ROE, ROE, ROE THE VOTE!

I was thinking about writing a blog this month and realized that I was too busy working for the election.  So I’m writing about that.  It’s less than five weeks to the mid-term elections on November 8th.  These elections are crucially important.  If the Democrats win, laws affecting all of our lives can be passed.  If not, we return to Trump and his Republicans’ failed policies.

     Some of the most important laws are, first, reversing the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade.  The Republican fiction that this “just gave power to the states” has been negated by two events.  First, a number of states have denied abortion in all cases, including rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother.  Other states prevent doctors from intervening unless the mother is near death, even if the fetus has died.  Second, Lindsey Graham and the Republicans have proclaimed that they will pass a nation-wide abortion ban.  Regardless of your personal feelings about abortion, do you believe you really have the right to determine this policy for all Americans?  The Supreme Court does.  Judge Alito’s opinion included the theories of Sir Matthew Hale, considered a misogynist even in his own time, the 17th century.  In addition to outlawing abortion, Hale argued that women could be burnt as witches and that husbands could rape their wives.  Judge Clarence Thomas went even further.  He argued that the court should rule against same-sex marriage and outlaw contraception.  (I’m not making this up.)  He did not rule against inter-racial marriage, however, since he is a black man married to a white woman.  What hypocrisy!

     It is not only abortion that is on the ballot this year.  A number of Republicans, and even their amazingly vague platform, have argued that states have the right to overturn federal elections (one of Trump’s main tactics in 2020) and against renewing both Social Security and Medicare.

     So what have I been doing to counter this – and what can we all do?  First, I have been donating money to Democratic candidates.  First, for the Senate, second for the House, and third, for Governors.  I think we have a good chance to take the Senate, in part because of the caliber of many Republican candidates, like Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania.  We have a more difficult time taking the House, largely because of Republican gerrymandering, but it is still possible.  We won the House in 2020 and the same gerrymandering was in effect.  Finally, there are some tight and important governor’s races: in Florida, Texas, and Georgia.  Christ vs. Desantis in Florida, O’Rourke vs. Abbot in Texas, and Abrams vs. Kemp in Georgia.

     So what can we do?  First and most important, DONATE MONEY!  Now is the time!  Second, write postcards to people in swing states, urging them to vote.  Both Indivisible and MoveOn will send them to you.  Personally, I’m writing to folks in Pennsylvania.  It’s not too late to do this and it makes a big difference.

         Finally, we can canvas, especially if we live in swing states.  I did this in previous elections, but can’t right now.  But you all can – or convince those you know in those states to do so.  This election is vitally important to all of us.

Student Debt

In order to understand student debt in the United States, we need to know its history.  For this nation’s first decades, college was limited to a wealthy few.  But quite early on, some important founders argued for free higher education.  In 1822, for instance, James Madison wrote that “the liberal appropriations made by the legislature of Kentucky for a general system of education cannot be too much applauded….Enlightened patriotism…is now providing for the State a Plan of Education embracing every class of Citizens.”  Madison and others of his era probably relied on Adam Smith’s arguments in favor of free public education.  In his influential book, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, Smith argued that a nation’s wealth lay not in its gold or silver, but in an educated labor force.  One of the state’s few functions “in a civilized and commercial society” should be providing institutions “for promoting the instruction of the people” so that “even a common labourer may afford it.” 

     This view was greatly strengthened in 1862, when Pres. Lincoln signed the first Morill Act.  This law gave federally controlled land grants to the states, so that they could sell them to fund “land-grant” colleges.  Throughout the nation, these colleges became large public universities.  They were either completely free to students or charged a nominal fee, like $20.

     My own institution, the City University of New York (CUNY), was free from its inception in 1849 through the Great Depression of the 1930s and into the 1970s.  But then things changed.  Ronald Reagan believed that “students are spoiled and don’t deserve the education they are getting.”  His advisor, Roger Freeman, declared, “We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat….That’s dynamite!  We have to be selective on who we allow [to go to college].”  Reagan imposed tuition on the University of California when he was governor.  As president, he urged others to follow suit.  In 1976, CUNY imposed tuition for the first time in its history.  Other public universities did the same.

