Today the court announced that cities and states can enforce bans on homeless people sleeping outdoors.  How will they do that?  By sending them to jail?  Homeless people usually have no money, so they can’t pay fines.  This ultra-conservative court likes to boast that it is inspired by “originalism” –- that is, reinforcing opinions in the original Constitution of 1789.  I’ve written elsewhere about how I believe this approach contradicts that of the men who wrote the Constitution.  They included the power to amend, since they knew that they couldn’t predict the future.  They also stated in the Ninth Amendment that all powers not mentioned in the Constitution belonged to the people.

     What this infamous court has done is bring back policies in effect until the early 19th century: debtor’s prisons.  Legal policy then believed in locking up people who couldn’t pay their bills.  Eventually, it was realized that this law was counter-productive: how could prisoners ever pay back money they owed?  One the many 19th-century critics who worked to abolish this heartless policy was Charles Dickens, whose own father had been in debtor’s prison.  This policy was considered heartless two hundred years ago.  Today it is inexplicably and needlessly cruel as well as useless.

     The second dreadful decision that came down this morning reversed 40 years of established environmental and healthcare policy, which allowed the government to intervene in unclear or questionable circumstances.  For the second time in recent years this supposedly “conservative” court reversed the established legal doctrine of “stare decisis” – i.e. “let the previous decision stand” unless there is an overwhelming need to reverse it.  The first time was two years ago when this court overturned Roe v. Wade, established for fifty years.  Shame on the six justices who voted for these dreadful decisions!

In October of 2022, shortly after the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade, replacing it with the Dobbs Decision, I sat on a Brooklyn College panel  called “Abortion, the Supreme Court, and Really Bad History.”  I joined two colleagues, one from History, the other an anthropologist, to decry the decision.  Roe relied on a woman’s right to privacy; Dobbs gave states the power to regulate abortion.  (If you’d like to hear it, it’s on my website, bonnieanderson.com, under Videos.)  I discussed conditions when abortion was illegal, which the Court never mentioned.  About 1,000 American women died each year from illegal abortions and hospitals established Septic Abortion Wards to treat those with major infections from the practice.  As many feminists have remarked, making abortion illegal does not do away with abortions, it just does away with safe abortions.

     Instead the majority of the Court both cited every anti-abortion law ever passed and embraced “originalism,” a doctrine which maintains that what was originally in the Constitution should prevail.  This strikes me as ludicrous.  Women are not mentioned in the Constitution; do we not exist?  Slavery was countenanced in the Constitution, should that still exist?  The U.S. Constitution contains both the power to amend and Article 9 of the Bill of Rights which holds that if not mentioned “all other rights are retained by the people.”   These clauses prove that holding to the original document goes against its original authors’ beliefs.

     In addition, the current Supreme Court opposed a standard legal doctrine: “stare decisis,” “to stand by things decided.”  This precept holds that a long-maintained law should be upheld except under extraordinary circumstances.  One such circumstance occurred in 1954, when the Supreme Court overturned its previous decision, Plessy v. Ferguson, which legalized segregation in 1896, with Brown v. Board of Education, which ended it in the schools.  The current Court declared that ending Roe was a similar decision.  But it wasn’t.  The vote in Brown was unanimous; that in Dobbs was not.  Brown widened civil rights; Dobbs curtailed them.  In addition, the majority justices argued that they were not overturning stare decisis, but just “reinterpreting” it.  In his opinion, Justice Alito cited Matthew Hale, a seventeenth-century jurist considered misogynist in his own day.  In addition to condemning abortion, which in common law had always been legal before “quickening,” i.e. when the embryo moved inside the womb, Hale defended burning women as witches.  In his opinion, Justice Thomas also advocated ending same-sex marriage and contraception, but not interracial marriage, since he is a black man married to a white woman.

     What about today?  Generally, judges recuse themselves from sitting on cases in which they have a personal interest.  Thomas’s wife, Ginni, has strongly advocated and worked for the election overthrow of Jan. 6, 2021.  Thomas has often stated that he and his wife are “one person.”  The U.S. flag hung upside down – a symbol of Jan. 6 – for a number of days outside Judge Alito’s residence.  The Pine Tree flag, with its slogan, “Appeal To Heaven,” flew outside his summer home for a while.  Alito has argued that his wife “likes to fly flags,” and puts the blame on her and a neighbor who supposedly antagonized her.  Thomas also separates himself from his wife’s actions.  Both have refused to recuse themselves from imminent cases dealing with Jan. 6.  Chief Justice Roberts, who originally declared that his position was that of “umpire,” has refused to intervene.  But what would an umpire do if one team flew the flag of its opponent?

