one of those who watch TV news stories of starving babies, then cheer, and say, At least she didn't get an abortion!"
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 10:57 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse MsLiz (See profile | I'm a fan of MsLiz)
"Now why on earth would that be considered diminishing?"
The author was at the hearing to address an important issue. She was old enough to be a grandmother. Instead of saying something along the lines of "thank you for your testimony, nice to meet you," he revealed that he had evaluated her solely in terms of what she had to offer his libido. It was a discount of her knowledge and views.
As to your second question: No.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 12:46 am on 12/04/2007
NEW expand collapse GloriaFeldt (See profile | I'm a fan of GloriaFeldt)
MsLiz and Jimhum-
I generally am quite happy to be praised for my appearance. These days I even wear a little cleavage from time to time in honor of Hillary. But a Congressional hearing is supposed to be the height of decorum for one thing (hence I wore a very conservative brown suit and pearls that day as I recall). For another, Hyde liked to appear gentlemanly even when he was skewering you, and for a traditional man like him to skewer a woman, he had to resort to diminishing me by reducing me to a physical being rather than acknowledging characteristics that would equal power in the political realm.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:51 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse Ravenlea (See profile | I'm a fan of Ravenlea)
Try the situation in reverse. You have just appeared before Congress and done a fine job of it. Nancy Pelosi rather than thanking you or complimenting you on your presentation, leers at you and remarks that "your company sure hires good-looking men." I doubt you'd be just thrilled to your toe-nails that the nice important lady said you were attractive or swoon with delight.
While in some contexts a good compliment is enjoyable, there are other times when it is either not offered to make the recipient feel good but to objectify and thereby diminish them or it's just inappropriate.
Men often use such comments to dismiss smart women. Some men think it's charming. It's not. It's creepy.
And what does this issue have to do with being for or against abortions? (I'm pro abortion, by the way.)
I hope you're an old fart like me, because I have deluded myself into thinking that younger men have more awareness than the men of my generation did/do.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 01:21 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse dgrffy (See profile | I'm a fan of dgrffy)
A vile editorial. The disrespect and 'who cares if they don't agree with us' attitude speaks volumes for our culture. When I read things like this, it reminds me why I am never surprised when kids walk into schools and open fire. Why shouldn't they? Where are their examples? He sucked, he was evil, I'm glad he's dead? And we have the gall of acting shocked when one of our youngsters (those 3 out of 4 who weren't aborted) walk into a room and open fire. Why wouldn't Henry be a hypocrite? If he wasn't, he would have been a lonely man in a country filled with them.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 09:25 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse DonL (See profile | I'm a fan of DonL)
I think you missed the point. Hyde wasn't evil, he was in a position to actually help stop abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancy and instead he chose to take sides and fight those with whom he disagreed. What should bother you is that in this country, it has become acceptable to go to war with your opposition instead of trying to work with them, to posture and moralize instead of accepting that someone might have a different set of values to which they are entitled. Where does a school shooting come out of this?
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 10:50 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse dgrffy (See profile | I'm a fan of dgrffy)
What you said is true - but for all involved. Hyde merely did what everyone does, and that is pick one side against the other, then fight. Where the school shootings come from is a generation of children watching adults act worse than the children of bygone days. When adults call each other evil, when they speak of others as worthless because of a host of reasons, when they all but crow over the demise of those with whom they disagree - because they feel nothing but contempt - it has an impact on those generations that follow. The hatred and contempt and lack of respect that the adults show in public discourse is being watched, and watched by the kids who will one day run our country; run it if they should live so long.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 11:06 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse Ravenlea (See profile | I'm a fan of Ravenlea)
Ms Feldt didn't say she was glad he was dead. You are putting words into her mouth that aren't there.
Hyde was a hypocrite across the board. One of the problems these days - one of the reasons this country is in the mess that it's in is because people are choosing sides to be popular or to get ahead, rather than trying to do what's right. Hyde stood against abortion but did nothing to prevent the need for abortion. He made sanctimonious speeches about Clinton's infidelity when his own extra-marital affair wrecked another man's marriage. Now we hear that he supposedly opposed impeachment but didn't want to go against the crowd in power. Talk about the root-cause of high school shootings! Children who do those shootings are almost always outsiders who have been bullied by the in crowd. And that kind of thing goes on because people who know bullying is wrong do nothing to stop it.
I agree that there is too much meanness in the world right now, too much name-calling. But I don't subscribe to the view that it's wrong to criticize people who deserve criticism.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 01:39 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse dgrffy (See profile | I'm a fan of dgrffy)
Of course it isn't wrong to criticize issues, or the people with whom we disagree. But it's how. No, she didn't say she was glad he was dead, though others have. She did, more or less, spit on his grave over various issues. It is a mark of the lack of respect in our culture. Folks are free to disagree and criticize. It's how you do it that says so much. Especially because our kids are listening.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:12 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse texanna (See profile | I'm a fan of texanna)
Sweet Karma would be his return as a girl, born to a poor woman who had too many children already and no resources for her latest offspring.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:21 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse rollingdivision (See profile | I'm a fan of rollingdivision)
The author's closing remark speaks volumes.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:32 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse sorenmeetsdylan (See profile | I'm a fan of sorenmeetsdylan)
How indecent can you get, to wish ill to a man who is deceased?
