Musings of a Restless Mind

On Tuesday, Senator Lindsey Graham introduced the GOP’s proposed national forced birth legislation, which would ban nearly all abortions after fifteen (15) weeks.¹ This is what Republicans intend to pass should they retake Congress. Please know, I will never call abortion bans, or the people who support them, anything but forced birth laws, and forced birthers, because that is what they are. Forced birthers have co-opted the term “pro-life” in a grotesque parody, a mockery, of actual life—reducing it merely to being born—while time and time and time again consistently supported legislation and politicians, that not only put lives at risk in terms of prenatal healthcare, but degrade and risk the lives of children and families on a daily basis, with no regard for basic necessities like housing, food, education, and healthcare—the things required to live—and with a distinctly patriarchal, misogynistic, and transphobic bent.

I’ll leave it to the medical professionals to debunk any false, misleading, or inaccurate information about pregnancy, fetal development, and abortion contained within the bill, as it is replete with the type of misinformation, disdain for truth, and staggering ignorance we’ve repeatedly seen from forced birthers over the last few decades. In any event, the proposed legislation will not preempt stricter forced birth laws already in effect in many states, nor prevent other states from enacting even stricter ones. It will simply strip rights and bodily autonomy away from those living in sane states that aren’t yearning for a return to the last century.

Don’t worry though, there’s still plenty of object fuckery in the rest of this proposed legislation. As a seemingly inconsequential, but important point, is Graham’s citation of Gonzales v. Carhart²—the Supreme Court decision which upheld the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003—as support for the authority to enact this ban. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion claimed it was doing so “under precedents we here assume to be controlling”, i.e., under the precedents established by Roe, Casey, and Stenberg.³ In hindsight this feels mocking, and in her dissent, Justice Ginsburg noted this, writing that the decision “refuses to take Casey and Stenberg seriously.”⁴ Among other things, the majority opinion dismissed a health exception, both by claiming it is allowed under precedent, and stating that Congress can regulate in an area where doctors may lack consensus.⁵ However, the majority opinion ignored the vast weight of medical evidence presented in the underlying courts, substituting instead Congress’s unsupported claims. Ginsburg’s dissent addressed this stating, “[d]uring the District Court trials, ‘numerous’ ‘extraordinarily accomplished’ and ‘very experienced’ medical experts explained that, in certain circumstances and for certain women, intact D&E is safer than alternative procedures and necessary to protect women’s health.”⁶ Ginsburg also noted, that in defiance of the evidence, the Court was effectively allowing legislative usurpation of medical reasoning, “[t]he Court acknowledges some of this evidence, ante, at 161, but insists that, because some witnesses disagreed with ACOG and other experts’ assessment of risk, the Act can stand.”⁷ Ginsburg also made a point of calling out the majority’s “hostility” to Roe and its later cases, stating,

“Throughout, the opinion refers to obstetrician-gynecologists and surgeons who perform abortions not by the titles of their medical specialties, but by the pejorative label “abortion doctor.” Ante, at 144, 154, 155, 161, 163. A fetus is described as an “unborn child,” and as a “baby,” ante, at 134, 138; second-trimester, previability abortions are referred to as “late-term,” ante, at 156; and the reasoned medical judgments of highly trained doctors are dismissed as “preferences” motivated by “mere convenience,” ante, at 134, 166.”⁸

Like in Ginsburg’s dissent, the New England Journal of Medicine wrote, “[u]ntil this opinion, the Court recognized the importance of not interfering with medical judgments made by physicians to protect a patient’s interest. For the first time, the Court permits congressional judgment to replace medical judgment.”⁹ Additionally, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which had also submitted an amicus brief against the ban, called the decision shameful, that it was ignorant of medical consensus, and that it would have a chilling effect on medical providers.¹⁰

At a glance, it seems reasonable for a forced birther to use a forced birther case for such information. Given, however, how Gonzales has been vigorously criticized by the medical profession for substituting Congress’s lack of medical judgment in place of a that of the medical knowledge of actual doctors, the fact that Graham used it in support of the legislation’s claims on medicine and authority, makes it impossible to see this as anything but Graham’s intentionally outstretched middle finger toward the women of America, whom he clearly disdains. While I fully support and acknowledge that such legislation will affect transgender men and gender non-conforming persons as well, given that these same Republican forced birthers refuse to recognize them as anything but women, the rooting of this law in patriarchal misogyny cannot be ignored. After all, 100% of unwanted pregnancies are caused by a person who ejaculates, yet their bodies aren’t being controlled.

I’m sure Republican forced birthers think they’re being magnanimous by including a couple of exceptions to the fifteen week ban. You know, that little tiny carve out where they deign to acknowledge that pregnant people have a sliver more sentience, more value, and more purpose in life than an incubator does? The first exception listed is when abortion is necessary to save the pregnant person’s life. The subsection specifies that it only applies to “physical” illnesses, actively and specifically excluding any risks to a person’s mental health. As far as I can tell, it would also preclude aborting a fetus that will not survive outside the womb due to developmental abnormalities, thereby forcing someone to carry to term a fetus that will suffer and die within hours of birth. An absolutely ghoulish prospect.

But, you know, life.

Cue the choirs of heaven and all that shit.

Of course nothing in the bill will cover the medical costs of such an eventuality, or a person’s therapy bills because of it.

Not that Republicans care.

The first exception, defers to a doctor’s “reasonable medical judgment” to determine whether a person’s life is in enough jeopardy to qualify for an abortion. The doctor’s medical judgment—you know, the very thing forced birthers disregard altogether when it comes to abortion and reproductive healthcare on the whole.

Additionally, because such bans criminalize the act of terminating a pregnancy—meaning a doctor can go to jail—in states where such bans have already been implemented, we are seeing reports of doctors and hospitals being forced to back burner their medical judgment—leaving sick patients in limbo and getting sicker—while they’re forced to consult with lawyers. These lawyers are being called upon to determine if a doctor’s judgment is, I don’t know, reasonable enough(?) to warrant saving a patient’s life.

As a recovering lawyer, I know many of us are reasonably intelligent people—although I can’t vouch for those defending TFG—but there was only one guy in my law school graduating class who also had a medical degree. If these forced birth policies require lawyers to make the ultimate judgement as to saving a patient’s life, it’s clear that there is no real intention to defer to a doctor’s reasonable medical judgment. If Republicans actually listened to doctors, they’d know that the majority of doctors, in their reasonable medical judgment, see abortion as part and parcel of healthcare, and these bans wouldn’t exist in the first place. Instead, like the Court in Gonzales, they write off damage to, or death of, a pregnant person as a cost of doing business—the business of forced birth babies.

A second exception exists in cases of rape or incest, and is further broken down by age. In cases of rape against an adult, an abortion is permitted only if the victim obtained either counseling for the rape, or medical treatment for the rape and any related injuries, at least 48 hours before the abortion. In the case of a minor who is pregnant because of rape and incest, an exception to the ban will be allowed if the rape has been reported at any time prior to the abortion to a “government agency authorized to act upon reports of child abuse” or, a law enforcement agency.

The need to report—or obtain counseling for—rape or incest, in order to avail oneself of the second exception, is a knowingly limiting factor, that is intentionally included in order to force as many victims as possible to birth their rapist’s child. Let’s also make it clear that in the majority of cases involving minors, particularly involving incest, it is always rape, as children can never consent to sex.¹¹ The shame and stigma of rape and/or incest is a well known, well documented bar to either reporting the crime, or obtaining counseling for it.¹²

Furthermore, in order to comply with the legislation, a doctor performing an abortion under the rape/incest exception, must place a copy of the report or other documentation regarding compliance with the law in the patient’s file; yet another violation of a victim’s privacy. The purpose of this requirement to the exception can only, therefore, be rooted in the patriarchal idea that women lie about rape, and that only “officially” reported rapes can be “real” rapes. Additionally, since sex with a minor is definitionally rape (regardless of whether it is incest or not), and a strict liability crime, the reporting requirements for this exception could still result in children being forced to carry a child to term. Often young people, are unaware of how their cycles work, and thus often don’t even know they are pregnant until they are past the arbitrary lines drawn, at which point a forced birther parent, who may even be their rapist, will not help them obtain an abortion. Additionally, in many cases involving minors, there is a legitimate fear on the part of the victim that they will be blamed and further abused by their parents or guardians.

