I want to speak to the women who believe that their rights as an American woman are inalienable. I want to speak to the men who believe that the girls and women in their life are capable, intelligent people who deserve to make decisions concerning how they wish to conduct their lives. I want to do this because I believe that something is going on within our country that may not be fully understood and clarity, in this particular case, is critical.
Across the country, laws are being passed to curtail a woman’s access to reproductive choices, from birth control to abortion. Politicians, predominantly white men, are speaking about women in such condescending, demeaning terminology that the tendency is to dismiss them as extremists who are so unreasonable in their beliefs that they cannot be taken too seriously. To accept that premise; to not entertain the idea that this is not a situation to be taken lightly; to reject the possibility that this phenomenon does not have deeper implications than might first be apparent, would be, in my mind, a grave misstep.
I have to ask you to put aside your personal beliefs for a few minutes. I have to do this because of the means that is being used to accomplish the changes in state laws which have been occurring, most obviously over the past two years, and what I believe are the true bottom line goals of these laws. To examine what is happening and what is the intended outcome for the future of American women, an open mind is necessary. For all of us, coming from varied backgrounds and belief systems, that is often not the easiest thing to accomplish.
The first thing to think about is how does change occur? Sometimes, we are thrust into it harshly, as when we find ourselves having to cope with unexpected loss. Other types of change arise from knowledge and education. In our country, we have seen the example of new federal and state laws enacted in order to assure the full and equal civil rights of all Americans. This generally occurred based on the gradual growth of a common knowledge, creating an understanding in each particular case that some of our citizens were not receiving their civil rights. The change usually becomes enforceable once a major number of Americans realize that a basic injustice is taking place and, therefore, accept and want the changes in law that will correct it.
Then there is change that develops behind the scenes. It happens slowly, widening its effect under the radar of the conscious mind. This can result in positive outcomes. The fact that there are women today whose entire existence has been one during which their right to make choices for themselves has not been in question; who have no memory of resistance to the expression of their intelligence and natural abilities, demonstrates the best manifestation of the women’s movement in this country. But there can also be very negative outcomes of this type of change; outcomes that are deliberate in their execution and concealed behind a mask. The emergence of a political concentrated effort to limit the reproductive rights of American women is a symptom only, evidence of a change that has been meticulously planned and implemented since the 1970’s and 1980’s that I am aware of, and, by no means, the entire intended result.
The attitudes and actions targeting women that are now surfacing have been percolating for a long, long time. The 1970’s brought many changes in thinking concerning the treatment of women in our society. Shining a light on inequalities at work and blockage of advantages that white men took for granted, as well as shifts in consciousness regarding the intelligence and abilities of women, opened the doors for legal changes that offered women protection and opportunities that had not previously been available to them. As often happens in the glow of such victories, some complacency resulted. The late eighties once again shocked women into action as court activity began to show the results of the consistent movement to roll back their rights, resulting in two massive marches in Washington, D.C. For the time being, it appeared that the worst threats to the forward motion of American women’s rights were quieted.
I attended those marches and my circle of acquaintances and friends were very attentive to women’s rights and the resistance movement against them. I knew women activists who infiltrated the meetings and gatherings of the ultra-conservative groups who were bent on rolling back whatever women’s rights had so far been accomplished. I heard the stories after they attended an event and I fully realized that we were in for a long haul. It was quite clear that there was a deep fury brewing and it was not about abortion. It rose from the effect that the women’s movement was having; the shifts in consciousness that were first apparent in women, later in men; the stark fact that there were concrete changes taking place in the roles of women in our country because women themselves wanted them.