     Can anything be done?  Traditionally, Congress can override the Court.  But this Congress is so divided that that cannot happen now.  However, there is another remedy, which Jamie Raskin, a Democratic representative from Maryland, has recommended.  He recently wrote that “The Constitution, and the federal laws under it, is the ‘supreme law of the land,’ and the recusal statute explicitly treats Supreme Court justices like other judges: ‘Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’” The only justices in the federal judiciary are the ones on the Supreme Court.  So the other justices could compel Alito and Thomas to recuse themselves.

     However, this is also unlikely.  What is needed is a decisive Democratic victory in November.  I’m hoping for a trifecta –- the Democrats winning the presidency, the senate, and the house.  At this time, the nation has split on the issue of abortion.  All the Southern states have banned it.  Most of the Northern states have not.  Remind you of anything?  These divisions over states’ rights preceded and helped to bring about the Civil War.  In this case, I don’t think there will be a Civil War.  Instead, I deeply believe that the Dobbs decision will insure a Democratic victory in 2024.    

The inspiration for this blog came in part from John Sayles’ wonderful 1995 film, Lone Star.  Set in a small Texas city, with Anglo, Mexican-American, and African-American populations, the story segues from the past to the present and back again.  It portrays characters both as they are now and as they were in previous generations.  Good and evil deeds are unearthed.  The male protagonist, an honorable sheriff, discovers his father’s villainy, even though the father had helped overthrow an even worse sheriff before him.  We learn that an overbearing restaurant owner, who berates her Mexican staff for “not speaking English” and condemns “wet backs” who enter the United States against the law, crossed the Rio Grande illegally herself.  The female protagonist, her daughter and a teacher, ends the film by saying, “Forget the Alamo.”

     This sparked what I have been thinking about the Middle East, most particularly the Hamas-Israeli War.  History in that region goes back for millennia.  No one ever forgets the wrongs done to them in the past.  But this feuding prevents any solution today.  Here are two current examples.  What Hamas did to Israeli civilians –- killing and taking well over a hundred of them hostage –- was horrific.  But it was not a Holocaust, that is destruction or slaughter on a mass scale.  For Israelis and their government to call it that, as they have and continue to do, prevents any resolution of the conflict.

     Conversely, the oft-quoted Palestinian slogan, “From the river [Jordan] to the sea [the Mediterranean],” which refers to Palestinian territory, also implies that Israel, which occupies the same area, should not exist.  This saying also prevents any resolution of the current war.

     I have spent my life teaching and writing history.  I think historically and believe that people need to know history to understand the present.  But not in this case!  To resolve this horrible war, I believe history needs to be forgotten.  Instead of repeating old grievances, treat your opponents as human beings.  They have the same needs and emotions as you.  That is the only successful way to deal with this dreadful situation.  If Israelis conceive of this struggle as a “Holocaust,” they can ignore the discrepancy between the hundreds of Israelis Hamas killed and the tens of thousands –- many of them children – that they have.  If Gazans keep declaring “From the river to the sea,” they give tacit approval to eradicating Israel completely.       

     Instead, I believe that both sides need to forget history and focus on the present.  Treat your opponents as human beings, as human as you yourselves are.  I think that will provide the only possible solution to this ghastly war.

Back in 1970, during the Vietnam War, then President Nixon ordered that the United States attack Cambodia.  In response, many students on campuses across the nation went on strike.  At Kent State University in Ohio, the National Guard was brought in to quell disturbances.  They fired at students and killed four of them.  Nine others were wounded.  The photo of a female student, screaming as she knelt over the body of dead classmate, was widely broadcast.  Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young’s song, “Four Dead in Ohio,” followed shortly after.  Soon over 4,000,000 students went on strike at 700 colleges, universities, and high schools.  34 college presidents wrote Nixon protesting the war.