Furthermore, if the victim (adult or child) doesn’t know they are pregnant, or are unable, or unwilling, to report the crime or obtain counseling until after 21 weeks, the procedure becomes more complicated. It’s also why abortions after 21 weeks are exceedingly rare, comprising only 1% of all abortions nationally. Thus, this “exception” is merely another instance of a patronizing and patriarchal government beneficently, and grudgingly, granting a pregnant person a scintilla of autonomy—if they’re a proper, innocent victim, and if they beg just the right way. In short, the reporting requirement is specifically included to further punish victims of rape and incest by setting a timeline within which they must contend with their victimization, or the government will apparently not consider it a “real” rape that qualifies for the exception. I’m sure there are additional knockdown effects I haven’t even thought of yet.

A corpse literally has more bodily autonomy.

I will note here, as I have before, that these exceptions reveal the forced birther lie that this is in any way about “life.” If it were, if so-called “pro-lifers” truly believed this was about life, then they would not have an exception for rape and incest at all. Instead, by including such an exception, they’re substituting their own judgment as to the relative innocence—the value—of both the embryo and the person carrying it. This is rooted in puritanical, patriarchal mores about sexual behavior and gender roles—premised on the madonna-whore dichotomy—which seeks to punish those who engage in sex outside of the values that Republicans and forced birthers deem acceptable, by forcing a pregnant person to carry a fetus to term. If you doubt that, just listen to how they repeatedly tell people they have to “live with the consequences,” or that they “should have thought about that before you had sex,” or they should “have put an aspirin between” their knees—all lectures on chastity, rooted in governing women’s behavior.

However, the real kicker about this, and additional proof of their lies and hypocrisy, is that Senator Graham, indeed most of the Republican party, has been bleating platitudes about letting states decide the issue of abortion. In fact, on May 3, 2022, ahead of the Dobbs decision, he tweeted:

On August 7, 2022, during an interview on CNN, Graham stated “I’ve been consistent—I think states should decide the issue of marriage and states should decide the issue of abortion.”

Consistent.

I think Lindsey needs a dictionary. I mean, nothing says states should decide an issue like a federal ban.

Also, if you think they’ll leave same sex marriage to the states to decide when the Court overturns Griswold, I have some fantastic beachfront property in Kansas to sell you. And if you say “they won’t overturn Griswold“…

Bitch, please.

Given the chance, anytime people think Republicans can’t sink any lower, they ask you to hold their beer.

Stop letting them gaslight you. They will enact stricter and stricter misogynistic, patronizing laws that will continue to restrict women and other people who become pregnant. It’s already happening. Alabama already charges and jails pregnant women for drug use.¹³ In fact, many states have similarly jailed or prosecuted women for danger to their fetuses.¹⁴ They wouldn’t do that? As these forced birthers continue to push ever stricter laws, pass fetal personhood bills, including those defining life at conception, what’s to stop them from using child endangerment laws to prevent someone who is pregnant from doing a dangerous job? Or, to outlaw certain foods, or even outlaw a pregnant person from buying wine, lest they have even one glass? Who draws those lines? Which of them will decide if a pregnant person with cancer will go through chemo therapy, or be forced to wait until they’ve birthed? Will these laws, even if they go no further than this one, necessitate the investigation of every single miscarriage to ensure that people are not self-inducing abortions? Why wouldn’t it? There’s simply nothing to prevent that from happening under this framework.

Given the chance, these Republican forced birthers will jump at every opportunity to preserve White, cis-het male hegemony, and use pregnancy to relegate women and others to second class citizenship status. Their consistent lies and ever increasing radicalism is proof.

As we’ve seen time and again, “states should decide” or “state’s rights” is always Republican double speak for wanting to strip rights away from citizens. If anyone needed an object lesson in the real intent of Republicans should they win back power, it’s available in the form of one craven, misogynistic, hypocritical, medical wonder of man-walking-upright-without-a-spine: Lindsey Graham.

Welcome to Gilead, indeed.

Footnotes

1. The full text of the proposed abortion ban is available here: https://www.lgraham.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/3065785d-86b8-4d36-986a-72aa1c8f100c/protecting-pain-capable-unborn-children-from-late-term-abortions-act-.pdf

2. Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007).

3. Gonzales, 550 U.S. 161; Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113 (1973); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 844 (1992); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U. S. 914 (2000).

4. Gonzales, 550 U.S. 170 (2007) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).

5. Gonazales, 550 U.S. 163.

6. Gonzales, 550 U.S. at 177.

7. Gonzales, 550 U.S. at 180.

8. Gonzales, 550 U.S. at 186-187.

9. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhle072595

10. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) ACOG statement on the US Supreme Court decision upholding the partial-birth abortion ban act of 2003 [press release] Washington, DC: ACOG; 2007.

11. There is a small moving target of teens who are consensually sexually active, and a variety of state laws that determine age of consent for the two parties.

12. https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/sacramento/fear-shame-silence-rape-victims/103-547673944

13. https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/09/08/pregnant-women-drugs-jail/

14. https://theconversation.com/more-states-will-now-limit-abortion-but-they-have-long-used-laws-to-govern-and-sometimes-jail-pregnant-women-185830

I began writing this piece several days ago, while contemplating news out of Oklahoma about yet another abortion ban and rehashing my thoughts on the politics, hypocrisy, and cruelty of forced birth laws/forced birthers.¹ Obviously, the bombshell leak of the draft of Justice Alito’s potential majority opinion in Jackson Women’s Health Organization (Jackson), while unsurprising, still managed to break my heart.

Of course, conservatives are outraged that the leak happened, which is ironic— they think the Supreme Court should have greater privacy rights than women.

I noted to my kids that I truly, truly appreciate forced birth proponents who oppose all abortions, even in the case of rape or incest—as is the case with the Mississippi statute at issue in Jackson.²

I admit, the kids looked at me funny.

You appreciate these people? What?! Wut?

I know, I know, it sounds crazy, right? I mean why would I, a staunch supporter of the right to abortion, appreciate the most extreme of forced birth extremists? It may take a little bit of time, but I promise I’ll get back to it.

Forced birth extremists claim (without any basis in science or medicine) that life begins upon fertilization of an ova by sperm, and that a blastocyst (as the rapidly dividing ball of cells is called in those first days), zygote, or embryo is not simply a life, but an innocent life.³ Thus, forced birth logic posits that a woman does not have the right to put her own life and well being above this “innocent life.”⁴ In other words, fertilized ova are instantaneously imbued with greater rights, greater value to society, greater worth, than the person within whom said fertilized ova resides.⁵

However, this discussion cannot be had without addressing the context in which these forced birth ideologies and laws germinated: patriarchal, faith based sexism and misogyny ingrained in our society. This ingrained system manifests around us daily in the ways we discuss and police gender, sex, reproductive health, birth control, and unwanted pregnancies in this country. The only way forced birthers can justify their assertion that a fetus’s value and rights outweigh that of pregnant person, is by pitting the value—the worth—of an “innocent” fetus, to that of a woman, who must inherently be more “sinful” and thus, of less value, less worth. Ultimately, this is entrenched in the religious and historic premise of women’s sinfulness, fickleness, and fecklessness, and, therefore, makes it easy for society to judge women—sentient, productive, vital, worthy people—as less worthy of value and bodily autonomy than a non-sentient, non-viable, potential life.⁶

Without going too far into the weeds, I think we can agree that while most religions, and the sects within those religions, have varying beliefs and social mores about gender, sexuality, women’s rights, and when or if abortion is to be permitted, the main push in the forced birth movement is from a far right coalition of predominantly Evangelical, but also conservative Catholic and non-Evangelical Christians.⁷ We also know that many in those same religious and conservative groups teach that women should be subservient, or at least deferential to men⁸, promote chastity and purity (where girls who are not pure are described as used pieces of gum no one will want)⁹, oppose LGBTQ+ rights (including marriage and children)¹⁰, and have vocally stated their intent that the United States be a “Christian Nation,” wherein laws are based on their beliefs: in god, the bible, and their interpretations of such, and without separation of Church and state.¹¹

