Letters: ENDA
Via acrimonyastraea, gudbuytjane: “Barney Frank, get out of my pants.”
In response, I wrote an email to my representative; I urge you to write to yours (find them here), as well as to Pelosi in her capacity as Speaker of the House (contact link).
Dear Rep. Pelosi,
I am emailing you to urge you to support a version of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that will fully protect the rights of transgendered individuals. Transgendered people are vulnerable to discrimination, harassment, and outright violence in our society for no reason other than their gender identity, and it is up to our government to take a stand in defense of their civil rights by passing an ENDA that includes their rights as well as the rights of GLBQI people. I was appalled by Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) transphobic comments about trans people, which were reported in RollCall on Monday:
“He said concessions were made in the drafting of the language to address moderates’ concerns. For instance, Frank said, transgender people with “one set of genitals” would not be able to go to a bathroom for people with another set of genitals.
And, Frank said, they also would have to have a “consistent gender presentation” in order to be able to sue for discrimination.
“They can’t sit there with a full beard and a dress,” Frank said.”
Those remarks call upon damaging and fearmongering stereotypes of transgendered people. Instead, I urge you to support a fully inclusive ENDA.
Sincerely,
[PD]
Well, I *Was* Thinking About A Droid
…and then this weekend I saw the Verizon/Motorola ad spots, which are all about how manly and robotic and fast and strong and super awesome and completely not girly the Droid is. Lines from the ad include “tiara-wearing digitally clueless beauty pageant queen” and, “it’s not a princess, it’s a robot.” Kara describes the ad at All Things Digital
“Should a phone be pretty?” [the ad] begins, using an odd series of images that is packed full of random misogyny. “Should it be a tiara-wearing, digitally clueless beauty pageant queen?”
Then comes all the manly imagery–a racehorse, a powerfully pointed Scud missile, bananas and buzzsaws to represent the Droid. A surging missile, as well as several creamy explosions too. Get it?
And let’s not forget the bunch of fey, effeminately-dressed mannequins, with one getting bashed with an ink-filled ball thrown by some tough masked thug with the line, “Is it a precious porcelain figurine of a phone?”
Then back to anti-women name-calling, saying an iPhone is a “princess,” unlike the Droid, “a phone that trades hair-do for can-do.”
The ad suggests that the Droid is a toy for techie men, and that women are universally delicate idiots who value aesthetics over tech capabilities. I’m quite disappointed, because I had been seriously considering purchasing a Droid (my family is currently debating between Droids and iPhones, although I think we’ll end up sticking with feature phones), and now my excitement over the phone has completely soured: I have absolutely no desire to support a product or a business that treats me, a potential customer, as an idiot. I have absolutely no desire to support the continued misogynistic stereotyping and dismissal of women by giving money that, ironically, I earned while working in a tech-related, male-dominated field, to a product sold with this ad campaign.
I wrote a letter to Verizon and Motorola, using the addresses from Geekfeminism’s post on the subject:
To Whom It May Concern,
I am currently a Verizon customer with a contract up for renewal and a phone upgrade. Based on the tech specs, I had been considering upgrading from my current feature phone and purchasing a Droid handset. Indeed, I was the one to suggest the Droid to my brother, who is also looking for a new phone; my father, who currently has an iPhone; and my mother, who is considering purchasing a smartphone herself and is also the final decision-maker on cell phone purchases and contracts for our family. I followed the early reviews of Droid on tech blogs and was strongly leaning toward a Droid over a BlackBerry or an iPhone.
Then I saw the “Pretty” ad spot for the Droid. In addition to being incoherent, the imagery and voice over in the ad suggests that the Droid is specifically a toy for manly, techie men. It suggests that women are obsessed with fluff and aesthetics and are too idiotic to care about a phone’s specs and technical capabilities (“tiara-wearing digitally clueless beauty pageant queen”; “it’s not a princess, it’s a robot”; “a phone that trades hair-do for can-do.”). I have no desire to spend my hard-earned money–money that I earned in a tech-related field, incidentally–on a product that is sold with misogynistic advertising. Congratulations: you’ve successfully soured my enthusiasm for the Droid and ensured that when I purchase a new handset, Droid will not be on the list of possible options.