     The result was both higher salaries for professors, who traditionally were poorly paid, and rising student debt.  Today, student debt in the United States has reached a whopping $1.75 trillion.  48,000,000 Americans have student debt; the average amount is almost $30,000 apiece.  87% of them make less than $75,000 a year.  Like all debts, its interest is compounded, so that those who owe end up paying far more than what they originally borrowed.       

     Fulfilling his campaign promise, Pres. Biden recently reduced this debt to some degree.  For Pell Grant students, that is those with incomes of less than $60,000, $20,000 of debt is cancelled.  For students with incomes up to $125,000, $10,000 of debt is cancelled.  Those with higher incomes get no relief.  80% of the current recipients of debt cancellation earn less than $75,000.  There is a racial component as well: a majority of the lower  income students are black.

     For someone like myself, who wanted all student debt cancelled, this is only partial relief.  But to others, this is much too much.  A dear relative of mine recently wrote on Facebook: “People cry, ‘My body my choice.’  Well I say ‘Your student loan, your payments.’”  However, I believe the two situations are not comparable.  My body is integral to my identity and I cannot change it.  Student debt is more like taking out a mortgage.  If mortgage rates decline, no one condemns the people who then pay lower rates than they did.  Your relief should not cause me pain.  Part of Biden’s plan holds colleges accountable if they simply raise prices.  And borrowers who work in the military, government, or in a non-profit receive more credit toward loan forgiveness.  Many of the politicians who condemned this relief received far more money under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).  They never criticized that.

     Almost every other advanced nation provides free college tuition (and free health care, but that’s another issue).  As Adam Smith argued so long ago, the “education of the common people requires…the attention of the public.”  It can only improve our nation, both in itself and in competition with others.

A Dangerous Strategy, or Everyone Should Know Some History

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that Democrats have spent $20,000,000 supporting Trump candidates in Republican primaries. The theory is that these candidates will be easier for Democrats to beat.

But this dangerous strategy was tried before: in Germany in the early 1930s. The Socialist Democrats decided to back Nazi candidates on the same theory, that they would be easier to beat. They also figured that people would be so repulsed by the Nazis that they would repudiate them. I think we all know how that turned out. Not only did the Nazis win, they then ousted the Social Democrats and all other liberal parties from all politics.

Gaming the system in this way is a very dangerous strategy. It’s far better to be straightforward and run good candidates. Our democracy is still in peril from the Trump era and this is not the way to save it.

Just Issued by Merrick Garland

DOJ statement: Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, June 24, 2022

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today released the following statement following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al.:

“Today, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held that the right to abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution.

“The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society. And in renouncing this fundamental right, which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed, the Court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, a key pillar of the rule of law.

“The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect – with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means.

***

“But today’s decision does not eliminate the ability of states to keep abortion legal within their borders. And the Constitution continues to restrict states’ authority to ban reproductive services provided outside their borders.

“We recognize that traveling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many circumstances. But under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal. Moreover, under fundamental First Amendment principles, individuals must remain free to inform and counsel each other about the reproductive care that is available in other states.

“Advocates with different views on this issue have the right to, and will, voice their opinions. Peacefully expressing a view is protected by the First Amendment. But we must be clear that violence and threats of violence are not. The Justice Department will not tolerate such acts.

***

“The Justice Department will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom.

“Under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, the Department will continue to protect healthcare providers and individuals seeking reproductive health services in states where those services remain legal. This law prohibits anyone from obstructing access to reproductive health services through violence, threats of violence, or property damage.

“The Department strongly supports efforts by Congress to codify Americans’ reproductive rights, which it retains the authority to do. We also support other legislative efforts to ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services.