As a result of this patriarchal, religious ideology, even now in the 21st century, the U.S. still struggles to account for the abuse of women, be it sexual assault, or domestic violence. It took until nearly the end of the 20th century for every state to even acknowledge that marital rape is a thing, because becoming a wife is not blanket consent to sex. The crime of rape in this country is one where, with unfailing regularity, the initial response to anything but the most violent of rapes, is to doubt the victim, where, thanks to victim blaming, the majority of women who are raped don’t report it, and where when it is reported, the rapist often won’t get more than a slap on the wrist.¹²

In the last decade alone, we’ve seen elected leaders, candidates, and conservative personalities ignorantly, and cruelly, dismiss rape and its consequences, including pregnancy. Who can forget Republican, Missouri senate candidate Todd Akin’s famous claim: “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down”? Or, Texas State Rep. Jody Laubenberg’s (R) assertion that rape victims don’t need abortions because “rape kits” clean them out (rape kits are for gathering forensic evidence of rape)? What about Rick Santorum (R) telling rape victims that a resulting pregnancy is “a gift” and to “just accept what god has given to you”?¹³ Or, most recently, Michigan state house candidate Robert Regan (R) proudly stating, “I tell my daughters, well, if rape is inevitable, you should just lie back and enjoy it.”¹⁴

We’ve also seen them belittle the #metoo movement, and watched as these leaders, and their talking heads on Fox and conservative radio promoted rape culture, culminating of course, not just in their election of a man who admitted on tape to “grabbing women by the pussies,” but later, in the seating of a Supreme Court Justice credibly accused of assault, and replete with their outraged indignation that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford would even dare come forward. And boy, were they outraged. I mean, who doesn’t remember this?

Or this?

Emboldened by this new wave conservatism, Republicans have used their misogyny as a political tool, refusing to renew the Violence Against Women Act, filibustering the Paycheck Fairness Act, attacking insurance coverage for contraception, and loosening Title IX protections for victims of assault on college campuses. We’ve seen judges, as well as conservative identifying friends and family in our lives, express more care and concern for the future fortunes of college boys who assault coeds, than the future and suffering of their victims.¹⁵ It’s an era where the governor of Texas, upon enacting a draconian ban on most abortions claimed dismissively that pregnancies from rape won’t be an issue, because he’ll make sure rapists are removed from the streets.¹⁶

Which begs two questions: if it was that easy to do, what was he waiting for, and what is he going to do about the rapists that live in people’s homes?

Circling back to how religious, patriarchal ideology imbues this ingrained sexism, are ideologies of female purity, gender roles, and the double standard applied to sex, wherein women who have consensual sex outside of marriage are sluts, but men who do the same are studs, or just “sowing their wild oats.” In 2012, Erick Erikson wrote¹⁷,

Young men, regardless of political persuasion or ideology, are intent on having sex, being boys, getting drunk—doing what young men in college often do. All to [sic] often there are also a few young ladies willing to shame their parents if their parents only knew.

In the same year, conservative icon Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute,” because she thought contraception should be covered by employer provided insurance. Limbaugh suggested that he’d buy her aspirin…to keep between her knees instead.¹⁸ Meanwhile, conservative groups like Concerned Women For America spent the early 2000’s publishing disinformation about contraception in order to stigmatize the use of it, including claims that the Pill is an abortifacient, and during the Obama presidency, these extremist groups pushed even further in their claims, saying that emergency contraception and IUD’s induce abortions, and alleging that the contraception provisions of the ACA violated their religious freedom, culminating in an exemption for it under Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.¹⁹

Decades of statistics illustrate that women in the workforce make less money than men, and this disparity increases with children, whereas for men, children can be the basis for a raise.²⁰ Young women who get pregnant are often unable to finish their education, and even more often, unable to continue on to higher education.²¹ Countries that rank highly for gender equality, are also those where women enjoy robust reproductive health and sexual rights protections.²² Simply put, evidence shows that women cannot achieve equality if they do not control when, with whom, or if they bear children.²³

Which, of course, is the purpose of the Republican and conservatives forced birth agenda.

For all their talk of the sanctity of life, conservatives only seem to find it sacred as long as it prevents women from exercising bodily autonomy. George Carlin had it right in a 1996 performance when he said,

They will do anything for the unborn, but once you’re born [middle finger gesture], you’re on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don’t wanna know about you. Nothing! No neo-natal care, no daycare… no welfare, if you’re pre-born, you’re fine, if you’re preschool, you’re fucked.

Republicans regularly try to gut programs like Medicaid, TANF, and SNAP (which directly assist families with children), gut public education funding, refuse to provide paid parental leave, and despite the fact that guns are the leading cause of death for children in this country, refuse to enact any reasonable gun control legislation.²⁴ And, lest we forget, they’re also fond of separating children from their families, and putting them in cages as well. Therefore, the claim that these forced birth extremists are, by any metric, pro-life, is utterly absurd. As Sister Joan Chittister, O.S.B., in a 2004 interview with Bill Moyers stated²⁵,

I do not believe that just because you are opposed to abortion, that that makes you pro-life. In fact, I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, a child educated, a child housed. And why would I think that you don’t? Because you don’t want any tax money to go there. That’s not pro-life. That’s pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.

The truth is that forced birth proponents aren’t enamored of life, but of controlling women’s behavior. The proof is not only in their refusal to actually fund lives, but in their response to arguments of young and/or single women regarding the negative impact of an unwanted pregnancy on that woman’s life, which is usually something along the lines of her “suffering the consequences” of her choices, a response that puts paid to claims, like Santorum’s, that an unwanted pregnancy, is a gift.²⁵ Take Texas Rep. Tony Tinderhold, for example, who in 2017, when defending his bill banning abortion, noted that doing so, “would ‘force’ women to be ‘more personally responsible’ with sex.”²⁶

This mentality of “consequences” almost exclusively redounds to women (as well as transgendered men and nonbinary persons), particularly poor women and women of color, and the men involved—who are 100% culpable in the impregnation of a woman—are rarely forced to similarly “suffer the consequences.”²⁷ Coupled with ideologies of female purity and chastity, double standards regarding sex, interference with the ability to access contraception, and a dangerous disregard for women’s physical safety and the consequences of assault, it is clear that this is not simply part of some residual ingrained sexism of our society, but particularly of the misogynistic, faith based patriarchy of forced birthers, and their desire to keep power and control over women in the hands of men.

Which, finally, brings me back to my appreciation of forced birthers who make no exceptions for rape and incest.

Oh yeah, that.

As I’ve laid out, the force birth movement isn’t actually about life, but in order to maintain that lie, they have to turn the abortion debate into one about which being has more value: the “innocent” embryo, or the “sinful” woman who had the temerity to have sex, who is refusing to “face the consequences,” and, therefore, has no right to put themself first.

However, forced birthers who include exceptions for rape and incest reveal the lie, because they make a judgment call about the value of those particular blastocysts, zygotes, embryos, or fetuses, and determine, apparently, that those particular ones are not actually innocent lives that are more important than a woman’s bodily autonomy, mental health, and life prospects.

Somehow, those particular fertilized ova, are not miraculously imbued with that greater value to society, that sanctity, that miraculously accompanies the fertilization of other ova. Without that bit of mental gymnastics, forced birthers who support exceptions for rape and incest would have to admit that life does not actually begin upon fertilization or, that they aren’t actually as “pro-life” as they pretend to be, but rather political animals embracing culture wars. The hypocrisy of it is…phew.

Instead, these hypocrites mask their pretzel logic in benevolent patriarchy, where a pregnant person—but only a victim mind you—is given permission to value their life higher than a zygote, embryo, or fetus. Thus, these forced birthers make clear that it is actually okay to prioritize or value one life over another, as long as the ability to exercise that power is in their hands, not a woman’s.

So yeah, I appreciate the total commitment of forced birthers who refuse to allow for any exceptions. At least they are pretending to maintain intellectual honesty about how little they regard the worth, value, and existence of women.