Best,
[PD]
Ways Not To Strike Up A Conversation With A Woman
Dear Men-Who-Want-To-Talk-To-Women-But-Don’t-Know-How,
You’re interested in having a conversation with a woman, or at least that’s the impression I get from the way you yell and holler at me. (For the sake of this post, let’s pretend that I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt; let’s pretend that you’re not just catcalling and hollering as an act of aggression intended to establish your dominance over the women you’re harassing.) If you are in fact interested in having a conversation with a heretofore unknown woman without making her feel like a sex object rather than a human being with hopes, dreams, and aspirations, here are some tips on what not to do.
DO NOT:
Come up to a woman and say, “I’ll give you a ride for free, because you’re Asian.” [Man in question is a limo driver] When she says, “No, thanks, I’ll take the bus,” and walks away, follow her down the street and harass her with supposedly flattering comments about her hair, her dress, her ethnicity and repeated requests to get into your vehicle.
WHY NOT: It makes you annoying, because you didn’t leave her alone when she expressed disinterest. It makes you a disgusting, racist fetishist, because you’ve explicitly said that you’re interested on account of her race, and presumably whatever assumptions you’re making about it. It makes you creepy, because you won’t leave her alone and physically followed her. It makes you even creepier and potentially dangerous, because you won’t leave her alone and are intent on getting her into a vehicle that you are in control of.
Open with comments on the woman’s race or appearance, such as, “Hi, are you Chinese?” or, “Hi, gorgeous.”
WHY NOT: It implies that you are a creepy, racist Asian fetishist. It implies that all you see about her is her race. It reduces her down to her race, and there’s a probability of 1 that she’s heard the question before and is tired of complete strangers playing 20 Questions with her race and identity. Furthermore, even flattering comments about her appearance are problematic, because they’re nearly always implicitly sexist and support the assumptions that women are supposed to be decorative and attractive, and that they’re doing it for the observers, not for themselves. Their appearance is not for your evaluation.
Mutter, “Hey, sweetheart!” under your breath as you’re walking past a woman on the sidewalk.
WHY NOT: If you actually want to talk to her, muttering at her while you walk past and away is a bad strategy. It says, “I’m not really interested in talking to you, I just feel entitled to comment on you/your body in passing, as if you were an animal at the 4-H fair.” It also says, “I’m commenting on you–not to you, but on you–with no prior interaction, so the only thing I have to consider is your appearance, and I’m judging it, as if your appearance is for my sake, not yours.”
Call, “Hi,” at a woman in front of you as she’s walking through a subway station. Call, “Hi,” again after she ignores you. Call, “Can you hear me?” after she ignores you again.
WHY NOT: Calling at random people in the crowd is not a winning technique. Would you stop in the middle of your commute for some random person yelling at you, whom you’d never met before, who couldn’t be arsed to say, “Excuse me,” or come up to you or even enter your field of vision? Expecting her to stop, turn around, locate you, and engage in conversation with you after you’ve tried to call her to heel like an off-leash dog is sheer entitlement: a feeling of entitlement to her time and to her attention. It’s flat out rude, as well as stupid.
If you do want to have a conversation with a female stranger–I said, “have a conversation,” mind, not, “chat her up and hit on her”–and don’t want to come off as a sexist creep, here are some suggestions:
DO make sure you’re not bothering her. If she’s using her phone; listening to music; reading a book; looking at the bus map; or otherwise engaged, don’t interrupt her. Would you want to be interrupted by a complete stranger? No, not everyone minds it, but it’s better to err on the side of not being an ass. Bear in mind that some of these things are defensive techniques that some women have adopted specifically to keep asses away–”If I look busy/have headphones in/am buried in a book, maybe he’ll leave me the fuck alone.”
DO pay attention to her reactions. If she answers with monosyllabic words, keeps her attention focused on her book, doesn’t try to carry any of the conversation, or pointedly tells you that she’s married and waiting for her spouse (whether or not she’s got a ring on), politely end with something like, “It was nice to meet you,” or, “have a nice day,” and leave off.