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:22 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse davedave (See profile | I'm a fan of davedave)
not ill.
he is dead, way beyond ill.
but one can express relief...
d
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:52 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse Superfelo (See profile | I'm a fan of Superfelo)
Well, let us say we cannot get as indecent as being a hypocrite; not voting for family planning programs; cheating on one's wife, while married with children; being a Republican; never speaking out against Racism; that, it seems to me, goes beyond the limit of indecency; almost as indecent as tapping on the filthy floor of a bathroom stall.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:12 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse Dlynne14 (See profile | I'm a fan of Dlynne14)
Like Mr. Falwell, who passed away this year, Mr. Hyde is your typical, hypocritical right wing Neocon man.
And he was awarded the Congressional Medal of Freedom for his love of the unborn???!!! What a joke. What about the love of the already born?
It is so sad that these foolish, self centered men, who could never walk in the foot steps of a woman, have the power to dictate what he believes is best for them.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:19 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse mediamarv (See profile | I'm a fan of mediamarv)
I had forgotten that he died! I was traveling and not at the computer where I get my news....
I won't miss him and I don't care what the HuffPo interns think about that!
Now, puttiing together my Christmas wish list......
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:03 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse Desiderata (See profile | I'm a fan of Desiderata)
Hyde's sanctimoneous speeches during the impeachment hearings over Bill Clinton's morals opened the pandora's box of personal destruction to overturn the will of the majority of the American electorate.
That attempted coup birthed the treason of the Supreme Court in Bush vs Gore.
Rest in Hell.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:35 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse rollingdivision (See profile | I'm a fan of rollingdivision)
Do you have a link to Hyde's sanctimonious speeches you referred to in your post?
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 07:38 pm on 12/03/2007
expand collapse MsLiz (See profile | I'm a fan of MsLiz)
http://guweb2.gonzaga.edu/~dewolf/hyde-imp.htm
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 12:51 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse MsLiz (See profile | I'm a fan of MsLiz)
Here's more:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE0DA1630F934A25752C0A96F958260&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/H/Hyde,%20Henry%20J.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 12:59 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse nunzia (See profile | I'm a fan of nunzia)
Desiderata -well said.
Hyde, rest in hell.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:14 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse Joeseo (See profile | I'm a fan of Joeseo)
Amen.
Reply | Parent | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 08:05 am on 12/04/2007
expand collapse Ravenlea (See profile | I'm a fan of Ravenlea)
Brava! Once again there is an effort at death to revise who someone was in life and make them seem better than they were. Hyde seems to me to have been the embodiment of hypocrisy and I see no reason to praise him simply because he is dead. Good for you beating him at his own game at the hearings. Must have felt good.
Reply | Favorite| Flag as abusive | posted 06:07 pm on 12/03/2007
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail!
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Clinton, Couric, and Chris Matthews’ Sexist Spin
When it comes to Chris Matthews’s interpretation of Hillary Clinton’s words—any of her words—she’s damned if she yeas and damned if she nays.
After gloating that a new poll found Hillary losing in a matchup with any one of five Republican presidential candidates, Matthews later in the same program spun her November 26 interview with Katie Couric, in which--like any candidate with half a brain and a quarter of a spine--Clinton showed confidence in her ability to win the Democratic nomination.
Later, Couric asked whether she has considered the possibility she won't be the nominee. "No, I haven't," Clinton said.
Matthews played clips of the interview on his November 27 show and ranted: “Hillary thinks she’s got it sewed up.” As though there were anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld http://www.sonypictures.com/tv/shows/seinfeld/
would say.
Does Chris expect a anyone running for public office to enter a race assuming he or she is going to lose? If Hillary were Henry, would Matthews judge him negatively for asserting confidence? Just the opposite I suspect. In a man, such confidence would be applauded. Or more likely, the question would never even be asked.
Clinton told Couric she would stand behind any other Democratic nominee, if it came to that. “We're going to have unified party, behind whoever we nominate.” That’s showing the humility and loyalty constituents expect from a candidate. Matthews failed to mention this. And dollars to doughnuts, if she had answered, “Yes I can imagine a scenario where I don’t win.” he would have pounced on her for not being strong enough for the gloves-off political game.
Eric Alterman wrote in The Nation about Chris’s many “man crushes”. Watching Hardball over time, you see him become enamored of candidate after candidate, from John McCain (who, trust me, is not a nice man) to Barak Obama, depending on their level of ascendancy in the media mashup of the day.