Footnotes

*I’ve tried my best to check all the links, but this site can be a bit wonky with footnotes, so please let me know if something isn’t working.

1. These extremists are not “pro-life,” only pro-forced birth. States with the most restrictive anti-abortion laws, also have the worst outcomes for maternal and child health across a range of metrics. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/blog/2022/public-health-paradox-states-abortion-laws-maternal-child-health-outcomes Also, of the thirteen states with anti-abortion trigger laws (outright bans that go into effect if Roe is overturned), twelve are in the half of the states with the highest maternal mortality rates. https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/maternal-mortality-rate-by-state

2. “Abortion limited to fifteen (15) weeks’ gestation except in medical emergency and in cases of severe fetal abnormality. ” Miss. Code Ann. § 41-41-191(4)

3. “There’s six things God hates, and one of those is people who shed innocent blood.” Arkansas State Sen. Jason Rapert https://arktimes.com/arkansas-blog/2021/02/22/arkansas-senators-pass-near-total-abortion-ban-it-now-goes-to-house

“I believe life begins at conception and that abortion takes the life of an innocent human being.” Senator Rand Paul https://www.paul.senate.gov/issues/advocating-sanctity-life

“…if you believe as I believe very strongly that an innocent, unborn child in the mother’s womb is in fact a child.” Mississippi Gov Tate Reeves https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/05/politics/tate-reeves-abortion-oral-arguments-supreme-court-cnntv/index.html

“I believe all innocent life is precious and sacred, and as governor I pledge to you to do everything in my power to protect life.” Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2018/05/12/kim-reynolds-iowa-abortion-ban-fetal-heartbeat-conservative-faith-freedom-coalition/602946002/

4. I use woman/women here, and elsewhere in the essay, because the same conservatives attacking abortion rights, refuse to accept transgender men, or assigned-female-at-birth nonbinary folks as anything but women, and while I normally do not cater to their bigotry on the matter, in this case it illustrates how that bigotry is entwined with their misogyny.

5. I posit that forced birthers would be aghast at being made to donate blood, or an organ, even to save an innocent life, and would vehemently oppose any such laws, as we saw in their opposition to masking during Covid19. Even a corpse in this country cannot be harvested for organ donation without prior (or sometimes familial) consent. Rightly leading to the premise that forced birthers assign more bodily autonomy to dead people, than to women.

6. An ideology that goes back historically, in mythology, and in the bible, wherein women are repeatedly blamed for various evils, including their own rapes: Eve’s original sin, Pandora’s whispering box, Lilith—who refused to “submit” to Adam sexually—becomes a she-demon, Medea who murdered her children in revenge for her husband’s infidelity, Susanna—whose beauty was apparently to blame for two men attempting to rape her, and Cassandra who was doomed not to be believed, because she rebuffed the god Apollo.

7. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/views-about-abortion/ and https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/06/opinion/jan-6-christian-nationalism.html

8. An ideology known as complementarianism. https://www.newyorker.com/news/on-religion/the-unmaking-of-biblical-womanhood

9. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/elizabeth-smart-obsession-with-purity-makes-rape-victims-fee

10. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/davidmack/anti-lgbtq-legislation-agenda

11. Hence, the questioning of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson about her faith, or Rep. Hetzler who believes we need god in government. https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article260326000.html, and Fox News personalities vocally calling for Christian Nationalism. https://www.salon.com/2022/03/30/kayleigh-mcenany-wants-more-christian-babies-its-an-overt-call-out-to-paranoia/

12. https://www.rainn.org/statistics/criminal-justice-system

13. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-10-dumbest-things-ever-said-about-abortion-and-womens-rights-195166/ and https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/jan/25/rick-santorum-rape-pregnancy

14. Regan is also a virulent anti-Semite, who once claimed that feminism is a Jewish plot to subjugate white men. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/carol-glanville-robert-regan-michigan-house-race-1347460/

15. https://www.vox.com/2016/6/7/11866390/brock-turner-stanford-sexual-assault-explained

16. https://www.npr.org/2021/09/08/1035089278/texas-governor-defends-abortion-law-saying-state-will-eliminate-all-rapists

17. https://redstate.com/erick/2012/02/14/cpac-not-quite-like-the-media-matters-communications-room-but-still-grow-up-n42225

18. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rush-limbaugh-sandra-fluke_n_1313891

19. https://www.prochoiceamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Conservative-Attacks-on-Birth-Control_Updated_6.15.2020.pdf

20. https://www.thebalance.com/how-the-hidden-penalty-of-motherhood-affects-women-careers-4164215 and https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2020/06/cost-of-motherhood-on-womens-employment-and-earnings.html

21. https://reproductive-health-journal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12978-017-0378-2

22. https://www.euractiv.com/section/all/opinion/why-sexual-and-reproductive-rights-matter-for-achieving-a-gender-equal-world/

23. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/linking-reproductive-health-care-access-labor-market-opportunities-women/

24. https://time.com/6170864/cause-of-death-children-guns/

25. https://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/archives/chittister_now_flash.html

26. It should be noted that “suffer the consequences” line, also ignores married people/families who simply cannot afford another pregnancy or child, but don’t have reasonable or affordable access to birth control, or whose birth control failed.

27. https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-lawmaker-no-abortion-access-would-force-women-to-be-more-personally-responsible-with-sex/

28. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/10-billion-in-child-support-payments-going-uncollected-according-to-estimates/

Senator Joe Manchin has the opportunity to be remembered as a transformative figure in American history, and especially in West Virginia. Instead, he is clinging to antiquated and debunked ideas about poverty, about the ways government can, or should, help its citizens in times of need, about expanding health care, and, he holds on to failed economic theories and GOP style “beliefs” about “big government” and spending on citizens, instead of looking at the actual costs—both economic and social—of a failure to substantially, and fully, invest in our people.

We’ve seen the success of large scale investments in our citizens and businesses before—the American Recovery Act, and the CARES Act, are just two examples. The Build Back Better Plan, while larger in both scope and cost, would not, as opposed to the aforementioned, simply be a stop gap measure to avert economic catastrophe, but rather, is a forward looking plan to invest in our citizens, and move our nation past the devastating effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, as well as carve a bold, forward looking path into the future, as our nation proceeds through the 21st Century.

West Virginia, a state with a 16% poverty rate, is poised to be particularly ravaged by flooding due to climate change. It is ranked 47th in the nation on health care (with the highest opioid addiction rate), and 44th in education. It’s a state where many people don’t have broadband access, some folks lack running water altogether (never mind clean running water), and where the population declined 3.2 percent in the last decade, due to a combination of higher death rates, lower birth rates, and an exodus of citizens, particularly younger ones.

Instead of supporting a plan that would help his constituents, as well as the rest of the people of this nation, Manchin is refusing to expand medicaid, or to provide medicare vouchers, and punishing poor families by demanding that a work requirement be added to the child tax credit (thereby cutting off at the knees, those who are unemployed through no fault of their own, just when their families most need the help, and because, you know, those poor folks are just lazy). Manchin refuses to address the corruption caused by dark money in our elections (gee I wonder why), and panders to a coal industry that—while yes, is still a large part of West Virginia’s overall economy, employs a minority of its workers, and which will inevitably, and indisputably, be phased out in the years to come as the world grapples with the climate crisis. In fact, Manchin generally acts like a man out of a different time, living in a world where fossil fuels are king, and a pared down, skeleton of a plan will somehow suffice to address, not only our current post-pandemic problems, but prepare a nation with 328 million souls, and a global responsibility as a world leader, for the future.

Sadly, Manchin seems to be pretending that all these issues can’t be, and shouldn’t be, addressed by government investment in people and development, or that it can’t be afforded, despite the plan’s intention to pay for itself via higher taxes on wealthy Americans, and the corporations profiting the most off of our workers, infrastructure, and damaging climate policies. To make matters worse, he is doing so in opposition to the will of the majority of American voters who chose his party, and Biden, to do exactly these things.