At first, these groups weren’t as organized as the women’s movement. Their rage caused a disconnect with how best to achieve their goals. Their attention converged onto abortion because it was the one area where they could take direct action. There were clinics that could be picketed; women who could be intimidated; doctors and health care providers who could be initially harassed and eventually terrorized. It was an extreme display that did not solicit sympathy from the general public. If the goal of removing the ability of American women to embrace their autonomy was going to survive, serious change had to occur in the public perspective of their agenda. They looked to the success of the women’s movement and the emerging gay right’s movement for guidance. Two of the major lessons that they adapted were the power of language and the utilization of state courts. Abortion was to be the wedge issue that would be used to split people apart; language would be the key to widening the wedge.
This is a tough subject. People’s feelings regarding abortion are diverse and strong. That is exactly why it was chosen as the means to divide Americans. What has been lost in the shuffle are facts. The movement to change abortion laws in the United States did not begin with the women’s movement. During the early 1960’s, it was actually mostly men, doctors and other professionals, who were the first to bring attention to the severe problems that were resulting from the current existing laws of those times. Once the women’s movement of the later 1960’s and 1970’s gained momentum, it was a natural progression to incorporate the right of a woman to choose if a pregnancy should continue, based on health and economic necessities. By the time that the Washington, D.C. march of the late eighties took place, the majority of Americans understood why the laws had been changed. They were aware that no one was “for abortion” but that it was a medical procedure that should be done safely and within a medical environment when it was necessary. As far as a woman making a choice when an unwanted pregnancy happened, counseling and education were incorporated into her experience, based on the assumption that giving women access to more widespread availability of information would help them to understand what choices were open to them, increasing the avoidance of having an abortion in the future. Emanating from the philosophy that was unfolding and being implemented, pro-choice became the term that represented the belief that every American woman should have the ability to choose what happened to her body and to her life.
The far right tried to refer to those believing in choice as pro-abortion, which was untrue and didn’t really work so they shifted to the phrase pro-life. Here they found a foothold and proof that language matters. I could make all the arguments about why someone who considers themselves pro-choice is certainly not against life but the bottom line is that the phrase created an idea in people’s minds that allowed for the next step in the far right’s plan. Dividing Americans regarding abortion would be the door opener to the intermediate goal: changing the laws at state levels to remove the reproductive choices which allowed American women to oversee their own lives; followed by the ultimate goal: changes in state laws that would remove the freedom of women to make a living equal to men and thus return them to a submissive state. If all went well, the Federal courts would follow, but, it was conceivable to achieve a great deal through the state court system. It has taken many more years than was probably hoped for, but that door opened in 2010.
I understand that it can be overwhelming, especially emotionally, to consider that there could be a concerted effort to suppress women in this day and age. That just seems crazy and impossible to believe that such an attempt could be a real threat. It is much easier to think that this has all just surfaced out of nowhere; that there are a few extremists out there who are letting off steam and that these restrictive laws will all just go away. That might have been true, and stayed true, if it hadn’t been for the marriage between corporate interests and political influence, which has been gaining dominance within our political system, culminating in the 2010 Supreme Court Citizen’s United decision.
Corporate mentality dominance over our culture inherently blocks women from advancing their integration into the decision-making areas of our society. The corporate mentality is fundamentally grounded in an outdated white male viewpoint, devoid of emotion, and there is no room for diversity of opinion. Because this has been building for years now, we have reached critical mass. The majority of our top layer of people who control business and our political structure have been operating without consideration of their emotions for most or all of their work life. In anyone, separating yourself from any part of your being creates an imbalance. That imbalance of so many, coupled with a very narrow belief system, is now showing itself, seriously affecting the quality of life for most Americans and exhibiting the potential to devastate the ability of many women to live fulfilled lives in our country.
Consider some of the facts of the past few years.
· As everyone was paying attention to the dysfunctional Federal House of Representatives that was elected in 2010 and, what appeared to be, the extreme, outrageous push for laws restricting women’s reproductive rights, many of the core features of the proposed bills were being put into effect on a state level. Take the case of the Federal House passing the “Protect Life Act” in October of 2011. That bill restricts the type of health insurance coverage that women can buy through private health plans, as well as allowing hospitals and doctors to refuse a life-saving abortion procedure in the case of an emergency where the woman could likely die. Even though this bill did not pass the Senate, states have passed the ban on abortion coverage in private health insurance plans, even if a woman wants to pay for that coverage and have also been attempting to include the emergency exception in their proposed new laws.