     I was a graduate student at Columbia then, teaching two classes.  I and many others refused to hold classes on campus.  A few months later, two more students were killed at Jackson State University, a black institution in Mississippi.  These deaths did not receive the nearly the same amount of publicity as those of white students, causing black leaders to protest.  That was one of the many ways in which the Vietnam War impacted college campuses.

     What about now?  The Hamas attack on Israel occurred on October 7.  On the 18th, Inna Venikov, a Republican NYC council member, brought a gun, openly carried, to a pro-Palestinian rally at Brooklyn College, where I taught for many years.  She was arrested, found to have a “concealed carry” permit and a gun that didn’t work and so, was released.  The group Students for Justice in Palestine was suspended at Brandeis, Columbia, and George Washington Universities.  Three college presidents at the City University of New York then prevented students from holding pro-Palestinian rallies on their campuses.

     In early November, students at UCLA held such a demonstration, which Republicans then denounced.  Christopher Wray, head of the FBI, declared that antisemitism had reached “historic levels” and warned of attacks on both Jews and Muslims.  The White House amplified attempts to fight such attacks, but prioritized those against Jews.  “Israelism,” a film questioning Zionism, was not allowed to be shown at Hunter College and the University of Pennsylvania.  Some campuses celebrated Hamas.  On others, Jewish and Muslim students were threatened.  Jewish donors began taking back money they had previously given.

     A group I’ve belonged to for many years, Historians for Peace and Democracy, decided to present a resolution “In Defense of the Right to Learn” at the American Historical Association’s meeting in early January.  Cory James Young, a historian at the University of Iowa, sent in a letter in its support defending pro-Palestinian students.  I wrote him and the group that I thought Jewish students should be added, since they were also being threatened (by campus signs of “Holocaust 2.0” among others).  He agreed.  The final resolution called for supporting accuracy in teaching, organizing campuses not to attack history or historians, defending academic freedom, and encouraging the right to learn.

     One problem that arose in the ‘70s and also today is whether or not universities should prohibit or punish what students or student organizations declare.  During the Vietnam War a faculty committee at the University of Chicago issued the Kalvan Report, arguing that universities should not censor their students and instead should sustain “an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry.”  “A good university,” it maintained, “like Socrates, will be upsetting.”

     This issue was raised in the U.S. Congress a few days ago, when Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik asked three college presidents if they would condemn those advocating “genocide” for Jews.  Moustafa Bayoumi, in the Brooklyn College English Department, correctly called this “the dead cat on the table” strategy.  That means that when you want to distract people from real issues (like Trump, whom Stefanik has consistently supported), you throw a “dead cat” –- an issue that demands attention -- in its place.  What Stefanik, and every other Congress member failed to mention was that “genocide” of Jews has not been advocated on any campus.  The presidents equivocated, instead of exposing this fallacy and saying they would handle it if it arose.  One of them has had to resign for her failure to condemn this supposed threat.

     This event brings to mind the famous issue of “not yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.”  This statement was made by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a Supreme Court decision of 1919.  The case, Schenk vs. the U.S., ruled that speech protesting the national draft was not protected by the First Amendment.  (Obviously, you are allowed to shout “fire” if the theatre actually is on fire.)  Much later, during the Vietnam War in 1969, the court ruled that such speech could be penalized only if it produces or incites “imminent lawless action.”  

     This decision provides an important precedent for today’s campuses and their presidents.  As the Brown University philosophy professor Felicia Nimue Ackerman wrote, “Of course, the tactics of Students for Justice in Palestine ‘can provoke discomfort’ on college campuses.  So what?  Although some S.J.P. tactics, such as impeding student access to classes, are unacceptable, discomfort is inevitable institutions dedicated to the free expression of ideas.”  I completely agree.