Manchin affects an “aw shucks, I’m a proud lifelong Democrat, but I am a conservative one,” faux, good old boy persona, yet he is a) placing the entire party over a barrel and abusing his current position, b) weakening, or possibly destroying the party’s chances of retaining control of Congress next year, thereby putting paid to every single one of Biden’s policies, c) actively harming the people of his state, and this nation, d) refusing to evolve and see past antiquated thinking, but d) likely doing all of this, not for an “aw shucks,” old school reason, but for his and his family’s self interest as beneficiaries of big income from coal (he and his wife cleared some $1.6 million from coal alone last year), would be payers of higher taxes under the new structure, and the usefulness of his name/influence to benefit his family’s fortunes (like his daughter, for example).

The press keeps vilifying Senator Sinema, not without good reason, but they’re doing so while giving Manchin a pass, constantly reminding us that he has always been conservative, and hails from a red state—as if his Blue Dog bona fides somehow forgive this utter bullshit, or make the breadth of his recalcitrance reasonble. They don’t. Manchin represents a state with 1.76 million residents, yet he is thumbing his nose at the over 81 million Americans who voted for Biden (and his ambitious plans), as well as the approximately 200 million other constituents represented by Democrats in the Senate². At the end of the day, Manchin is not a latter day Mr. Smith, but just another in a long line of snake oil salesmen, and corrupt corporate wonks.

Instead of history remembering Manchin as a man who played a pivotal role in our nation’s, and West Virginia’s future, he’ll be remembered as a greedy, petty, power hungry man who held the lives and well being of 328 million Americans hostage, for a few years of profits and fleeting backslapping.

Footnotes

1. https://www.wvnews.com/news/wvnews/west-virginia-tourism-continues-to-grow-bringing-billions-of-dollars-into-the-state/article_90b51ff9-b8d0-507d-9411-719fb6aac018.html

I’m not pretending that transitioning away from coal isn’t a huge undertaking for West Virginia, but moving proactively toward it, transitioning workers and industries to it while the ball is still in West Virginia’s court, as opposed to pretending coal is going to make a resurgence, is going to be a lot less painful than when the bottom inevitably falls out of the coal industry. In 2019, coal fired plants still accounted for 91% of West Virginia’s energy output. It’s clear they aren’t taking climate change, or the need to transition away from coal, seriously.

2. Manchin’s $60,000 income cap for the expanded child tax credit, for example, works great for West Virginia, where HUD’s “low income” guideline for Charleston is $48,900 for a family of four, but the same “low income” level for a family of four in Los Angeles is $94,600.

In the world of shit-you-thought-was-an-onion-headline-but-is-just-more-maga-stupidity…

An op-ed published in Breitbart a couple of days ago (I won’t link it, because I refuse to give them the clicks), claims that the reason liberals are pushing Covid vaccines so hard, and the reason personalities like Howard Stern are mocking the intentionally unvaccinated and the dying, is *checks notes*, because liberals are using reverse psychology on MAGA and conservatives in a bid to get them to die off. 

Yes, you read that correctly. The same nihilistic, cynical talking heads and right wing apparatchiks who convinced their sheeple that Covid isn’t a big deal, that masks are an assault on freedom, and that the vaccines Trump himself ushered through are dangerous, because they will magnetize you…or have tiny little trackers in them…or will something-something-turn-you-into-5G, have finally realized that they are reaping what they’ve sown: they’re killing off their base. Yeah, look at that, there’s an apparent correlation between counties that voted Trump, and current Covid infection/death rates. Who’d have thunk it?

However, instead of admitting that they were wrong—or rather that they cynically weaponized MAGA fervor and far right ideology, to push a culture war that is now killing their base—these pundits and hate mongers are using insane troll logic to extricate themselves from their own fuckery, while still trying, apparently, to own the libs. It’s so crazy, it sounds like someone pitching an X-Files reboot, while on acid, channeling Hunter S. Thompson. 

I can readily admit to a certain level of schadenfreude about the toll Covid is taking on some of these folks, and for some time now I’ve been entirely out of give a fucks when hearing the sob stories on the news about some MAGA fool, who elected to toss common sense out the fucking window, who, as he is about to be put on a ventilator, starts begging for the vaccine, while their family sets up a GoFundMe. What is so broken inside of these folks that they lack any and all compassion about the victims of this pandemic until it happens to them or their loved ones? They bombard school board meetings, and threaten teachers with violence over mask mandates, only to die gasping for air, without their families around them. 

I’m done with these people, most of whom could have avoided getting sick and hospitalized, causing the deaths of other people who cannot get the care they need because ICU’s and emergency rooms are full, or about people using fucking sheep dewormer as a treatment being rushed to the hospital—and never in my wildest dreams could I have imagined such immense irony existing in the world, as people who call us sheep, making themselves sick on sheep dewormer. 

I also must uncomfortably admit to having reached a point with our socio-political landscape, where I do not believe most of these people can be reached with education, reason, or compassion, and I fear Darwinism is just going to deal with it, which really sucks, because they keep taking other people down with them.

Does that make me as nihilistic as they are? Maybe, but I don’t think so. As I said, I’m actually uncomfortable with that admission, and I think my cynical outlook is simply rooted in exhaustion, and grief, not only over the needless loss of so many lives—including people I know and the loved ones of several friends—but over what has become of our country and society, whereas they employed that nihilism for an agenda that is now biting them in their collective asses. 

I just hope the teeth are sharp, and tears a chunk right out of them.

The right wing cultural hysteria over the decision by Dr. Seuss Enterprises, a private company tasked with preserving Dr. Seuss’s legacy, to cease publication of six books, is as ridiculous as it is disturbing. Dr. Seuss was not canceled.¹ His books are not being burned, they are not being pulled from shelves, and they are not banned from libraries or schools. Instead, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, decided to cease publication of six titles, because they contain racist images.

“Then why not make them a teachable moment?”

Really? The target audience for these books are kids three to seven years old. Kids that age aren’t really capable of the nuanced and difficult conversations that older kids and adults can have about such difficult subjects, like, for example, the use of the “n” word in Huck Finn.² I mean, let’s be honest, far too many adults aren’t capable of those nuanced discussions, either. Not to mention, that at 7 p.m., when they’re tucking their wee ones into bed, the last thing the parents of a three or four year old wants to do, is start an explanation about racism. They’re reading to their kid, after a long day, and simply hoping that their kid will just go the fuck to sleep so they can go drink that glass bottle of wine in peace.

It’s also unlikely the kid is going to comprehend a discussion about the historical context of systemic racism and the use of imagery to perpetuate it. Hell, I remember getting blank looks when I tried to convince my young boys to just please get the pee in the toilet, thanks. Yet, studies show “that children as young as three can form racial biases, and those biases become fixed by age seven,” the exact target age of the books.³ Thus, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, after listening to a variety of experts, including teachers and academics, made the decision to cease publication of the six books, noting that they want Dr. Seuss’s books to reflect and support a variety of families and communities.

People, that is not cancelation, it’s curation. If you’re feeling a bit cynical about it, you could even say that it’s one of the most free-market, capitalist things a company can do: cater to the shifting norms and understanding of the society that constitutes its consumers. You don’t see any companies producing and trying to sell VHS tapes anymore, do you? You don’t see Lysol marketing itself as a contraceptive anymore, do you? Yes, that was really a thing that happened, and while kudos to them, I guess, for trying to sell a product that would otherwise be illegal for women to obtain at the time, it not only didn’t work, but was horrifically dangerous, and lethal.⁴

Curation of a company’s product line is not a new concept in publishing either. Fans of the classic film Willie Wonka & The Chocolate Factory, may recall that their beloved Oompa Loompas were orange creatures from a fictional land. Not so in the original publication of the book, wherein they were pygmies from Africa, brought by Wonka as slaves. On a ship. In cases with air holes in them (making Veruca’s demand that her father buy her one, even worse). The NAACP criticized this depiction, and Roald Dahl himself changed the book. The publisher of The Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew, have revised both those series, as early versions were replete with “dark,” “swarthy,” or “hook nosed” villains, among other problematic tropes.⁵ P.L. Travers, in a display of the aforementioned free-market, capitalist concept, revised Mary Poppins, after people objected to a racist description of a Black woman, stating that she did so not in apology, but because she didn’t, “wish to see Mary Poppins tucked away in a closet.”⁶ Even Dr. Seuss himself attempted some imperfect, if well intentioned, revisions of a few of his works, to tone down the racist stereotypes.⁷

“But it’s erasing our culture!”