But from Day One, Matthews has found so many ways to trash Hillary Clinton that many of his own journalistic colleagues have accused him of picking on her.
You can leave Chris your comment about this on or send your thoughts to MSNBC.
11/28/07 © Gloria Feldt www.gloriafeldt.com
After gloating that a new poll found Hillary losing in a matchup with any one of five Republican presidential candidates, Matthews later in the same program spun her November 26 interview with Katie Couric, in which--like any candidate with half a brain and a quarter of a spine--Clinton showed confidence in her ability to win the Democratic nomination.
Couric: If it's not you, how disappointed will you be?"
Clinton: “Well, it will be me.”
Later, Couric asked whether she has considered the possibility she won't be the nominee. "No, I haven't," Clinton said.
Matthews played clips of the interview on his November 27 show and ranted: “Hillary thinks she’s got it sewed up.” As though there were anything wrong with that, as Seinfeld http://www.sonypictures.com/tv/shows/seinfeld/
would say.
Does Chris expect a anyone running for public office to enter a race assuming he or she is going to lose? If Hillary were Henry, would Matthews judge him negatively for asserting confidence? Just the opposite I suspect. In a man, such confidence would be applauded. Or more likely, the question would never even be asked.
Clinton told Couric she would stand behind any other Democratic nominee, if it came to that. “We're going to have unified party, behind whoever we nominate.” That’s showing the humility and loyalty constituents expect from a candidate. Matthews failed to mention this. And dollars to doughnuts, if she had answered, “Yes I can imagine a scenario where I don’t win.” he would have pounced on her for not being strong enough for the gloves-off political game.
Eric Alterman wrote in The Nation about Chris’s many “man crushes”. Watching Hardball over time, you see him become enamored of candidate after candidate, from John McCain (who, trust me, is not a nice man) to Barak Obama, depending on their level of ascendancy in the media mashup of the day.
But from Day One, Matthews has found so many ways to trash Hillary Clinton that many of his own journalistic colleagues have accused him of picking on her.
You can leave Chris your comment about this on or send your thoughts to MSNBC.
11/28/07 © Gloria Feldt www.gloriafeldt.com
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Best of the web?
In the you-never-know-what's-going-to-catch-them category, I was surprised to discover this morning that the Wall Street Journal, of all places, took umbrage at my clever rendition of Rudy Giuliani's well reported cross-dressing appearance, and cited a blog lambasting me and others as "gay baiters" in their "Best of the Web" section.
Well, OK, just spell my name right.
Well, OK, just spell my name right.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Rudy and the Hooker Principle
Here's the link to the Huffington Post version. Take a moment to post a comment there if you get a chance. I really can't believe the media has given Rudy such a free ride as he triangulates and prostitutes himself all over the place.
---
With some politicians, there’s not a question what they are; it’s just a matter of negotiating the price. In accepting Pat Robertson’s endorsement this week, Rudy Giuliani would have been advised by one the wisest and wittiest of my college professors, the late Bob Rothstein, to apply what he called “the hooker principle”: first, get paid.
Even John McCain, who was at the exact same moment assuming the position in order to snag the endorsement of the more dangerous but less flamboyant Sen. Sam Brownback and establish his own creds with the hard rightwing, extreme anti-choice, anti-gay Republican base, was rendered speechless at the news about the unholy alliance between Robertson and Giuliani. For bald face political two-step, Giuliani has out danced them all.
One surely hopes that Pat paid Rudy well up front in whatever value he thinks he can deliver, because Robertson’s past disreputable actions certainly bring clear losses on the other side of this endorsement, as reported by The American Prospect Senior Editor, Garance Franke-Ruta,
Both men would have been well served to heed Proverbs 13:20: “He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm”.
Certainly Pat Robertson has shown himself to be a fool many times over. Besides blaming the evils of a secular nation—epitomized always by Rudy’s New York—for the 9/11 attacks, he famously said that the feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women, but rather about a “socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians”.
But Rudy’s acceptance of Pat Robertson’s endorsement is equally foolish. Not only has it made utterly transparent that Giuliani isn’t just a cross dresser but also a man capable of practicing the oldest profession as well as any Jezebel; it makes the press (yes, the same press that spent all last week creaming Hillary for acknowledging there was more than one way to look at a question) look foolish for trumpeting this hypocritical endorsement with too-little criticism of Giuliani’s blatant doublespeak on the social issues.
© Gloria Feldt 2007
---
With some politicians, there’s not a question what they are; it’s just a matter of negotiating the price. In accepting Pat Robertson’s endorsement this week, Rudy Giuliani would have been advised by one the wisest and wittiest of my college professors, the late Bob Rothstein, to apply what he called “the hooker principle”: first, get paid.