DO introduce yourself or say, “Excuse me,” or find something relevant to say. For example, I was once holding a sack of pears at the farmers’ market, and a man asked if I’d tried the apples at his stand, and we had a conversation about stall fees at the various markets in SF. It was an interesting topic, and although I’d initially gotten weird vibes from him, I decided to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he wanted to have an actual conversation.
Of course, then he ruined it by saying, “Actually, I only wanted to talk to you because you look so pretty.” In other words, he wasn’t actually interested in having a conversation with me about farmers’ markets–he was interested in getting my attention because he thought I had a hot bod, and for some reason, he thought I’d like to know that. Way to make me feel reduced to a sex object.
Actually, that’s been my experience multiple times in the past. For the guys who whine that they can’t have an innocent conversation with women because women will assume that they have ulterior motives, all I have to say is this: stop having ulterior motives. No guy who’s actually been interested in having an innocuous conversation with me has given me the creep vibes. We’ve had innocuous conversations that passed the time on the bus or in a coffee line. The only guys I get the annoying creep vibes from are the ones who inevitably indicate, whether by verbal or physical gesture, that it’s not a friendly conversation they’re after.
Sincerely,
PD
I Write Letters: $700Bn Bailout Proposal
Dear Representative Pelosi,
I am writing regarding the proposed bailout for the financial industry. According to the AP newswire, Congressional Democrats and Republicans have agreed to a $700Bn bailout. While I understand that the financial crisis is pressing and immediate action is necessary to prevent a total collapse of the economy, I am concerned about the terms of the bailout. This is a golden opportunity to win concessions on regulating the financial industry and setting terms that would create a more stable economy with a more equitable distribution of wealth that would benefit everyone overall and not just the top fraction of society. I am concerned that in the haste to throw money at the problem and appear decisive, Democrats will not press as hard as they should to set regulatory oversight and terms on the bailout. In the short run, $700Bn might solve the banks’ immediate problems. However, regulatory oversight and farsighted terms and conditions on the bailout would solve the immediate problems and set the groundwork for preventing future crises.
I support Senator Clinton’s proposals, which serve both the poor citizen facing foreclosure as well as the CEO floating to safety on a golden parachute, and I ask that you do the same.
* Secure toxic mortgage securities and create an entity modeled after the successful Depression-era Home Owners’ Loan Corporation (HOLC) or the Resolution Trust Corporation (RTC) created after the Savings and Loan crisis. This would help homeowners keep their homes and avoid foreclosure, and create stability in the market.
* Place a temporary moratorium on the most abusive stock transactions, many of which involve the “short-selling” of stocks. It would provide breathing room for the markets to recover, for investors to make accurate assessments of companies and for regulators to assess what trading practices should be permanently banned.
* Convene an emergency economic summit to show the American people their government is working together. Bringing together leaders in the administration and Congress with lenders, consumer advocates, non profits, financial institutions, and all stakeholders will allow a coordinated response to the crisis.
* Aggressively pursue and encourage mortgage modifications that would encourage lenders to voluntarily work with borrowers to keep them current on payments and in their homes. This measure would protect citizens in the long run by helping them maintain a stable roof over their heads.
* Restore competent federal oversight of the increasingly complicated financial markets. The rapid evolution of the securities and banking industry overwhelmed the current regulatory framework, resulting in a “shadow banking system” that operates outside of oversight and without accountability.
* Require transparency and accountability on executive pay. Senator Clinton has proposed the Corporate Executive Compensation Accountability and Transparency Act to impose new transparency rules on executive pay, end the accounting techniques that hide compensation, and provide shareholders a say in executive compensation packages.
* Ensure the accountability of financial institutions borrowing money from the Federal Reserve’s new lending facilities. Taxpayers deserve to know that the companies they are bailing out are on the road to recovery and aren’t throwing more good money after bad.