Which culture is that, exactly? Is it the predominantly White culture that has ruled America since her inception, where racist images and tropes have cultivated and sustained the predominance of said White culture, despite our claims that we’re a “melting pot”, and pride in our immigrant heritage? No? Then do tell, because honestly, if your knee jerk reaction to no longer publishing a children’s book with racist images in it—images most people would object to in a brand new book—is to claim that your culture is being canceled, one has to wonder about the nature of your culture. In fact, me thinks I hear the Daughters of the Confederacy calling.

Seriously though, why is it that every time something people may not have originally realized was racist or otherwise insensitive is held up to criticism, the reflexive reaction is to act like something priceless is being taken away from them personally? Do they fear that their previous enjoyment of it will brand them as a racist? News flash: until you freaked out about racist images being “taken away from you,” no one thought you were a racist. So, hey, congratulations on outing yourself, I guess?

As a couple who grew into adolescence in the ’80’s, and enjoy sharing some of our beloved 80’s movies with our kids, my husband and I often are confronted with, “oh shit, I forgot about this part,” moments. Our memories supply us with how much we loved a given movie, but not about a given racist, or homophobic comment, or you know, rapey scene that everyone thought was funny at the time. That doesn’t mean we think that we’re racists, homophobes, or people who condone rape, or that others think we are. Rather, we think about the way some of those awful ideas were casually insinuated into the fabric of our society at the time, and how they redounded down into the perpetuation of racism, homophobia, and rape culture, and the work that has been done, and continues to be done, to counter those things.

Thankfully, unlike the target audience of Dr. Seuss’s books, our kids are of an age to have discussions about these difficult topics, although these days, they’re also discerning and educated enough, that they’re the ones most likely to point out the problem first. Guess what though? We don’t feel like our youth is being erased, just because some of the movies of that time are, in fact, actually horrible when viewed through a more educated and evolved lens, and should probably be consigned to the dumpster of history, or at least shown with context—you know, a teachable moment.

“Ok, you told us why it’s terrible, but why is it also ridiculous?”

Ah, this is where irony, reading, history, and biography come out to play, and point to the utter absurdity of right wing, conservative, Republican hysteria over Dr. Seuss. Most people are unaware that Dr. Seuss was also a political cartoonist for PM magazine, in the early 1940’s.⁸ During that time, Dr. Seuss penned scathing cartoons surrounding the isolationist, anti-intervention group, the America First Committee—which sought to keep America uninvolved in any way in WWII—because the AFC was highly entangled with the anti-Semitic, Nazi sympathizer Charles Lindbergh.⁹ While the AFC’s members included people from a variety of walks of life and political parties (including future presidents Ford and Kennedy), the membership of Lindbergh, and others of similar beliefs, nevertheless painted an ugly picture of American isolationist ideology. In addition to his cartoons opposing the AFC’s anti-intervention policies, and despite some of his earlier problematic imagery, Dr. Seuss also penned cartoons opposing anti-Semitism and racism.¹⁰ That the phrase, “America First,” was a rallying cry for Trump and so many of his supporters, was definitely not lost upon several historians and writers in 2016.
_{(Below is a sampling of Dr. Seuss’s work for PM.)}

So, I find it beyond hilarious that the MAGA crowd, which so willingly embraced Trump’s “America First” rhetoric and policies, which consistently clutches its pearls over comparisons to Nazis and fascists, while wearing anti-Semitic shirts to storm the U.S. Capitol, whose responses to asylum seeking children in cages ranged from “it’s their parents’ fault,” to someone else “did it first,” and who helped drive an increase in hate crimes against Jews and other minorities over the last several years,¹¹ is suddenly in a lather about an author who would likely have eviscerated them in his political cartoons.

But wait, it gets better! If these folks had ever actually read, but more importantly understood Dr. Seuss’s books, they’d know that, problematic illustrations aside, the messages are incredibly progressive, and in direct opposition to conservatism and Republican policies. In fact, they’re downright subversive! And when you think about how those messages are reaching young, impressionable minds, well, how dare Dr. Seuss indoctrinate our children in the concepts of tolerance, diversity, environmentalism, and the undermining of authority?!

Yes, I live for sarcasm, but it is all true. The Cat In The Hat, is about bucking authority and not conforming to expectations. The Sneetches and Other Stories, is a cautionary tale about racial prejudice and anti-Semitism, just as The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, is one about consumerism and the commodification of Christmas. The Lorax, is a poignant tale about environmentalism, and the dangers of industry and greed, while The Butter Battle Book, tackled the arms race. I Can Read With My Eyes Shut, stresses the importance of education, while Green Eggs and Ham, encourages people to step outside their comfort zones and experience new things.

If we’ve learned anything from the Trump years, and the ascendancy of this new Republican Party and its purported conservatism, it is that they gravitate to the conformity of authoritarianism, cling to White nationalism and racism, advocate for consumerism to the point of encouraging grandparents to take one for the team during a pandemic and die for the economy, gleefully deregulate environmental protections for the benefit of corporate profits, continue at times to escalate tensions with potential nuclear adversaries, attack education as “elitist,” and shun the concept of multiculturalism, in a fear riddled refusal to step outside their comfort zone of American superiority. The GOP and right wingers who are screaming the loudest over Dr. Seuss Enterprises choosing to stop publishing books with racist imagery, are the literal antithesis of every message Dr. Seuss’s books try to instill in our children.

And that? That is pure, glorious, ridiculous absurdity.

1. I was going to address the idea of “cancel culture,” but honestly that could be an entire post of its own. Simply put, however, the term is really a way to delegitimize the criticism of racist, sexist, homophobic, and other comments, jokes, and behavior, by those who have heretofore enjoyed the privilege of saying nearly anything they want, without consequence. While I believe reasonable conversations can be had around these topics, this catch-all phrase is used a casual dismissal of all such criticism, much like complaints in previous decades that “political correctness” had run amok, when people were told that using “faggot” and “retard,” were no longer socially acceptable. ↩︎

2. A simple online search of Huck Finn, and “racist language” turns up articles and classroom syllabuses dedicated to analyzing the usage of the word in the book, as well as greater discussions about the power of language. ↩︎

3. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/02/six-dr-seuss-books-cease-publication-racism; https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/02/six-dr-seuss-books-cease-publication-racism ↩︎

4. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/lysols-vintage-ads-subtly-pushed-women-to-use-its-disinfectant-as-birth-control-218734/; https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/lysols-vintage-ads-subtly-pushed-women-to-use-its-disinfectant-as-birth-control-218734/ ↩︎

5. In some ways this too was problematic, as they replaced ethnic villains with White ones, making the books generally very White, but the point is that they acknowledged the problem, and the books have never been out of print. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/09/dr-seuss-cancelled-theres-nothing-new-about-cutting-racism-from-childrens-books ↩︎
6. https://www.nytimes.com/1996/04/25/arts/p-l-travers-creator-of-the-magical-and-beloved-nanny-mary-poppins-is-dead-at-96.html ↩︎
7. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/mar/07/dr-seuss-books-product-recall-cancel-culture ↩︎

8. Actually, most people aren’t aware that even earlier in his career, he drew some awful racist advertisements, although his later works illustrate his evolution, however flawed, on that matter. https://www.businessinsider.com/before-dr-seuss-was-famous-he-drew-these-sad-racist-ads-2012-3#-10 ↩︎
9. https://www.britannica.com/topic/America-First-Committee; https://www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-Lindbergh/Germany-and-the-America-First-movement ↩︎
10. Despite his evolving position on racism against Blacks, and his opposition to anti-Semitism, Dr. Seuss was, like many others at the time, virulently anti-Japanese, and eventually supported the internment of Japanese-American citizens—something he later came to regret. His depictions of the Japanese people, and Japanese-American citizens, at that time were horribly racist. In 1953, however, he visited Japan, and a year later wrote Horton Hears A Who, which contained the line, “A person is a person no matter how small,” and was dedicated to “My Great Friend, Mitsugi Nakamura of Kyoto, Japan.” It is regarded by many as not just an apology for his previous, but an allegory about the American occupation of Japan. https://www.openculture.com/2014/08/dr-seuss-draws-racist-anti-japanese-cartoons-during-ww-ii.html; https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-editorial-dr-seuss-satirized-america-first-decades-donald-trump-made-policy ↩︎

11. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54968498; https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/08/14/trump-and-racism-what-do-the-data-say/ ↩︎

For the last couple of decades, I’ve had a lot to say, most of it not flattering, about the GOP, certain Republicans, and eventually, their voters and Trump. I’ve expressed concern and worry, and yes, anger, over racism, misogyny, homophobia, isolationism, anti-Semitism, White nationalism, and the anti-democratic processes and gamesmanship that the GOP repeatedly employed to exert an increasingly authoritarian, minority rule.