· By the time that wider notice started to be focused on what was happening in the state legislatures, not only had laws been passed on abortion; women were targeted in ways that were astounding. Laws have been passed to force unnecessary medical procedures on women wanting abortions and, in some states, the women are required to pay for the unwanted procedure; states have passed laws requiring doctors to lie to women, either withholding information that might be considered to affect a decision to carry a pregnancy to term or with regard to their health outcome if they have an abortion, such as possible psychological problems and suicidal tendencies, not supported by facts, or a link between breast cancer and abortion that does not exist; states have mandated women to undergo counseling against abortion and have cut back the availability of sex education and information.
· At this point in time, abortion is relatively inaccessible in Texas; women are going over the border into Mexico. Other states are fast pursuing the same outcome and approaching it in whatever way will work for them. In Virginia, the governor and attorney general bullied the Board of Health to force existing abortion clinics to adhere to new construction regulations. Originally, the Board voted to pass the regulations on new construction but grandfather in currently existing structures. The goal is, of course, to make it impossible for the clinics to meet the new requirements.
· The emphasis has now been expanded. What was previously thought to be untouchable is now in the realm of open discussion for restrictions. Contraception availability and its cost effectiveness for women; affordable and accessible preventive health care for middle and lower income women; access to procedures such as in-vitro fertilization and related types of care; these are all on the chopping block through such proposed state laws as “personhood,” which would place into law that a fertilized egg has full rights as a person. The attempted laws so far are broadly written and raise rather horrifying legal issues but that is being addressed. The language of these laws is currently being fine-tuned so that it can be introduced in the future. In case you think that this is too outlandish to ever happen, early this year the Virginia House and the Oklahoma Senate passed personhood laws. They have not progressed because the political climate is not good at the moment; there has been backlash so they are simply waiting.
· Also in the forefront: statements from elected male officials basically portraying women as children who do not have the intellect or emotional ability to make decisions for themselves; attempts to change laws regarding the definition of rape and to prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion if she suffers rape, incest or her health is threatened in any way; most recently, statements by two different male elected legislators, one introducing the idea to encourage state legislatures to pass laws to punish women who obtain abortions because of these circumstances, and the other expressing the dangerously ignorant statement that it is impossible for a woman’s health or life to be threatened during pregnancy, therefore, a termination of a pregnancy is never medically required. Although all this is being cast under the umbrella of pro-life legislation, I view it quite differently. As much as I find this onslaught of mainly white men legislating a woman’s life personally offensive on so many levels, this crosses the line to the extreme. I am infuriated by the lack of outrage from these men which should rightfully be directed at the rapists, the abusers, the men who leave their wives or partners to support themselves and raise their children. I am repulsed by the distinct and utter arrogance and absence of compassion that exists every time I watch and hear one of these legislators discuss their beliefs on these matters. I cannot evaluate their point of view in a serious manner because there is no room in their thought process for anyone else’s opinion or experience.
Because pro-choice/pro-life perspectives are being transformed into an all or nothing reality, moderate Americans are caught up in the confusion of some of their conflicting beliefs. So let’s strip away the outside layer and look at the economic repercussions of continuing on the path of restricting American women’s rights and what is already becoming apparent in that area.
The first point that screams out at me is that women are the majority of people in this country. There are conceivably places in America where people have never met a black, Hispanic or Jewish person but where in America is there someone who has not dealt with a woman? Consequently, women, their qualities, their strengths, their contributions to our society, their opinions about how our country should function, on every level, public and private, their opinions about how we should be involved on a global scale, should be an intricate and respected part of the fiber of everything that affects us. How is it that the future of women is being decided by men and what does that truly mean? If, in the majority of states, men seem to think that it is perfectly natural for them to dictate the most intimate facets of a woman’s daily experience, are we naïve enough to believe that they will not expand their power to influence broader choices, such as what employment is available to women and financial penalties that make independence more difficult?