Even John McCain, who was at the exact same moment assuming the position in order to snag the endorsement of the more dangerous but less flamboyant Sen. Sam Brownback and establish his own creds with the hard rightwing, extreme anti-choice, anti-gay Republican base, was rendered speechless at the news about the unholy alliance between Robertson and Giuliani. For bald face political two-step, Giuliani has out danced them all.
One surely hopes that Pat paid Rudy well up front in whatever value he thinks he can deliver, because Robertson’s past disreputable actions certainly bring clear losses on the other side of this endorsement, as reported by The American Prospect Senior Editor, Garance Franke-Ruta,
Marc Ambinder reported this morning that Iowa Christian Alliance president Steve Scheffler is not going to follow Christian Coalition co-founder Pat Robertson’s lead and support Rudy Giuliani. That’s not too much of a surprise, as the Iowa branch of once-vigorous Christian Coalition was so disgusted by the scandals of the national group that it broke with the Coalition and changed its name to the Christian Alliance in March 2006, saying “the Board… would rather function as an independent organization than as an organization shrouded with perceptions contrary to its Christian commitments.”
Both men would have been well served to heed Proverbs 13:20: “He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm”.
Certainly Pat Robertson has shown himself to be a fool many times over. Besides blaming the evils of a secular nation—epitomized always by Rudy’s New York—for the 9/11 attacks, he famously said that the feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women, but rather about a “socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians”.
But Rudy’s acceptance of Pat Robertson’s endorsement is equally foolish. Not only has it made utterly transparent that Giuliani isn’t just a cross dresser but also a man capable of practicing the oldest profession as well as any Jezebel; it makes the press (yes, the same press that spent all last week creaming Hillary for acknowledging there was more than one way to look at a question) look foolish for trumpeting this hypocritical endorsement with too-little criticism of Giuliani’s blatant doublespeak on the social issues.
© Gloria Feldt 2007
Friday, October 26, 2007
If Brownback is comfortable, I'm not
IF RABIDLY ANTI-CHOICE SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK IS "COMFORTABLE" WITH LEADING REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE RUDY GIULIANI'S POSITION ON ABORTION, THEN I MOST ASSUREDLY AM EVEN MORE UNCOMFORTABLE THAN EVER ABOUT RUDY. HE HAS OBVIOUSLY CHOSEN TO PANDER TO THE LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER WOMEN SHOULD HAVE THE HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHT TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT CHILDBEARING WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE. SEE THE REPORT:
Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy
Friday, October 26, 2007
Election 2008
Brownback Says He Is 'More Comfortable' With Giuliani's Stance on Abortion
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) on Thursday said he is "much more comfortable" with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) position on abortion after meeting with him in Washington, D.C., the AP/CBS News reports. Giuliani is running for the Republican presidential nomination. Brownback withdrew from the race last week, and the Republican candidates have been "seeking his endorsement," according to the AP/CBS News.
Giuliani and Brownback spoke with reporters following their meeting. "Justices are key," Brownback said, adding, [Giuliani has] stated publicly many times about his support for strict constructionists like" Chief Justice John Roberts. Brownback said he believes that if elected president, Giuliani would appoint Supreme Court justices who take a limited and conservative view on abortion, like Roberts. Asked whether he would endorse an abortion-rights candidate like Giuliani, Brownback said, "I don't know that he would ... describe himself as a pro-choice mayor or a pro-choice candidate."
Giuliani, when asked how he would describe his position on abortion, said, "You know what I am," adding, "I've described it in the past. I've opposed abortion. I'd like to see a society in which there is no abortion. I think you have to get there by changing people's minds and hearts. I'm not in favor of changing the law and the right that presently exists."
However, Giuliani added that he is in "favor of everything else that would limit the number of abortions, that would increase the number of adoptions and that would move us in the direction of many fewer abortions. And if we could get to no abortions based on people's decision-making, I'd be in favor of that" (AP/CBS News, 10/25).
Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy
Friday, October 26, 2007
Election 2008
Brownback Says He Is 'More Comfortable' With Giuliani's Stance on Abortion
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) on Thursday said he is "much more comfortable" with former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's (R) position on abortion after meeting with him in Washington, D.C., the AP/CBS News reports. Giuliani is running for the Republican presidential nomination. Brownback withdrew from the race last week, and the Republican candidates have been "seeking his endorsement," according to the AP/CBS News.
Giuliani and Brownback spoke with reporters following their meeting. "Justices are key," Brownback said, adding, [Giuliani has] stated publicly many times about his support for strict constructionists like" Chief Justice John Roberts. Brownback said he believes that if elected president, Giuliani would appoint Supreme Court justices who take a limited and conservative view on abortion, like Roberts. Asked whether he would endorse an abortion-rights candidate like Giuliani, Brownback said, "I don't know that he would ... describe himself as a pro-choice mayor or a pro-choice candidate."