“And we stand ready to work with other arms of the federal government that seek to use their lawful authorities to protect and preserve access to reproductive care. In particular, the FDA has approved the use of the medication Mifepristone. States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.

“Furthermore, federal agencies may continue to provide reproductive health services to the extent authorized by federal law. And federal employees who carry out their duties by providing such services must be allowed to do so free from the threat of liability. It is the Department’s longstanding position that States generally may not impose criminal or civil liability on federal employees who perform their duties in a manner authorized by federal law. Additionally, the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has determined that federal employees engaging in such conduct would not violate the Assimilative Crimes Act and could not be prosecuted by the federal government under that law. The Justice Department is prepared to assist agencies in resolving any questions about the scope of their authority to provide reproductive care.

***

“The ability to decide one’s own future is a fundamental American value, and few decisions are more significant and personal than the choice of whether and when to have children.

“Few rights are more central to individual freedom than the right to control one’s own body.

“The Justice Department will use every tool at our disposal to protect reproductive freedom. And we will not waver from this Department’s founding responsibility to protect the civil rights of all Americans.”

11

1 Comment

Like

Comment

Share


Bonnie AndersonComment
Today's "Supreme" Court

For Americans like myself, who are old enough to remember when abortion was illegal, having to fight this battle again is both dismaying and unnecessary. Every poll insists that at least 60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal. 30% of anti-abortionists believe it should be legal in some instances, like rape or incest.[1] And yet the Supreme Court has overturned it!

The majority's argument was based on the ludicrous proposition that since abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution in 1868, the 14th Amendment ("equal protection under the laws") does not apply. This is a ridiculous and dangerous argument. The Constitution does not mention abortion. It also does not mention women – does that mean that women should not exist? It does not mention slavery by name, yet slavery both existed and was protected by the original Constitution, which called slaves “other persons” and forbade ending the slave trade before 1808.

The so-called “originalist” position, held by this conservative majority, makes no sense to me. The brilliance of the Founding Fathers was to acknowledge that they did not know what the future would bring. They put the power to amend in the Constitution, only limiting it to not creating a new monarchy. Article IX of the Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would not have been ratified, states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This seems pretty clear to me.

The Court which ruled against abortion is profoundly undemocratic. All the justices who want to reverse Roe v. Wade were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote (Bush and Trump). A number of them lied during their confirmation hearings about this issue. Finally, such a ruling would overturn the legal doctrine of “stare decisus,” which holds that long-established law should not be overturned. Anti-abortionists cited Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned segregation, as their precedent.

But overturning legal abortions will bring about terrible conditions. We know that outlawing abortion does not end the practice, it just ends safe abortions. When abortions were illegal, hospitals had what were called “septic abortion wards.” In the 1940s, 1000 women died each year from infections received from abortions.

One-third of those opposed to most abortions agree that they should be allowed in cases of rape or incest. But the states which hope to make abortions illegal do not make such exceptions. What about the eleven-year-old raped by her father? Such cases are exceptional, but they do occur.

Most abortions in the United States are now caused by medication which can be ordered online. Are states willing to interfere with people’s right to buy such products? They object to the “right to privacy” which underlay Roe v. Wade. How far are they willing to go to undermine all privacy?

Like

Comment

Share


Abortion, Again

     For Americans like myself, who are old enough to remember when abortion was illegal, having to fight this battle again is both dismaying and unnecessary.  Every poll insists that at least 60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal.  30% of anti-abortionists believe it should be legal in some instances, like rape or incest.[1]  And yet the Supreme Court seems ready to overturn it.

     This last statement is based on Judge Alito’s leaked opinion, which is supposedly supported by four other justices.  Alito’s arguments are ludicrous, especially to a historian.  He asserts – correctly – that the Constitution does not mention abortion.  It also does not mention women – does that mean that women should not exist?  It does not mention slavery by name, yet slavery both existed and was protected by the original Constitution, which called slaves “other persons” and forbade ending the slave trade before 1808.