    For almost a year I’ve been writing a memoir which has consumed most of my creative energy.  I’m now working on the eighth and final chapter.  The first one, “History,” begins with a description of a postcard I’d saved for decades.  It portrays a girl of about 10 who looks just as I did then, with black hair held back by a band.  She’s reading a book and all you can see is the title “History.”  A caption says, “I’m not cynical, I’ve just been taking notes.”  I then delineate how history has shaped my thinking and career.  The second chapter, “Family,” briefly traces the 19th-century roots of my ancestors in the United States –- my father’s family settled in Shreveport, LA; my mother’s in Johnstown, PA.  It then focuses on my immediate family life in New York City.  “Marriage” first describes my marriage to Art Anderson, whom I wed in 1965, when I was twenty-two, and left in 1976.  It then goes through my long relationship with Stanley Malinovich, whom I met in 1984.  “Sex” deals with the period in between, when I (and many others) were very active sexually.  “Friends” goes through the important friendships in my life, beginning with Judy Zinsser, whom I met in 9th grade and still am close to today.  It ends by describing a few lost friendships.  “Therapy and Medicine” deals both with two therapists I consulted and the many times that medicine has saved my life.  “Politics” describes my activism from childhood until today.  And the last one, “Living,” discusses what has enabled me to keep on going.

     All of these except the last one have been read and commented on by the wonderful German Women’s History Study Group, going strong since the 1980s.  They’ve been immensely helpful, even though little of this manuscript deals with German women’s history.  For instance, they told me that I couldn’t just say, “It was the seventies” in the Sex chapter, since everyone younger than me wouldn’t understand what that meant.  When I finish, I’ll need to rewrite everything.  But rewriting is easier than writing.  I still need a good title.  And when I’m done, I’ll need an agent and may well ask you for help with that.

     In the meantime, I’m very impressed with Bernie Sander’s remarks on the current Israeli-Palestinian crisis.  Sanders, the long-term Vermont senator, is my age and like me, a non-religious Jew.  Here’s his statement:

Hamas’ terrorist assault on Israel will have horrific short- and long-term consequences.

As a result of this attack, thousands of Israelis and Palestinians – including many women and children – have been killed and injured. That toll will rise. The gunning down of young Israelis at a music festival is an image the world will not soon forget.

Longer term, this attack is a major setback for any hope of peace and reconciliation in the region – and justice for the Palestinian people. For years, people of good will throughout the world, including some brave Israelis, have struggled against the blockade of Gaza, the daily humiliations of occupation in the West Bank, and the horrendous living conditions faced by so many Palestinians. For many, it is no secret that Gaza has been an open-air prison, with millions of people struggling to secure basic necessities. Hamas’ terrorism will make it much more difficult to address that tragic reality and will embolden extremists on both sides, continuing the cycle of violence.

Right now, the international community must focus on reducing humanitarian suffering and protecting innocent people on both sides of this conflict. The targeting of civilians is a war crime, no matter who does it. Israel’s blanket denial of food, water, and other necessities to Gaza is a serious violation of international law and will do nothing but harm innocent civilians. The United States has rightly offered solidarity and support to Israel in responding to Hamas’ attack. But we must also insist on restraint from Israeli forces attacking Gaza and work to secure UN humanitarian access. Let us not forget that half of the two million people in Gaza are children. Children and innocent people do not deserve to be punished for the acts of Hamas.

     Two prominent youth activists — gun safety advocate David Hogg and Kevin Lata, 26-year-old Democratic Rep. Maxwell Frost's 2022 campaign manager — are launching a new organization called Leaders We Deserve seeking to put more young people in elected office.  "A big part of this...is electing young people that have the values of our generation, that understand the anxiety of not knowing if you’re going to be able to survive math class," Lata told NBC News.  "Running for office is so hard, I mean, it's it's gotta be one of the hardest things there is to do and for a young person it's even harder." Lata added that "young people just don't necessarily have the political connections or fundraising connections. So the idea is ... we'll help raise money for them. We will work to try to help get them, get connected with reporters to write stories about their races ... just like work really closely to help them build out the mechanics of the campaign."

     I just learned about this group today.  I sent them $50 and am supporting them monthly.  Of course, gun control is another issue that especially concerns young people!  Attention to it can help them decide to vote.

     The Republican Party recently declared that they plan to oppose any measure to curtail climate change.  Climate change affects all of us, but especially young people, who will have to spend their lives dealing with its consequences.  In addition, Republicans have continued their attacks on gay, trans, and non-binary people.  This is another issue where young people completely disagree with this “strategy.”  For recent generations, sexual orientation is a non-issue, a simple fact of someone’s identity, which they have no problem with.  Finally, young people, as well as most Americans, are in favor of legal abortion.  And young people, who of course can get pregnant, are particularly affected by its criminalization.  Republican opposition to abortion has largely succeeded by suppressing voting rights, gerrymandering, and making it more difficult to change state constitutions, as is currently going on in Ohio. 