Giuliani, when asked how he would describe his position on abortion, said, "You know what I am," adding, "I've described it in the past. I've opposed abortion. I'd like to see a society in which there is no abortion. I think you have to get there by changing people's minds and hearts. I'm not in favor of changing the law and the right that presently exists."
However, Giuliani added that he is in "favor of everything else that would limit the number of abortions, that would increase the number of adoptions and that would move us in the direction of many fewer abortions. And if we could get to no abortions based on people's decision-making, I'd be in favor of that" (AP/CBS News, 10/25).
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
When Sex and Politics Collide
Posted October 23, 2007 | 10:57 AM (EST) on Huffington Post Their title was "Something Wrong with This Picture?" and I'd originally titled it "Let's Keroack Orr", but Women's Voices for Change reposted it and gave it a better title. I didn't have time to insert all the links here so goo read it on HuffPo if you want to see them--and by all means, please leave a comment.
___
My goodness, I go away for a week and miss all sorts of happenings in the world where sex and politics collide.
I returned from my high school reunion, then a week with family in Arizona without my computer or New York Times subscription, and found messages asking for comment on the Portland, ME, middle school that has added prescription contraceptives to its health clinic services. You can imagine the twitter from the self-righteous right who believe no one would ever think about sex if we pro-sex education and pro-contraception people didn't call it to their attention. They have apparently forgotten their own adolescence (I suggest they attend their high school reunions to revive those repressed memories).
Fortunately, many parents spoke up with exactly what needed to be said: while they rightly prefer that their kids abstain from sexual activity at such a tender age, they want even more for the school to help them keep their kids safe from disease and pregnancy if and when they do become sexually active. The school board voted to keep its policy of providing the full range of contraceptives in its health care formulary.
Meanwhile, there was related national news I was mercifully oblivious to last week as well. It seems that as surely as young people discover their sexuality no matter how ardently adults may wish to the contrary, George W. Bush just as surely and ardently continues his pattern of filling the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs (DASPA) -- the person in charge of administering Title X, our nation's major family planning program for low income uninsured individuals -- with a person -- Dr. Susan Orr, who fundamentally opposes birth control.
Read that last sentence again slowly to fully savor the irony.
With W of course, up is down and down is sideways. We've grown inured to the duplicity, the sleight of hand, the wink while Halliburton profits as our sons and daughters die in Iraq, the ruthlessness with which the one percent get richer while the rest of us get a burgeoning national debt and fewer of us get health insurance.
So it's no surprise that the man talks piously about creating a culture of life while taking funding from lifesaving prevention programs like family planning and giving it to abstinence only preachers. This makes the U. S. the laughingstock of the world's public health organizations and in the end paradoxically increases disease, unintended pregnancies, abortions, and deaths.
Usually, though, this administration and its right wing buddies at least try to obfuscate their Orwellian redefinitions. Not so, however when it comes to overseeing a program founded by his father, and for decades enjoying bipartisan support because it provides contraceptive services to over five million American women each year through some 4,500 public health facilities, preventing 1.3 million unintended pregnancies and hundreds of thousands of abortions, and saving taxpayers $3 on Medicaid pregnancy and newborn-related care for every dollar spent. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists family planning as one of "Ten Greatest Public Health Achievements of the 20th Century" for good reason.
Last year, Dr. Eric Keroack was appointed to the position of DASPA. Among other wacky ideas, Keroack alleged that pre-marital sex changes the brain chemistry so that bonding to another person becomes difficult. A non board-certified ob/gyn, Keroack not only opposed birth control, he was also medical director of A Woman's Concern, one of many chains of so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers, whose purpose is to dissuade women from choosing abortion under any circumstances. But family planning prevents abortion, right? Yes, but these organizations support sexual abstinence until marriage, oppose contraception, and do not distribute information promoting birth control.
Fortunately for women who depend on Title-X for their most basic health care including annual gyn exams, breast and cervical cancer screening, and birth control methods, Keroack soon fell like Humpty Dumpty from the weight of his own corruption. It turned out he was under investigation for Medicaid fraud in his private practice.
The appointment of Susan Orr -- who is not a medical doctor -- while also clearly in the down is up category, seems less like Humpty Dumpty and more like those Bozo Bop Bags that were popular with kids in the 1960s. You know, the clown punching bags with weights in the bottom so that you could punch and punch till you wore yourself out but never knock it down or out.
Orr, formerly senior director for marriage and families at the Family Research Council, supported Bush's move to strip federal employees' health insurance of contraceptive coverage and told the Washington Post, "We're quite pleased because fertility is not a disease. It's not a medical necessity that you have [contraception]." And she is on record as supporting the gag rule that denies funding to family planning programs that give women accurate information or counseling about abortion.