$700Bn is a great deal of taxpayer money, approximately as much as the cost of the Iraq war. It behooves you to ensure that it is a wise investment, one that will benefit poor, lower class, middle class, and upper class citizens as much as CEOs, and lay the groundwork for a stable economy that, while not as prone to extraordinary heights, compensates by avoiding extraordinary lows that create crushing debts and weigh most heavily on the poor, lower-, and middle- class citizens.
The wealthy will always be able to take care of themselves; such is the power of money. Your duty as a Representative is to look after the people who are less protected and ensure that they, too, benefit from a bailout plan that would create a stable economy and restore economic security for everyone, not just the top tier of society. I ask you to support a bailout plan only if it is based on economic analysis that is transparent and available to everyone to examine, and transparency and regulatory oversight. Solving the financial crisis is important, but providing money without setting conditions to address the systemic causes of the crisis will only allow the cycle to recur in the future.
As Speaker of the House, you hold unique power to lead the House Democrats in a strong stand for setting conditions on the bailout. Please do not cave into the Republicans cries of “partisanship!” as if partisanship were a flaw rather than a feature. It is imperative that the Democrats stand firm on this issue and advocate for a solution that would protect the poorest citizens as well as the wealthy.
Sincerely,
Pizza Diavola
SF, CA [zip code]
Sent to Pelosi, Boxer, and Feinstein (with appropriate edits). Feel free to take, copy, and edit.
If you are in California’s 8th District and one of Pelosi’s constituents, you can contact her here via email. If you are not one of her constituents but would like to email her anyway to show broad-based support for a transparent bailout plan with regulatory oversight and conditions that will reform the banking industry, you can contact her here in her capacity as Speaker of the House. The number for her D.C. office is (202) 225-0100.
I don’t pretend to understand all the details of the bailout and everything, but I understand a few things:
- Throwing money at a situation without any strings attached might solve the immediate crisis – or it might not, considering that a lack of regulation was a large factor in what got us here.
- Regardless, the bailout is the immediate issue at hand, but it didn’t happen overnight. In order to prevent this situation from recurring, we need to address the root causes of the situation. Throwing money at the financial services industry without setting conditions for how that money will be used is not going to address the systemic causes of the collapse.
- CEOs will always be able to take care of themselves. That’s the nice thing about being obscenely rich. People that are less well off, people that are being foreclosed on, people that are seeing their savings and investments vanish into thin are, will not, and those are the people that the bailout needs to provide for.
- The financial services industry and the government officials that they’ve bought are desperate. Nail them to the table because now is the prime time to get concessions out of them that will provide for a stable, regulated economy in the long run.
- A stable, well-regulated economy will probably not provide dizzying heights of wealth. However, those dizzying heights have only ever benefited the teeny, tiny percentage of the very wealthiest people, while everyone else suffers from an unregulated economy where they’re not protected. The bailout proposal needs to balance the concern for growing the economy and making sure that the benefits of that growth accrue to everyone, not just the top 0.0001% of society.
Call and write your senators and representatives, as well as Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Biden, and McCain, and tell them that you want a transparent proposal with oversight and conditions that will protect homeowners and non-wealthy citizens and address the systemic causes of the financial crisis as well as the immediate situation.
HHS Rule Change: LAST DAY TO COMMENT
Get your comments in! The comment period for the HHS rule change closes today! Don’t know what to write? Here’s a sample:
Dear Secretary Leavitt,
I am writing to urge you to stop the proposed HHS rule change regarding reproductive health care and “conscience clause” exemptions. The proposed rule change is extremely vague in terms of defining abortion and leaves it up to health care employees to define abortion according to their own whims. This vagueness will lead to many people classifying birth control and emergency contraception as abortion and taking the rule change as license to deny patients medication, treatment, accurate information, and referrals to other health care employees that are willing to do their jobs and help their patients. Denying women access to treatment on the basis of religious feelings is inherently discriminatory and coercive and the rule change privileges the feelings of health care providers over the real, immediate needs of their patients. The rule change speaks of protecting health care providers, but simultaneously leaves patients vulnerable and unprotected.