     The so-called “originalist” position, which Alito’s holds, makes no sense to me.  The brilliance of the Founding Fathers was to acknowledge that they did not know what the future would bring.  They put the power to amend in the Constitution, only limiting it to not creating a new monarchy.  Article IX of the Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would not have been ratified, states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  This seems pretty clear to me.

     The Court which hopes to rule against abortion is profoundly undemocratic.  All the justices who want to reverse Roe v. Wade were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote (Bush and Trump).  A number of them lied during their confirmation hearings about this issue.  Finally, such a ruling would overturn the legal doctrine of “stare decisus,” which holds that long-established law should not be overturned.  Pro-abortionists cited Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned segregation, as their precedent.

     But overturning legal abortions will bring about terrible conditions.  We know that outlawing abortion does not end the practice, it just ends safe abortions.  When abortions were illegal, hospitals had what were called “septic abortion wards.”  In the 1940s, 1000 women died each year from infections received from abortions. 

      One-third of those opposed to most abortions agree that they should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.  But the states which hope to make abortions illegal do not make such exceptions.  What about the eleven-year-old raped by her father?  Such cases are exceptional, but they do occur.

      Most abortions in the United States are now caused by medication which can be ordered online.  Are states willing to interfere with people’s right to buy such products?  They object to the “right to privacy” which underlay Roe v. Wade.  How far are they willing to go to undermine all privacy?

     Now is the time to oppose such views.  I’m marching this Saturday, May 14, along with at least 700,000 of my fellow citizens.  Groups like the old Jane Collective, which enabled poor women to receive abortions are coalescing already.  Join us!


[1] Pew Research Center, May 6, 2022

A Women's History Month talk for NS1

I gave this presentation to the staff of NS1 in honor of Women’s History Month. Almost all the staff were tuning in remotely via Zoom. Unfortunately, the beginning wasn’t taped. I started with an old saw: “If March is women’s history month, then what’s the rest of the year? I then went on to state my theme — we’ve made some progress, but we still have a ways to go. I then began by portraying a world without feminism, that is, the world I grew up in, in the 1950s and ‘60s. I organized my description into three categories: 1. money and jobs, 2. authority, and 3. sex and gender. I began by recalled that jobs were then advertised “Help Wanted: Male” and “Help Wanted: Female.” Only 44% of women were employed and made 52 cents to the male dollar. That’s where the recording begins.

The other thing I want to add here comes near the end, when I was asked about good new books on the subject. I completely blanked on Lucy Delap’s wonderful Feminisms: A Global History, the subject of my previous blog. It’s terrific and available from the University of Chicago Press.

If you are having trouble seeing the video, go directly to the YouTube page

A Wonderful Book on Women's History

Lucy Delap’s Feminisms: A Global History is a magnificent book that widens the entire field of feminist

studies and employs a uniquely creative format to do so. The author, eager to overcome the exclusively white

and Euro-American sources of previous accounts, has used persons and sources from throughout the world

to narrate this saga. Employing a thematic approach rather than a chronological one, she is able to overcome

the limitations and biases of past histories. This tactic also enables her to show the connections and

influences among both disparate regions and time periods. She accurately surveys the last 250 years of

women’s activism. Feminisms, A Global History successfully remakes an entire field of study.

     The range of Delap’s scholarship is astonishing. She begins by citing an unnamed “lady of Africa”

claiming feminism in 1886. In her first few chapters, she goes on to portray feminists from India, Brazil,

China, Algeria, Trinidad, Japan, Burma, and Nigeria. And she doesn’t just mention these

activists. She conveys how they came to be feminists, what they did, and who they influenced. She also

demonstrates the conflicts and tensions they experienced and produced. “As a movement, feminism insists

on women’s inclusion in all areas of social and political life,” she writes in her Introduction. “But feminism

has its own forms of marginalization and has struggled to extend its boundaries to all women on equal

terms. Black, working-class, lesbian, trans, and bi-sexual, disabled, non-Western and non-Christian women

have often been shut out….”  Delap also includes better-known European and American feminists. Arguing

that feminism is best understood as a “conversation,” she advances the concept of “mosaic feminism” with

“politics in the cracks.”