It's no surprise that the ideological right, exemplified and led by groups such as the Family Research Council, opposes abortion, but now it should be abundantly clear they also oppose birth control. It's not that they don't understand birth control prevents abortion; it's that they don't want women to have birth control in the first place. Or the sexual and reproductive self-determination that goes with the ability to plan and space one's own childbearing.
It also shouldn't surprise anyone that a president who values blind fealty above all tows the line of the far right that he believes elected him, and sees that his administrative appointees do so as well. But he might have instructed Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt to be rather more careful this time in selecting a person who actually supports the program she or he is appointed to administer.
If you agree there is something wrong with this picture, then write and tell Secretary Leavitt. Rep. Louise Slaughter tells you how. While you're at it, copy all your members of Congress and 10 friends, urging them to do the same. Orr can be Keroacked if the public outcry is loud enough.
___
My goodness, I go away for a week and miss all sorts of happenings in the world where sex and politics collide.
I returned from my high school reunion, then a week with family in Arizona without my computer or New York Times subscription, and found messages asking for comment on the Portland, ME, middle school that has added prescription contraceptives to its health clinic services. You can imagine the twitter from the self-righteous right who believe no one would ever think about sex if we pro-sex education and pro-contraception people didn't call it to their attention. They have apparently forgotten their own adolescence (I suggest they attend their high school reunions to revive those repressed memories).
Fortunately, many parents spoke up with exactly what needed to be said: while they rightly prefer that their kids abstain from sexual activity at such a tender age, they want even more for the school to help them keep their kids safe from disease and pregnancy if and when they do become sexually active. The school board voted to keep its policy of providing the full range of contraceptives in its health care formulary.
Meanwhile, there was related national news I was mercifully oblivious to last week as well. It seems that as surely as young people discover their sexuality no matter how ardently adults may wish to the contrary, George W. Bush just as surely and ardently continues his pattern of filling the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary for Population Affairs (DASPA) -- the person in charge of administering Title X, our nation's major family planning program for low income uninsured individuals -- with a person -- Dr. Susan Orr, who fundamentally opposes birth control.
Read that last sentence again slowly to fully savor the irony.
With W of course, up is down and down is sideways. We've grown inured to the duplicity, the sleight of hand, the wink while Halliburton profits as our sons and daughters die in Iraq, the ruthlessness with which the one percent get richer while the rest of us get a burgeoning national debt and fewer of us get health insurance.
So it's no surprise that the man talks piously about creating a culture of life while taking funding from lifesaving prevention programs like family planning and giving it to abstinence only preachers. This makes the U. S. the laughingstock of the world's public health organizations and in the end paradoxically increases disease, unintended pregnancies, abortions, and deaths.
Usually, though, this administration and its right wing buddies at least try to obfuscate their Orwellian redefinitions. Not so, however when it comes to overseeing a program founded by his father, and for decades enjoying bipartisan support because it provides contraceptive services to over five million American women each year through some 4,500 public health facilities, preventing 1.3 million unintended pregnancies and hundreds of thousands of abortions, and saving taxpayers $3 on Medicaid pregnancy and newborn-related care for every dollar spent. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention lists family planning as one of "Ten Greatest Public Health Achievements of the 20th Century" for good reason.
Last year, Dr. Eric Keroack was appointed to the position of DASPA. Among other wacky ideas, Keroack alleged that pre-marital sex changes the brain chemistry so that bonding to another person becomes difficult. A non board-certified ob/gyn, Keroack not only opposed birth control, he was also medical director of A Woman's Concern, one of many chains of so-called Crisis Pregnancy Centers, whose purpose is to dissuade women from choosing abortion under any circumstances. But family planning prevents abortion, right? Yes, but these organizations support sexual abstinence until marriage, oppose contraception, and do not distribute information promoting birth control.
Fortunately for women who depend on Title-X for their most basic health care including annual gyn exams, breast and cervical cancer screening, and birth control methods, Keroack soon fell like Humpty Dumpty from the weight of his own corruption. It turned out he was under investigation for Medicaid fraud in his private practice.
The appointment of Susan Orr -- who is not a medical doctor -- while also clearly in the down is up category, seems less like Humpty Dumpty and more like those Bozo Bop Bags that were popular with kids in the 1960s. You know, the clown punching bags with weights in the bottom so that you could punch and punch till you wore yourself out but never knock it down or out.
Orr, formerly senior director for marriage and families at the Family Research Council, supported Bush's move to strip federal employees' health insurance of contraceptive coverage and told the Washington Post, "We're quite pleased because fertility is not a disease. It's not a medical necessity that you have [contraception]." And she is on record as supporting the gag rule that denies funding to family planning programs that give women accurate information or counseling about abortion.
It's no surprise that the ideological right, exemplified and led by groups such as the Family Research Council, opposes abortion, but now it should be abundantly clear they also oppose birth control. It's not that they don't understand birth control prevents abortion; it's that they don't want women to have birth control in the first place. Or the sexual and reproductive self-determination that goes with the ability to plan and space one's own childbearing.