     When you read the Supreme Court majority opinions in the Dobbs case, which overturned Roe v. Wade, they are truly shocking.  Samuel Alito cited Matthew Hale as an authority.  Hale was a 17th-century jurist who believed that women should be burned as witches and executed if they attempted to end a pregnancy (which wasn’t even a crime then).  The other majority judges cited every single anti-abortion statute even established.  They failed to mention that the vast majority of these were passed in the late 19th century, when the nascent American Medical Association was attempting to oust midwives from the birthing process.  Not one of them mentioned the negative side of outlawing abortion: most hospitals housed “septic abortion wards” and nearly 1000 women died from illegal abortions each year.  Outlawing abortion only ends safe abortions.

     Given young people’s opposition to Republican positions on climate change, sexual orientation, and abortion, I think progressives should put their energy and money into encouraging young people to vote.  I’ve long supported voting rights organizations (another Republican strategy, and a sign that they’re on the losing side, is to curtail voting rights) and I’ve written them all this weekend.  They include MoveOn, Indivisible, and the Voter Action Project.

     I’ve written before about how I think Republicans are pursuing a losing strategy.  But to make sure they lose, let’s work to get out the vote among young people!                                

     A week ago, on July 6, Judge Lyle Frank of the Supreme Court of the State of New York issued a Temporary Restraining Order against New York City’s attempt to implement a new healthcare plan for retirees which would force us off Medicare and on to Aetna’s Medicare (Dis)Advantage Plan.

     His argument began by saying that retirees won on the merits of the case, since the city had promised its workers that they would receive a Medicare supplemental plan when they retired so it could not now re-neg on that promise.  The city used the word “will” in the Administrative code, so Judge Frank argued that is “to this Court a promise that is forward looking.”  Also, New York City promised that “the City will pay the entire cost of health insurance coverage for city employees, retirees, and their dependents.”  Retirees worked for city agencies, hospitals, schools and universities and as police, firefighters, and sanitation workers as well.

     Then, the court held that many retirees do not know if their doctors will accept the new Aetna plan.  Since many of the almost 300,000 city retirees are “elderly and infirm” AND the attorney for Aetna acknowledged that “there would very likely be situations where medical care deemed to be needed by a doctor for a retiree could be turned down,” the judge concluded that “irreparable harm would result.  There can be no more specific irreparable harm than this.” 

     Therefore, everything is put on hold.  Instead of having to decide whether to go with Aetna or pay for the Medicare supplemental plan ourselves (which would cost about $6000 a year) by July 10, we now can wait and see.  The implementation of this plan on September 1st is also postponed.

     The city and Aetna will almost certainly appeal this decision.  But a lawyer friend has told me that this opinion “is very strong.”  In the meantime, we need to support the retirees’ attorneys and be ready to swing into action again.  But it’s a great decision and a weight has lifted off our shoulders.  It’s difficult enough being old (and at least 10 retirees are over 100) without having to figure out new health plans and programs.  La lutta continua!

This is a talk I recorded for the 50th anniversary of the Berkshire Conference on the History of Women. I was on the plenary session to speak on Transnationalism, but only given a few minutes to do so. I was so concerned about time that although I used Ernestine Rose as the example of a transnational person, I forgot to mention that she was an ardent feminist (then called a “woman’s rights woman”), an abolitionist and a free-thinker.

     I haven’t written a blog lately because I’ve been too busy writing about another issue:  New York City’s decision to remove its nearly 300,000 retirees from Medicare and force us onto Aetna Medicare (Dis)Advantage.  This is one of the many ways Mayor Eric Adams is hoping to cut costs.  I’m amazed both by the effrontery of the move and by the lack of response to it, except among retirees.

     I worked for the City University of New York for 33 years.  Part of my, and every other city worker’s contract, was that we would go on Medicare when we were 65.  We all pay for Medicare from our Social Security payments (the amount is deducted before you receive the monthly Social Security checks –- a surprise to me and many others).  The city subsidized the drug benefits.  I remember a cartoon from years ago where a right-wing person was shouting, “Hands off my Medicare!”