     Here are some specific examples of these methods. In her second chapter, Delap has a section on the

Chinese concept of nannü. Composed of the Mandarin words for “man” and “woman,” “nannü” enabled the

early twentieth-century Chinese feminist He-Yin Zhen to link “distinctions of gender to the organization of

bodies, labor and power through cultural and economic life.” Ignoring Western European concepts, nannü

let He-Yin conceive of a world where the concepts of “man’s nature” and “women’s nature” would no longer

be necessary. “For her,” Delap concludes, “this implied the end of capitalism, the state, private property, as

well as racial and sexual difference.”

     In this same chapter, Delap reaches out to trans activists. Citing Raewyn W. Connell, a trans Australian

theorist, she details her analysis of the advantages of being male. Men’s incomes are twice that of women’s;

men have ten times the political accession of women; world-wide, men control the means of violence,

weapons and armed forces. “I call these advantages the ‘patriarchal dividend,’ for men, and this dividend is

not withering away!” Connell concludes. This section contributes powerfully to Delap’s discussion of

patriarchy.

     In another important example of Delap’s inclusivity, she analyzes early twentieth-century women’s

protests in British-governed Nigeria. The Igbo people of the Niger Delta gave women the power to control

their own market activities, the “omu.” When the British challenged this female authority, Nigerian women

contested their actions, using traditional methods. They stripped themselves almost naked to protest, threw

sand at the authorities, and loudly insulted them. Carrying machetes, the women opposed both

colonial and local male authorities. This so-called “women’s war” ended in disaster, as troops fired on the

protesters, killing 21 of them. Despite this loss, Delap concludes that these “memorable protests of 1929 can

be read as a contribution to the anti-colonial movements that resulted in the eventual ejection of British

rulers in 1960,” citing later women’s protests in the 1940s as well.

     While describing global feminist actions, Delap does not neglect European and North American ones.

Her fourth chapter begins with a detailed description of the English abolitionist Anne Knight’s creation of

brightly colored labels crammed with feminist inscriptions to be glued to letters. “‘Never will the nations of

the earth be well governed,’” began one, ‘until both sexes…are fairly represented, and have an influence, a

voice, and a hand in the enactment and administration of the laws.’” In this chapter on objects feminists

created, Delap easily segues to describing the colors suffragists wore to distinguish themselves. She also cites

later feminists writing chain letters to publicize their protests as well as using clothing, sanitary pads, and

colored wool to mark the fence they built to protest the missile site at Greenham Common in the 1980s.

     These events are detailed in Delap’s fourth chapter, entitled “Objects.” Her method of organizing chapters

thematically adds to her revolutionizing the subject of feminism. Most of these themes work extremely well.

Chapter One, “Dreams,” surveys utopian books and conceptions which furthered feminism. In addition to

citing the well-known Western novel, Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland of 1915 with its all-female society,

Delap analyzes the Bengali Rokeya Sakhawat Hussain’s Sultana’s Dream of 1905. In “Ladyland,” women

govern and set standards while men are confined to a harem. Arguing that Islam could set women free,

Rokeya also founded a Muslim Women’s Association, campaigned for female education, and translated

feminist texts from Britain and Afghanistan.

     Delap then turns to actual attempts to liberate women. She recounts the Russian Alexandra Kollontai’s

efforts advance women’s lives in the new Soviet Union. She then discusses the Indian Pandita Ramabai’s

Arya Women’s Society of 1882 which attempted to educate women. This effort influenced a young

Indonesian, Kartini, who went on to campaign for female education and against polygamy. After describing

a feminist dream of the English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, Delap concludes this chapter with a

discussion of late twentieth-century women’s poetry by Adrienne Rich and Audre Lord.