In many places, women and girls will have more than one option for accessing reproductive health care. However, their insurance might not cover a visit to another doctor if their primary care physician refuses to write a prescription for birth control. They might not be able to take the time off of work for multiple appointments searching for a health care provider who won’t deny them access to contraceptives. Once they have a prescription, they might not be able to find a pharmacist who won’t refuse to fill their prescription. For the women with more limited options, the situation will be even more bleak. Ultimately, whether or not women can eventually find health care providers who are willing to do their jobs and give them the medications they need, this rule change will put more obstacles in the way of exercising their basic right to access health care and decide their reproductive future. It’ll make it more difficult. It’ll make it more time- and labor- intensive and not everyone can afford to waste those commodities. The burden of the rule change would, like so many other policies restricting health care, fall most heavily and harshly on the lower class and poor people in this country.
The rule change also does not take into account the fact that birth control is also used for treating medical conditions unrelatd to conception and pregnancy, such as endometriosis, menstruation-related anemia, dysmenorrhea, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), acne, regulating irregular periods, etc. Under the rule change, health care employees would be free to deny patients birth control treatment for these conditions, should the employees have a blanket objection to birth control.
The rule change will be expensive to implement, costing an estimated $44.5M/year to administer. It would increase health care costs for patients, many of whom already suffer from the onerous cost of health care in this country. It essentially gives health care employees carte blanche to refuse to do the jobs they were hired for and to patients’ health, lives, and futures at risk for the sake of indulging employees’ objections to treating women and girls as equal human beings with the ability and the right to make decisions over their own bodies. The rule change is nothing more than a codification of misogyny and an intrusion of a particular form of Christianity into the public sphere.
Sincerely,
[your name]
[your address]
Online comment form at regulations.gov to send a comment. If that link doesn’t work, you can search for the rule change at regulations.gov with any of the following info:
Docket ID: HHS-OS-2008-0011
Docket Title: Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices In Violation of Federal Law*
Document ID: HHS-OS-2008-0011-0001
Document Title: Ensuring that Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices In Violation of Federal Law
You can also email consciencecomment@hhs.gov, putting “Provider Conscience Regulation” as the subject – in fact, do both!
If you’ve already sent a letter, please take a moment to call 1-877-696-6775 and say: “I am calling regarding the proposed regulatory changes released on August 21. I would like to register my strong disagreement with the proposed change.” – Liss
I called them this morning and all the lines were busy. Keep calling until you get through!
ACLU Action Alert to contact the Department of Health and Human Services
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-4965 (DC)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: 202-224-3542 (DC)
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama: 202-224-2854 (DC)
Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden: 202-224-5042 (DC)
Senators: Senate.gov
Representatives: House.gov
* Geez, talk about Orwellian nomenclature. The name of the rule change is misleading, since it suggests that it’s coercive and discriminatory to force health care employees to do their jobs. With all due respect, I would like to suggest that it is discriminatory to refuse to provide women treatment on the basis that they don’t deserve the information and health care they need, on the basis of their gender and on the basis that they are inferior human beings without the ability or the right to make decisions about their own bodies. I would also like to suggest that it is coercive to refuse to provide women treatment, information, and referrals and to do one’s best to force them to bear pregnancies they do not want or to suffer without treatment for medical conditions.
Obama on the HHS Rule Change
Last week, I wrote about why Obama and Biden need to fight the HHS rule change. During the course of researching whether or not Obama and Biden had done anything about the rule change, I found a grand total of two things: (1) Obama, but not Biden, signed on to Clinton and Murray’s July 22 letter to HHS Secretary Michael Levitt; (2) one statement that Obama made on the HHS rule change. Actually, that’s not quite correct. The link to Obama’s Senate site will take you to a page showing this text:
Statement of Senator Barack Obama on Proposed HHS Rule Changes
Friday, August 22, 2008For Immediate Release
Contact: Michael OrtizWASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today criticized the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to propose a rule that would limit the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services, particularly access to contraceptives.
“In the waning days of his administration, President Bush continues to issue policies and proposals that put politics ahead of common sense solutions that help middle class Americans in their daily lives.