     Medicare “Advantage” programs are commercial and designed to make money.  The city worked out some special provisions with Aetna, but in a lengthy two-hour Zoom session, Aetna failed to mention that it’s only in effect for five years.  After that, they can make whatever changes they want.  Also, the Aetna representative kept stressing that “If your doctors take Medicare, they’ll take us, because we pay the same amount.”  What he failed to mention is that Aetna requires a great deal more paperwork than Medicare, which many doctors don’t want to do.

     I’ve written every city official I could think of about this situation: Mayor Adams, Comptroller Brad Lander, my Council Member Shahana Hanif –- all to no avail.  I wrote the mayor, “You may think you can do what you want to us because we can’t strike, but we VOTE!”  I also wrote the New York Times.  They require that your letter be tied to a recent article and I pegged mine to one on how doctors suffer from Medicare Advantage programs.  Nothing happened.

     Time is of the essence here.  We have to decide what to do by June 30th.  The system changes on September 1st.   We recently got an email from the NYC Retirees Group, saying “Don’t panic, things may change.”  There’s a lawsuit in the works, etc.  One problem is that the mayor’s former workmates, the Police Union, voted in favor of this change, as did the Sanitation Workers.  All the rest of us: Fire Fighters, Hospital Workers, Teachers, and Professors, voted against it.

     Having consulted a lot with colleagues and retirees’ groups, I’ve pretty much decided to opt to stay on Medicare.  I’ll take out a Medigap policy for drugs with AARP.  Both my sister and some friends have that and like it.  But I sure hope there’s publicity about this issue and that things change before the middle of June.

     My favorite cartoon after the 2022 midterm elections was Barry Blitt’s New Yorker cover of November 21st.  It depicts a dejected elephant standing on a surf board aground on a beach.  The predicted “red wave” of a Republican victory never happened.  Instead, the Democrats lost a few seats in the House and retained control of the Senate – a feat not duplicated since FDR was president in 1934.

     After such a defeat, you might expect a party to rethink its strategy.  The Republicans did so in 2013, following Mitt Romney’s loss to President Obama, writing an “Autopsy Report.”  However, it was largely ignored and President Trump’s 2016 signaled its death – Trump despised the report.

     What about this time?  Since most candidates who backed Trump’s “big lie” that he really won the 2022 presidential election lost, one might expect them to have lost ground.  On the contrary.  Ultra right-wing Republicans now sit on vital House committees, following Kevin McCarthy’s pyrrhic victory to become Speaker of the House.  After 15 separate votes, McCarthy finally succeeded, but the price was very steep.  He had to agree that a single member could ask for a vote to unseat him.  He had to put hardline right wingers on important committees, like Intelligence and Judiciary.  And he has had to support George Santos, a proven congenital liar, who faked his degrees, jobs, and expertise on his resume, including the “fact” that he was “Jew-ish” (he wasn’t).  At the same time Santos omitted important facts, like his performances as a drag queen in Brazil.  But McCarthy needs to back him, because his margin in the House is so low.

     Meanwhile, what have the House Republicans done?  They have asserted that they want to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, and the income tax, replacing it with a 30% sales tax.  This would fall largely on the middle and lower classes.  None of these policies is at all popular, except perhaps with the right-wing ultra-rich.  Finally, they are now threatening to withhold raising the deficit.  This involves not paying for monies already spent by the government.  To do so would greatly affect the faith and credit of the United States of America and end payments like social security, Medicare, and the salaries of U.S. representatives. 

     Does all this constitute a winning strategy?  I don’t think so and for the first and probably only time in my life, I find myself agreeing with Donald Trump, who urged his party not to cut social security, Medicare, or use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip against the Democrats.  President Biden has already declared he will not bargain over the deficit.

     If the Republicans keep this up, and there’s no indication that they won’t, I predict it will be a major losing strategy for what once was the “Grand Old Party.”  May it be so.

Here is my section of an event at Brooklyn College on October 18th.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

In the middle I write that “Pro-abortionists cited Brown v. Board of Education….” in talking about stare decisus. It should read “Anti-abortionists” instead.

     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

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