     Delap’s other thematic chapters are equally global and rich. “Ideas” surveys feminism’s opposition to

patriarchy and male domination. Drawing on such disparate traditions as “Christianity, socialism,

liberalism, constitutionalism, nationalism and republicanism,” feminism contends that

“sexual difference is not a natural division, but is imposed in different forms across time and space.”  Her

third chapter, “Spaces,” details how feminists have created not only “rooms of their own,” but also libraries,

presses, markets, shelters, and worship areas. Chapter 4, “Objects” is discussed above. Chapter 5, “Looks,”

delineates how feminists displayed themselves, whether in pink pussy hats, male clothing, Bloomer

costumes, or hijabs. Her section on “hijabistas” is sophisticated, recounting how some Muslim women wore

the veil to gain power against colonialism. Chapter 6, “Feelings,” explores how feminists have used anger,

the Chinese concept of “speaking bitterness,” and love for themselves and other women to advance their

actions. Chapter 7, “Actions,” follows naturally. While feminists avoided harming others, they used attacks

on property, strikes, and marches to oppose their antagonists. The universal Icelandic women’s “national

day off” in 1975 was especially effective, engaging 95 percent of the female population.

     Delap’s last chapter, “Songs,” is her least successful. It’s difficult to convey music in words. But her

conclusion regains this book’s power. Delap invokes Betty Friedan’s fear that feminism might have to “start

over.” Her book ends by asserting that “the richness of the global feminist past suggests otherwise.”

Ukraine

                                   

     A short while before the Russian attack, a friend declared that Ukraine should not fight because it would surely be defeated.  I replied, “I couldn’t disagree more.”  As a historian, I know how important motivation is in wartime.  The Ukrainians were fighting for their homes; the Russians were fighting because they were ordered to.  And whether or not the Ukrainians win, surely their struggle has been impressive.  Using what is available, they have slowed the Russian advance to the point where the Red Army is running out of food.  The Ukrainians have, for instance, used glass beer bottles from the Russian brand to make Molotov cocktails, re-inscribing the labels to read “Fuck you, Russians.”  They’ve removed all road signs and written the same on them.

     As a result of their endeavors, most of the world supports them.  Russia has become a pariah nation, shut off from banking, air travel, supplies, sports, and musical groups.  There’s a saying that goes back to Ancient Greece: “It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.”  No one person has proved this more than Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine.  Before the current events, I remembered the Ukrainian support of the Nazis in World War II.  But now they have a Jewish president and what a president!  Asked if he wanted a trip out of his embattled nation, he said, “I want ammunition, not a ride.”  There another old saying – that “God hates a coward.”  Both Zelensky and the Ukrainians have been heroic rather than cowardly.

     That is more than could be said for a number of Republicans, most notably Donald Trump, who asserted that Putin was “a genius” when he invaded Ukraine.  For a while, some Republican commentators, like Tucker Carlson, supported him.  So have Senator John Hawley of Missouri, and Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Matt Rosendale, and Thomas Massie, all of whom voted in Congress against support for Ukraine.  Now the Republican Party is back-peddling as fast as it can – except for Trump.  It may loosen his grip on the GOP.

     But regardless of U.S. politics, I believe that a Russian invasion of Ukraine cannot ultimately succeed.  Suppose they occupy that nation.  Will opposition and protest completely stop?  I don’t believe it will.  The cost of keeping innumerable Russian soldiers there, often against their will, plus the damage done by the other measures NATO and the United States have taken, have caused the ruble to plummet and the Russian stock market to close. 

     From its beginning to whatever its conclusion, this is a war fought with internet participation.  The Russians cannot be secretive any longer.  When it was revealed that the oligarchs who support Putin still had their yachts, those yachts were taken away.  Russia has alienated most of the world and the Ukrainians have won its support.