The removal of Wisconsin public sector collective bargaining rights has been generally touted as a union busting move. If we look at the bigger picture, then we see that Scott Walker and his cronies directed his restraints at unions whose member majority are women. In fact, he exempted the police and firefighters unions whose membership is almost all male. Limiting public sector union rights will have a strong affect on jobs that have a larger female presence and so give more control over women’s income to male governors, politicians and their corporate backers.
Men who enter fields that have been traditionally dominated by women find themselves making more money than the women and have a much easier route to higher positions, especially if they are white men, than women will encounter when they are in the same position in a male dominated field. That says to me that there is a respect for working men that just does not exist for women. It also shows how easy it is to control a woman’s work life and, if the intent is to gain more control, as I believe it is, women had better be alert and ready.
As far as finances beyond the workplace, there are other ways to put in place policies and laws that will make life harder on women. Laws against accessible health care for women; laws forcing women to have procedures they don’t want or need; laws forcing women to have time frames between procedures when travel is involved; all these issues have a real economic effect for women. A Kansas law that was passed by their House but held up by the Senate levies tax penalties on women who have abortions, as well as removing related tax health care deductions. If all this can be done, is it such a far stretch to imagine laws further restricting women’s freedom of choice in education or the workplace? I remember those restrictions. It just doesn’t seem like so long ago to me.
This assault on women’s rights is being called the “War on Women.” I understand why that term has been embraced but I don’t like it and I don’t agree with its implications. When a war is waged, whoever is on the receiving end must defend themselves, with the hope of overcoming the attacks. I will no longer, ever, defend the fact that I deserve freedom and the rights that apply to my unique needs as a woman and I strongly suggest that neither should any other American woman. Instead, those who are attacking should be the ones driven to defend and explain their actions and we should be relentless in our push to force them to expose their thought processes and their connections in the corporate world. That would elicit a real debate, the kind which would likely uncover beliefs that will be rejected by the majority of Americans, women and men. As it is, we are offered sound bites instead of real facts when laws are passed that affect the way that women can choose to live their life and that also affect the men who love and care about them.
If American women evolve fully into the knowledge of their true strengths and capabilities, then there is the real possibility for them to become a force within our society that will transform our country in many ways and, potentially, the world. This is exactly what some men are aware of and what they don’t want to happen. Women who are sure of themselves; women who will not back down when they know that they have a right to their point of view; women who will bring compassion, human rights, fairness and room for emotions to the table are not what most men who have been in charge, whether in the corporate board room or in the home, want to deal with on a regular basis.
We have been overrun for over two thousand years with the mindset that men know how to handle certain circumstances better than women and both genders have allowed for women to be pushed into the background. I perceive us as now being on the brink of a massive change in that dynamic and there is great fear and resistance to that change actually occurring, hence, this frantic scrambling to legislate women backwards. That can only mean that we are close to women being able to see themselves for the amazing human beings that we are and embracing our true worth; it can only mean that there are so many men out there of quality and fairness who will support and encourage, finally, the merging of women’s and men’s talents, strengths, abilities and differences to create a society that will benefit us all. And, it also means a deliberate and determined effort to stop the forward motion from fulfilling itself.
So, we find ourselves at a crossroad. We, in the United States, have some options. We have the ability to vote; we can remove anyone from public office who has shown themselves as someone who works to restrict the rights of others and we can elect public officials who support those rights. We also have the rights of protest and freedom of speech. We can communicate and protest through writing; we can come together in peaceful demonstration. It is a time when so much can be accomplished or we can watch what the outcome will be like if the rights of many American citizens continue to be reduced.