“This proposed regulation complicates, rather than clarifies the law. It raises troubling issues about access to basic health care for women, particularly access to contraceptives. We need to restore integrity to our public health programs, not create backdoor efforts to weaken them. I am committed to ensuring that the health and reproductive rights of women are protected.”
What I found on September 19, 2008, was somewhat different:
To further clarify, here’s an image of the same press release that went up at 7thSpace, complete with PhotoShopped editorial. 7thSpace was the only other place I found the press release, by the by.
Statement of Senator Barack Obama on Proposed HHS Rule Changes
Friday, August 22, 2008For Immediate Release
Contact: Michael OrtizWASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) today criticized the Department of Health and Human Services’ decision to propose a rule that would limit the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services, particularly access
Notice something missing? A friend of mine called Michael Ortiz, the press contact listed at the 7thSpace site, and Ortiz promptly fixed the Obama.senate.gov version of the web page to display to full press release. We waited with bated breath to see what it would say…
…and got a pathetic, spineless press release. Obama’s press release does not lay out the many substantive problems with the HHS rule change, does not strongly lay out his objections to it, and does not say what he will do to fight the rule change. “Troubling issues about access”? How about “will greatly hamper access to information and care for millions of women and girls across the country”? “Troubling issues about access … to contraceptives”? How about “Will allow pharmacists, doctors, and other health care workers to refuse to provide contraceptives, prescriptions, and referrals to patients”? “policies and proposals that put politics ahead of common sense solutions that help middle class Americans in their daily lives”? What kind of mealy-mouthed, bland, generic statement is that? That could apply to any number of policies being put forth by the Bush government and the McCain-Palin campaign. It’s unspecific and makes the HHS rule change sound like a run of the mill Bush policy rather than something that speaks straight to patients’ rights, womens’ rights, and the right to health care (all of which are items in the Obama-Biden platform). Obama doesn’t clearly explain what the rule change is or go into even the barest of specifics as to what it will do and why it’s bad. Instead, he talks blandly about “[restoring] integrity to our public health programs.” He says that he is “committed to ensuring that the health and reproductive rights of women are protected,” but he lays out no specific plans for how he will ensure that.
It seems to me that the Obama staff couldn’t be arsed to distribute a correct, full-length version of the press release, given that it appeared in a truncated form on Obama’s own Senate site and on a third party site. It’d be ridiculous to hold Obama personally responsible for that failing, since it’s hardly his role to code pages or distribute press releases. However, I do hold him responsible for not making the rule change a big enough issue that his staffers would be on top of it. I do hold him responsible for issuing only one press release, not taking any public or substantive action against the HHS rule change, not calling out HHS Secretary Leavitt, and not bringing publicity to the scope of the rule change. The rule change will definitely affect the lives of millions, further undermine the much-vaunted protections of Roe v. Wade, undermine state laws regulating conscience clauses, and further undermine the separation of church and state.
SHOW. SOME. LEADERSHIP.
This press release is an example of exactly what I mean when I talk about Obama’s empty rhetoric. It’s all platitudes, no specifics, no specifics on why the policy is bad, what it will do, and what he is planning to do to fight it. It’s great to be committed to ensuring access to reproductive health care, but that verbal commitment means nothing if it’s not backed by substantive actions. The comment period for the rule change closes tomorrow, September 25. I’m still waiting for you to act, Senator.
HHS Rule Change: 21 Days
“Alternatively, what kind of advertisement would you develop, considering these factors?
I’d love to see the Dems go full force against HHS’s upcoming policy that equates birth control with abortion. Senators Clinton and Murray have been fighting pretty much alone on this front, and a full court press against it from the entire Democratic Congressional Delegation, including Senators Obama and Biden, would show the Democratic commitment to choice.
I’m talking ads, speeches, some sort of Dem Leadership march on Secretary Leavitt’s office that’s carefully planned, meticulously scripted, thoroughly publicized on every talk show with lots of zingy talking points. Plus the Dem leaders in each state could hold related press events, building the Dem brand for downticket races too. If Senator McCain and Governor Palin are forced to go on record either for OR against birth control, their ticket’s rep as “Mavericks” is going to sustain some serious damage with either evangelicals or moderates. Heads we win, tails they lose.