Over the last few years, I noted that all those things paved a road—a direct line from the Reagan era’s embrace of the “moral majority” and dog whistle racism, to less subtle Tea Party bigotry, and ultimately, to Trump. If the Reagan era’s point was to use those means to revitalize the Republican party— after the losses they had when the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts were signed, and the corruption of Nixon—the ensuing years, despite shifting national demographics, resulted in stagnation. Instead of increasing their base, and truly becoming the big tent party they claimed to be, the GOP instead doubled down on racist policies, on anti-immigrant sentiment, on Evangelical moralism, and on a brand of social conservatism, that was increasingly at odds with the beliefs of the majority of the nation, and the rights of many. Hell, even some in the GOP recognized a few elements of this in their own 2012 post-election “autopsy.”¹ Back then, I despaired of those I cared about, who were trying so hard to cling to what they believed, in spite of changing winds, that they grew complacent within their party. 

Until, finally, we reached this point in our history. This point, where a president who openly campaigned on racism, nativism, ableism, and divisiveness—and whose populism and personal life, were often in direct contravention of supposed conservative values—was elected by people, many of whom then felt emboldened to be openly racist, bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, and cruel, but who clutched their pearls and cried that they were being persecuted and silenced, when confronted about that ugliness. Trump, and this iteration of the GOP, was an inevitable result of what the Republican Party had embraced for years— condensed, refined, distilled, and with the ugly parts being said out loud. And those ugly parts? They became a feature, not a bug. 

And through all of this, I was condescended to. 

In my twenties I was told I was simply expressing the passion of youth, that I’d “grow up” eventually. In later years, that I was being unfair and “mean” to people with different opinions. I was told I was being hysterical, and called “Chicken Little.” I’ve been admonished for making any comparisons to Nazi Germany—because, apparently, unless something reaches genocidal levels, it cannot ever compare—which, of course, entirely negates the years of anti-Semitism, Nazi governance, and laws, that preceded and enabled the ghettos, the camps, and the Final Solution. Even well meaning, generally like minded people, told me “that can’t happen here.” My parents would tell me over dinner that friends of theirs asked why was I so angry (to which my response was always, “why aren’t they?) I’ve been told by some to spend my time more productively, or that I should relax. I’ve been yelled at, and told off, for offending people who, “just see things differently” from me. I’ve been told I need to “understand the other side,” and been treated to ridiculous moral equivalencies, and flaccid whataboutisms. For the last four years, this condescension has been exponential.

I kept warning that Trump and his enablers have been attacking our democracy and our elections—the cornerstone of our democracy—with a congressional GOP that was complicit in dismantling our constitutional guardrails, aided by silent co-conspirators in the White House that anonymously told the press they were some kind of buffer against Trump’s worst excesses, while silently, cravenly, permitting those excesses to continue. I specifically noted the fascistic and authoritarian maneuvers, and verbiage. I begged people to please stop making excuses for Trump’s incitement to violence, and his weak, obviously forced walk backs and platitudes against bigotry and White supremacy, such as the events surrounding Charlottesville. I tried to reason with people about the propaganda that Trump and his administration were spewing, which was spread by outlets like Fox News and their mouthpieces—Hannity, Carlson, Dobbs, Pirro, and Ingraham—and enabled—either by amplification, or failure to criticize—by nearly the entire GOP. To say that my exhortations fell on deaf ears among those who supported Trump, would be an understatement. Even among some of those who never supported Trump, or the GOP, there was a sense of complacency, that somehow, some way, there would be a peaceful transfer of power, despite all evidence to the contrary, and these four years of direct assaults on the guardrails and norms of our democracy. 

Watching the events that unfolded today didn’t make me sad. I didn’t shake my head in shock, or surprise. Instead, I’ve spent the day shaking with incandescent rage, because to anyone paying attention today’s events were absolutely not a surprise, and this was entirely predictable. No, I didn’t foresee these specific events, on this specific day, but Trump and the GOP have been fomenting this violence for years now—whether intentionally, or by cynically fanning the flames for their own agendas—and anyone paying attention saw it coming. 

This isn’t an “I told you so.” Or, I suppose, not entirely an “I told you so.” Rather, this is me being fucking furious at your condescension, and your willful denials. I’m livid at the intentional obtuseness, refusal to speak out or criticize any part of what’s been happening, and the general disregard, the sheer lack of empathy, for the damage being done to anyone who wasn’t you. I am over your fence sitting, your non-voting, your third party throwaway votes, and your pathetic bleats over being forced to pick the lesser of two evils. You were never asked to do that. You were asked to choose the greater good. You were asked to stand up for those who needed a voice. You were asked, at the very least, to stop the bleeding. 

And you failed. Miserably.

This is NOT an invitation to debate me, or whatabout me, or “not all Republicans” me. I’m not here for your racist “but Obama’s”, or your intellectually dishonest claims that Democrats hate Israel, or “but Antifa” bullshit, or your privileged panic over BLM.  I am quite aware of the issues within my own party. I have criticized members, and disagreed with policies both during the Clinton era, and Obama era. So, if after all this, you feel compelled to “whatabout” me and in any way wish to remain a friend? I highly advise that you don’t. 

Perhaps in a few days, a few weeks, or months, I’ll have a better handle on what I might want to hear or discuss. Perhaps, when I see this collective insanity subside, and see people acknowledge that they were wrong, that they were mistaken in their support, or that they were admittedly foolish for believing any of it. Perhaps, if I see even a glimmer of the soul searching we were asked to do after the 2016 election, a tiny measure of accountability, and humility, I’ll be able to calmly discuss these matters with someone else’s perspective. 

Perhaps. 

But not today.

Footnote 1 https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/what-you-need-to-read-in-the-rnc-election-autopsy-report/274112/

 

In the twenty-eight years since the Los Angeles riots, videos and reports of police brutality have become more and more commonplace, reinforcing what Black Americans have been saying for decades—and which most White people didn’t want to believe—that the lives of Black men, women, and children are regularly, systemically, in danger from the very officers sworn to protect the residents of America’s cities. Without demonizing all police officers, it’s clear that this trend far exceeds the idea of a “few bad apples.” Instead of confronting the inherent racism implicit in so many of these cases, however, we kept putting our heads in the sand, unwilling or unable to confront our complicity in maintaining a society which has condoned and excused these horrors since our nation’s founding.

I’ve spent the last few days thinking about how to approach this post, how to couch it and best get through to people who may read it, although sadly, I believe that those who most need to read it, won’t. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if some people clicked the back button as soon as they finished reading the first paragraph. Over the last couple of days, I backed off commenting on most social media posts, because this is a bigger conversation than can be, or should be, left to an angry back and forth on Facebook or Twitter.

What I’ve seen in many of the posts and comments I’ve read about the killing of George Floyd, the ensuing peaceful protests, and the unfortunate violence and looting, is not overt racism (although some of my friends have been subjected to that as well), but rather the difficulty many White people have, even those that I know are good, caring people, to articulate their sympathy and anger at the injustice and cruel violence seen in the video of George Floyd’s murder, while simultaneously demanding coherence, order…civility from the protestors. That dissonance, however, isn’t anything new. Today, most Americans hold up Martin Luther King, Jr.’s tenets of civil disobedience and non-violence as exemplars of how people, particularly Black people, should protest, but in the ’60’s, most White Americans disapproved of him.