It also shouldn't surprise anyone that a president who values blind fealty above all tows the line of the far right that he believes elected him, and sees that his administrative appointees do so as well. But he might have instructed Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt to be rather more careful this time in selecting a person who actually supports the program she or he is appointed to administer.
If you agree there is something wrong with this picture, then write and tell Secretary Leavitt. Rep. Louise Slaughter tells you how. While you're at it, copy all your members of Congress and 10 friends, urging them to do the same. Orr can be Keroacked if the public outcry is loud enough.
Friday, October 05, 2007
Buggers Can’t Be Choosers
Posted on HuffPo 10/5/07
Oh how I wish I’d said that first. But though the quip’s origin is often attributed to Winston Churchill --as are most great lines--it was apparently British writer and academic Cecil Maurice Bowra
who said it first, to explain his engagement to a “plain girl” named Audrey Beecham.
Sexism be damned, I sincerely doubt I will be the last to cite this clever turn of phrase each time poor beleaguered Sen. Larry Craig (R-Wide Stance, to quote another great phrasemeister, former Rep. Sam Coppersmith, D-AZ) flashes onto our news screen. Craig’s seems to be the story that just won’t die, much to the chagrin of his Republican leadership. Kind of like those groundhogs, headlines just keep popping up all over, their incessantly high-pitched chatter mocking the holier-than-thou’s who have a headlock on the party of their choice.
That’s the same party that wants to deny reproductive choice to others, by the way.
The rest of us like to act as though we really don’t care that much about Craig’s sexual proclivities. But his little toe-tap wouldn’t have become such a big story unless we cared about it-- a lot.
So when Craig announced today that he will stay in Congress despite the Minnesota distroct court’s ruling that he can’t withdraw the guilty plea he entered after being “stung” in the now-enshrined Minneapolis airport men’s restroom-cum-tourist destination, the groundhogs immediately reared their little heads and began chattering away again.
I suspect Larry Craig will come out of this just fine eventually, as did Bowra. In fact, Bowra became the head of Wadham College and in 1992 a building was even named for him there. Meanwhile, he continued to supply us with a steady stream of quotables. On hearing of the marriage of a well-known literary pair, for example, he snipped, “Splendid couple – [I] slept with both of them".
But then though the British love their sex scandals as much as we do, they tend to regard them as entertainment rather than political morality lessons. Until we in the USA come to terms with the fact that sexuality is part of every human being’s life and develop a healthier relationship with sex, we will continue to spend way too much of the GNP on hiring plainclothes cops to track down gay men, even if they have to lure them into action in order to establish their sexual orientation.
Perhaps buggers can’t be choosers. But as a body politic, Americans can choose to spend our time and resources making sure everyone has healthcare, bringing an unworthy war to an end, and transforming abstinence-only sex education classes into medically accurate and comprehensive ones, rather than allowing our political agenda to be led by those who have an obsession with Larry Craig’s—and everyone else’s--sex life.
Oh how I wish I’d said that first. But though the quip’s origin is often attributed to Winston Churchill --as are most great lines--it was apparently British writer and academic Cecil Maurice Bowra
who said it first, to explain his engagement to a “plain girl” named Audrey Beecham.
Sexism be damned, I sincerely doubt I will be the last to cite this clever turn of phrase each time poor beleaguered Sen. Larry Craig (R-Wide Stance, to quote another great phrasemeister, former Rep. Sam Coppersmith, D-AZ) flashes onto our news screen. Craig’s seems to be the story that just won’t die, much to the chagrin of his Republican leadership. Kind of like those groundhogs, headlines just keep popping up all over, their incessantly high-pitched chatter mocking the holier-than-thou’s who have a headlock on the party of their choice.
That’s the same party that wants to deny reproductive choice to others, by the way.
The rest of us like to act as though we really don’t care that much about Craig’s sexual proclivities. But his little toe-tap wouldn’t have become such a big story unless we cared about it-- a lot.
So when Craig announced today that he will stay in Congress despite the Minnesota distroct court’s ruling that he can’t withdraw the guilty plea he entered after being “stung” in the now-enshrined Minneapolis airport men’s restroom-cum-tourist destination, the groundhogs immediately reared their little heads and began chattering away again.
I suspect Larry Craig will come out of this just fine eventually, as did Bowra. In fact, Bowra became the head of Wadham College and in 1992 a building was even named for him there. Meanwhile, he continued to supply us with a steady stream of quotables. On hearing of the marriage of a well-known literary pair, for example, he snipped, “Splendid couple – [I] slept with both of them".
But then though the British love their sex scandals as much as we do, they tend to regard them as entertainment rather than political morality lessons. Until we in the USA come to terms with the fact that sexuality is part of every human being’s life and develop a healthier relationship with sex, we will continue to spend way too much of the GNP on hiring plainclothes cops to track down gay men, even if they have to lure them into action in order to establish their sexual orientation.