I will end by telling you this truthfully and from my heart: it is within my lifetime that women have had so many doors open to them. Life for women in this country now is not how life was when I was growing up or when I was a young woman. As many women of my generation and older generations did, I chose to insist on my rights. I refused to change who I am, what I believe, how I behave or the expression of my truth because someone thought that because I am a woman, I should.
It is again time; time for the women, whose choices so far in their lives have never had to include consideration of the limitations of my youth, to stand up and make certain that they are heard. It is again time for the men who understand the value of women to stand beside them, adding their voices and their support. We, who have born witness to the changes from which you have benefited, cannot do that for you. We can, however, do it together.
Copyright 2012 by Michele Curtis
Women’s Movement:
Jo Freeman, “From Suffrage to Women’s Liberation: Feminism in Twentieth Century America”, Women: A Feminist Perspective ed. by Jo Freeman, Mountain View, Calif: Mayfield, 5th edition, 1995, pp. 509-28, http://www.jofreeman.com/feminism/suffrage.htm.
“Tea Party Leader in Mississippi Suggests ‘Our Country Might Have Been Better Off ‘ if Women Still Couldn’t Vote”, Annie-Rose Strasser, ThinkProgress, October 15, 2012, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/10/15/1010941/mississippi-women-vote/.
WashingtonMarches:
“NOW – Who We Are”, National Organization for Women, 2012, http://www.now.org/history/history.html.
Citizen’s United:
“Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission”, Wikipedia, last modified October 22, 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission.
"A citizen's guide to Citizens United”, John Dunbar, The Center for Public Integrity, last modified January 23, 2012, http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/01/03/7782/big-bucks-flood-2012-election-what-courts-said-and-why-we-should-care/.
Corporate Mentality:
Michele Curtis, “Corporate Mentality: The Brainwashing of America”, Open Salon, November 7, 2011, http://open.salon.com/blog/opalforest/2011/11/07/corporate_mentality_the_brainwashing_of_america.
Michele Curtis, “Corporate Mentality: The Breaking of the American Spirit”, OpenSalon, May 25, 2012, http://open.salon.com/blog/opalforest/2012/05/25/corporate_mentality_the_breaking_of_the_american_spirit.
Current Proposed and Enacted Legislation:
“Monthly State Update: MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS IN 2012”, Guttmacher Institute, last modified October 1, 2012, http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/updates/index.html.
“A State-By-State Guide to 2012’s Anti-Choice Laws (So Far)”, Erin Gloria Ryan, Jezebel, May 11, 2012, http://jezebel.com/5906797/a-state+by+state-guide-to-2012s-anti+choice-laws-so-far.
Julie Rovner, “New Restrictions On Abortion Almost Tied Record Last Year”, Policy-ish, NPR, January 19, 2012, http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/01/19/145465011/new-restrictions-on-abortion-almost-tied-record-last-year.
“The Let Women Die Bill of 2011: H.R. 358 Forces Women to Play Russian Roulette in Their Hospital Emergency Room”, Laura MacCleery, RH Reality Check, October 17, 2011, http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2011/10/17/the-let-women-die-bill-of-2011-hr-358-forces-women-to-play-russian-roullette-in-their-hospital-emergency-roo0.
“Kansas State Legislation”, Trust Women, Week of April 30-May 4, 2012, http://www.trustwomenpac.org/target-states/kansas/kansas-state-legislation/.
“Despite Overwhelming Evidence, Federal Appeals Court Upholds Law Requiring Doctors to Lie to Women”, Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check, July 25, 2012, http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/25/federal-appeals-court-upholds-law-requiring-doctors-to-lie-to-women.
“State Level Attacks on Planned Parenthood”, Planned Parenthood Action Center, 2012, http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/get-involved/state-attacks-planned-parenthood-1068.htm.
“State Efforts to Reject Contraceptive Coverage Laws on Religious Grounds”, Jessica Arons &Elizabeth Rich, Center for American Progress, July 30, 2012, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/news/2012/07/30/11838/state-efforts-to-reject-contraceptive-coverage-laws-on-religious-grounds/.