As such, the conversations I reference, appear to come from something Dr. King described in his Letter From a Birmingham Jail, who noted that the biggest stumbling block to racial justice, is not groups like the KKK, but the White moderate, “more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: ‘I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action.’”

I think in this country, we White Americans struggle to understand that racism is an us problem, not a them problem. Black people shouldn’t have to convince us that they deserve equality, justice, or you know, not to be murdered by police. It should fall to us, to White people, to be against racism, not just to be not racist, but to be actively anti-racist. It is our responsibility, to call out racists, or racist behavior, in our institutions, communities, amongst our friends, and yes, amongst our families.

Now, that may strike a nerve, and you may have just reflexively, indignantly thought: not all of us well-meaning, White Americans are like that!”

I hope you’re still with me though, because I plan to dig a little deeper, and it may feel a little like a root canal.

Let me start with some truths about myself: I’m a Jewish woman, and a granddaughter of Holocaust survivors. I consider myself White-passing, because in this country, in my city of Los Angeles, in this time, I’m thought of as “White” by most people.¹ Whatever else I am, in the regular, day-to-day life of American society, that is how I’m seen and, therefore, I benefit from white privilege.

You just twitched a little, didn’t you? Did you have that knee-jerk, reflexive indignation again at hearing the phrase “white privilege”?

I get it, I do! So please, indulge me more.

The first time I heard the phrase “white privilege,” I was uncomfortable. Wasn’t I the child of immigrants who worked hard to get where they were? I got my first job at 14, and refused to be lumped in with the indolent, spoiled children of the uber wealthy. I wasn’t privileged! However, I don’t resist acknowledging my white privilege anymore, because I have learned and accepted a few things that maybe my fellow, well-meaning White friends haven’t yet.

First, the term privilege in this context does not mean that you haven’t had a hard life, or that you were born into wealth, nor does it mean that you didn’t work hard for that college scholarship, your professional success, or your nice home. It simply means that whatever other barriers and hardships you overcame in your life, your skin color was not one of them.

Second, I also realize that acknowledging that privilege, and the protection it gives me in our society, doesn’t mean I’m giving anything up. Equal opportunities? Civil rights? Human dignity? Common decency? They aren’t pies with finite numbers of slices in them. You will not run out of pie because you acknowledge your privilege. You will not be made lesser for acknowledging it.

Third, I understand that this privilege is sustained by systemic racism imbedded in the fabric of our society.

You twitched again, right? Thought, “but I’m not a racist,” didn’t you? Please, don’t, because that is not what I said.

No one is calling you a racist when they discuss systemic racism and how it may benefit us White folk. Discussions of systemic racism are about a system that, whether you are a racist or not, whether you want it to or not, still works to your benefit over the benefit of Black Americans. It’s about the overlapping systems of society that continue to perpetuate racist policies, and which sustain white privilege. Things like disparities in education, access to, and application of, the legal system,² voter suppression,³ job opportunities, home purchases, and in the disproportionate death of unarmed Black Americans at the hands of police.

I wrote that rather long introduction, because as White people we need context for the current events we see unfolding, and because we have to understand that our lived reality is not the lived reality of our Black friends, family, and fellow citizens. We have to stop pretending that as long as we all follow the rules, America is fair to everyone, because it most definitely is not. When you dig a little deeper, when you acknowledge those truths about our history and our privilege, you know that “equality for all” is at best an idealistic goal, and at worst a lie.

Please understand that I’m not holding myself up as a pillar of social justice, of racial harmony, or anything of the sort. Like some of you may be doing now, at some point I read something similar to this, and said, “but I’m not like that! Don’t lump me in with all of those people!” I believed that as a Jew whose family knew persecution and genocide, I couldn’t possibly be biased or prejudiced. I believed that if I said “I don’t see color,” it meant that I’m not a racist, while failing to understand that such a statement erases the lived experiences of many people. Imagine someone telling me they don’t “see” my Jewishness, that it is irrelevant to them, when the fact is that I am a Jew. It is a core part of who I am; to deny that would be to deny the history of my people, my family, and their suffering.

I came of age in the 80’s, and while I never ascribed to the political conservatism of the Reagan/Thatcher era, there is no doubt that the society and culture of the time contributed to all kinds of internalized biases that, if I’m honest, I only began to untangle well into adulthood, and which I still see as an ongoing process. I know that just in the course of the last year, the last few months even, I’ve made missteps. I’ve stepped into conversations that likely were not mine to be had, and spoke over the voices of the people I should have been listening to.

I am a work in progress.

The posts and reactions of the people that I believe to be well meaning, and who I believe aren’t racists, who want change to happen, but are like me, safe at home, protected in so many ways by their white privilege, illustrate a lack of understanding of the collective effect of all these deaths, of this incessant brutality, on Black Americans. Thus, these well meaning people recoil against the anger, vehemence, and yes, sometimes violence of the resulting protests, and so what I’ve read and heard has been a varying litany of: “I think what those cops did was terrible, but why can’t they protest peacefully?”

And all I can think is, “why would they?”

When eighteen year old Michael Brown was killed, I heard people admonish that he should not be the face of the protests in Ferguson, because he wasn’t a “good guy.” Similarly, when Eric Garner died, begging for breath, the refrain was that while his death was a shame, it’s not like he was a total innocent, selling loose cigarettes is a crime after all. Meanwhile, we regularly see White twenty year olds get slaps on the wrist for rape, and White men who murder people in movie theaters and Black churches, brought in with nary a scratch on them. We watch as armed White men storm capital buildings, in what can only be described as acts of terrorism, screaming in the faces of the police, intimidating legislators, but they are left alone, allowed to remain armed, and without consequence. The dichotomy begs belief.

Black Americans tried peaceful protests. The Black Lives Matter movement was born, and White America responded with, “all lives matter.” NBA players wore shirts with #ICan’tBreathe on them, and were criticized. St. Louis Rams players came on the field with “hands up,” and apologies were demanded from them. Colin Kaepernick silently knelt in peaceful protest, and he was run out of the NFL. In short, every time attempts were made to peacefully protest this relentless police brutality, Black Americans were told “not like that,” because it makes White Americans uncomfortable when we have to face these ugly truths about our society, and it is so much easier to ignore protests that aren’t all up in our faces, or in our neighborhoods, or during our favorite sporting matches.

But protest must be uncomfortable. It has to be loud, in places that draw attention, and I repeat: uncomfortable, uncomfortable, uncomfortable. Protests must threaten the status quo, otherwise they are ignored. People need to understand that what we’ve seen during the last week is a primal scream of pain, anger, frustration, and fear, and while I do not condone the violence and looting, I do understand the raw emotions behind what we are seeing, and I think it takes a lot of chutzpah to demand that such protests be done in a way that makes us White folks feel better or more comfortable, because we shouldn’t feel comfortable with them, not when we’ve ignored the causes of them for so long. 

Finally, maybe it is time to remind people that our nation’s independence, our revolution, was sparked by a protest and the destruction of property, only we like to call it a “tea party” instead. We celebrate it every Fourth of July, and even have a conservative political movement named for it. So sitting back, safe in our homes, or our gated communities, while we order deliveries during a pandemic—from “essential workers” that are mostly people of color—maybe we shouldn’t clutch our pearls in genteel horror, as we watch this nationwide paroxysm of grief and anger. Maybe we need to take a long, hard look at why people have been driven to this point, and what we can do to start putting things to right.

“To be silent and indifferent is the greatest sin of all.” ~ Elie Weisel

^{1. [I don’t fool myself, however, that it means I’m safe, even here in the United States, because anti-Semitism exists across time and geography. It has always considered us as something “other,” and it is something my people have grappled with for centuries, and still grapple with today.]↩}

^{2. [Resulting in mass incarceration of Black Americans at a disproportionate rate, as well as harsher sentencing.]↩}

^{3. [A dissection of how SCOTUS’s evisceration of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, has encouraged a return of voter suppression in Southern states, disproportionately affecting Black voters, is another entirely different conversation.]↩}