Perhaps buggers can’t be choosers. But as a body politic, Americans can choose to spend our time and resources making sure everyone has healthcare, bringing an unworthy war to an end, and transforming abstinence-only sex education classes into medically accurate and comprehensive ones, rather than allowing our political agenda to be led by those who have an obsession with Larry Craig’s—and everyone else’s--sex life.
Thursday, July 26, 2007
The First Ever SWIA Award
I am mentioned 10 times—more than even Jane Fonda or Betty Friedan--by the anti-feminist Kate O'Beirne in her book Women Who Make the World Worse: and How Their Radical Feminist Assault Is Ruining Our Schools, Families, Military, and Sports, which was endorsed--surprise--by Peggy Noonan, Rush Limbaugh, and Laura Ingraham, This must mean I am doing something right. With those credentials as well as being an afficionada of Keith Olberman's nightly "Worst Person in the World" shtick, I have decided to start my own award for the stupidest women in America (SWIAA ™).
O'Beirne, has the hubris necessary to claim the right to worldwide judgment. Humble person that I am, I'm planning to highlight only the stupidest women in America. And because as everyone knows I am inherently biased toward liberals, I'll let Olberman slide this time.
My first SWIAA™ award goes hands down to Harriet Miers. Miers, the former White House Counsel who was George W. Bush's obviously underqualified and clearly doomed token female nominee for U. S. Supreme Court who was quickly withdrawn so he could pick the white male Justice he really wanted. She continues to stand by her man with her mouth clamped shut while Congress slaps her around.
The House Judiciary Committee, on July 25, ruled her in contempt of Congress for failing to respond to their subpoena for information related to the use of blatant political influence in the firing of a whole slew of U. S. Attorneys general. These AG's failed in one way or another to tow the administration's line.
But Miers is the Tower-in-Chief. She is the always good little girl seeking the big boys' approval, the woman who meekly does as asked when George W. Bush or his minions do the asking, the unmarried woman who so needs to be part of the hierarchical rightwing male bastion of power that she subordinates herself to men to whom she is not married but is clearly tethered in unholy alliance. These are men, not coincidentally, for whom abrogating women's Constitutional rights to equality in everything from salaries to sports to reproductive self-determination is just their breakfast cereal.
And what do you bet than faster than Scooter Libby was pardoned, Miers will swing in the wind, with that frozen I'm-a-good-little-girl smile still on her face?
Maybe someday I'll expand this award to men (SMIAA ™), but since Miers inspired me to start this SWIAA ™ list, I'm going to start by recognizing women like Miers who have no sense of their own best interest. Or perhaps they erroneously think their best interest is in identifying with their oppressors. "Ventriloquists for the patriarchy", Jane Fonda has aptly called such women.
Miers deserves my first SWIAA™ so much that I am thinking about naming it after her: the Harriet Miers Stupidest Woman in America Award. What do ya'll think?
O'Beirne, has the hubris necessary to claim the right to worldwide judgment. Humble person that I am, I'm planning to highlight only the stupidest women in America. And because as everyone knows I am inherently biased toward liberals, I'll let Olberman slide this time.
My first SWIAA™ award goes hands down to Harriet Miers. Miers, the former White House Counsel who was George W. Bush's obviously underqualified and clearly doomed token female nominee for U. S. Supreme Court who was quickly withdrawn so he could pick the white male Justice he really wanted. She continues to stand by her man with her mouth clamped shut while Congress slaps her around.
The House Judiciary Committee, on July 25, ruled her in contempt of Congress for failing to respond to their subpoena for information related to the use of blatant political influence in the firing of a whole slew of U. S. Attorneys general. These AG's failed in one way or another to tow the administration's line.
But Miers is the Tower-in-Chief. She is the always good little girl seeking the big boys' approval, the woman who meekly does as asked when George W. Bush or his minions do the asking, the unmarried woman who so needs to be part of the hierarchical rightwing male bastion of power that she subordinates herself to men to whom she is not married but is clearly tethered in unholy alliance. These are men, not coincidentally, for whom abrogating women's Constitutional rights to equality in everything from salaries to sports to reproductive self-determination is just their breakfast cereal.
And what do you bet than faster than Scooter Libby was pardoned, Miers will swing in the wind, with that frozen I'm-a-good-little-girl smile still on her face?
Maybe someday I'll expand this award to men (SMIAA ™), but since Miers inspired me to start this SWIAA ™ list, I'm going to start by recognizing women like Miers who have no sense of their own best interest. Or perhaps they erroneously think their best interest is in identifying with their oppressors. "Ventriloquists for the patriarchy", Jane Fonda has aptly called such women.
Miers deserves my first SWIAA™ so much that I am thinking about naming it after her: the Harriet Miers Stupidest Woman in America Award. What do ya'll think?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