“Contraception and Insurance Coverage (Religious Exemption Debate)”, The New York Times, last modified May 21, 2012, http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/health_insurance_and_managed_care/health_care_reform/contraception/index.html.
“Rick Berg, North Dakota GOP Senate Candidate: No Abortion Access For Rape Victims”, Amanda Terkel, The Huffington Post, last modified October 12, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/12/rick-berg-women-abortion_n_1962135.html.
“Column: Where are the doctors?”, Marcia Angell and Michael Greene, USA Today, last modified May 15, 2012, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-05-15/women-contraception-abortion-reproductive-rights-doctors/54979766/1.
“New ‘Pro Life’ Laws Force Women to Go to Mexico for Health Care”, Gloria Ryan, Jezebel, August 17, 2012, http://jezebel.com/5935644/new-pro-life-laws-to-force-women-to-go-to-mexico-for-health-care.
“Kansas Abortion Bill Could Raise Taxes On Women Seeking Procedure “, John Celock, The Huffington Post, last modified March 8, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/08/kansas-abortion-bill-sales-tax_n_1327301.html.
Personhood.
“Personhood Laws”, Rational Wiki, last modified August 31, 2012, http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Personhood_laws.
“Paul Ryan and Todd Akin Partnered on Radical ‘Personhood’ Bill Outlawing Abortion and Many Birth Control Pills”, Adam Peck and Ian Millhiser, ThinkProgress, August 20, 2012, http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/20/712501/paul-ryan-and-todd-akin-partnered-on-radical-personhood-bill-outlawing-abortion-and-many-birth-control-pills/.
“Could 'personhood' bills outlaw IVF?”, Nadia Kounang, CNN, last modified August 30, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/30/health/ivf-outlawed/index.html.
Woman as Majority.
“About Us”, Feminist Majority Foundation, 2012, http://www.feminist.org/welcome/index.html.
Women and the Workplace.
“Women's Jobs Axed By State Austerity Policies”, Max Sledge, The Huffington Post, last modified April 13, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/13/womens-jobs-state-austerity_n_1415276.html.
“More Men Enter Fields Dominated by Women”, Shaila Dewan & Robert Gebeloff, The New York Times, last modified May 23, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/21/business/increasingly-men-seek-success-in-jobs-dominated-by-women.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=labor.
“Why Women Hide Their Pregnancies”, Alissa Quart, The New York Times, October 6, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/opinion/sunday/why-women-hide-their-pregnancies.html?_r=1&ref=labor.
KJ Dell’Antonia, “How Can a Stay-at-Home Mom Get Back to Work?”, Motherlode, The New York Times, October 12, 2012, http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/12/how-can-a-stay-at-home-mom-get-back-to-work/?ref=labor.
“Assistants, Yes, but They Can Do It All”, Phyllis Korkki, New York Times, October 6, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/jobs/administrative-assistants-on-the-workplaces-front-lines.html?ref=labor.
Wisconsin Collective Bargaining.
“Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker signs law wiping out collective bargaining rights for most union workers”, Corky Siemaszko, New York Daily News, March 11, 2011, http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-03-11/news/28699690_1_public-workers-state-workers-bargaining.
Joanne Bamberger, “Scott Walker’s Fight Against Labor & Its Impact on Women”, PunditMom, June 5, 2012, http://www.punditmom.com/2012/06/scott-walkers-fight-against-labor-its-impact-on-women.
“Special collective bargaining status for police and fire unions causing problems”, Steven Vurberg, Wisconsin State Journal, January 7, 2012, http://host.madison.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/special-collective-bargaining-status-for-police-and-fire-unions-causing/article_c8900f50-38c7-11e1-a949-0019bb2963f4.html.
"What is Collective Bargaining?”, AFL-CIO, 2011, http://www.collectivebargainingfacts.org/.