Most Americans want access to birth control and would be horrified to learn that this policy may put their access in jeopardy. Even many anti-choice voters are pro-contraception. And this could be an easy way to win some points with independents and moderate Repubs, plus reminding Dems what side fights for them, since it doesn’t involve waiting on a court decision or until election day. All we have to do is make Leavitt so uncomfortable that he pulls the policy. We have less than 30 days.
Originally posted as a comment by eleanora on Shakesville using Disqus.
That? Is a fantastic idea. You know the drill: call, email, and write your senators and representatives and call up the Democratic candidates, too.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi: 202-225-4965 (DC)
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid: 202-224-3542 (DC)
Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama: 202-224-2854 (DC)
Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden: 202-224-5042 (DC)
Senators: Senate.gov
Representatives: House.gov
Comment on the rule change at Regulations.gov, providing “Provider Conscience Regulation” as the subject.
I Would Just Like To Reiterate
on the occasion of the first female VP candidate (anti-choice) on the Republican ticket (anti-choice, anti-reproductive health care, full stop), that time for stopping the HHS rule change is marching away. The HHS rule change would create a “conscience clause” exemption allowing “health care providers” at institutions receiving federal funds to refuse to provide “abortions” and “abortion-related services.” The comment period for the rule change closes on September 25th.
Please send an email to the Department of Health and Human Services via the ACLU site (Via Liss).
Please call your representative and senators and ask them their positions on the rule change, if they’re aware of its impacts on the ability of women and girls to get the reproductive health care they need in order to be safe and healthy, and what they plan to do to fight the rule change.
Please call Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi at 202-225-4965 (DC), Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at 202-224-3542 (DC), Democratic presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama at 202-224-2854 (DC), and Democratic vice-presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden at 202-224-5042 (DC) and ask them the same questions.
Please submit a comment at the Regulations.gov site, providing “Provider Conscience Regulation” as the subject. Comments submitted through regulations.gov are on the public record at the website and even if HHS passes the rule change, they have to justify the policy against the comments they’ve received. Regulations.gov also has the rule change text in PDF and HTML form.
Melissa has a post on conscience clause exemptions and why they’re crap in the medical professions – the post is written in the context of the recent CA Supreme Court decision that religious objections are not valid grounds for denying GLBTQ individuals health care, but the reasoning applies to conscience clauses more generally.
Reasons for the scare quotes in the first paragraph:
“Conscience clause”: I think it’s nothing more than an abdication of morality and one’s conscience to refuse to provide treatment for people in need of it, and to lie and provide misinformation about contraception and abortion.
“Health care providers”: The rule change redefines health care provider to encompass every employee at a medical institution receiving federal funds – the clerks processing insurance claims (oh, won’t that be fun to sort out, if one of them has an objection to filing claims for birth control), the doctors, the nurses, the pharmacists, the aides that sterilize equipment, etc.
“Abortions” and “abortion-related services”: The definition of abortion is left up to the individual, in the text of the rule change. This means that someone who thinks that birth control, emergency contraception, and any form of contraceptive is abortion, no matter what you’re using it for (e.g. PCOS, regularize periods, anemia, endometriosis), can refuse to provide those medications and services because they’re “abortion.” This includes writing and filling prescriptions and providing referrals to medical professionals who are willing to provide abortions and related services.
More on the HHS Rule Change
Cara provides some more info at Feministe: Bush Officially Proposes Anti-Abortion DHHS Rule
The first is that despite Leavitt and other anti-choice puppet’s proclamations, this will limit women’s access to reproductive health care. The denials reek of classism. You see, barring some unforeseen circumstances, I’ll be fine. Those of us who happen to have insurance and private doctors, this will rarely affect us. But those of us who lack insurance? Many who are low-income? These are the people who generally use services that are government funded, and they are the ones who will be affected. The only people who will have less access to health care as a result of this rule the are people who already have the least access to health care. Despite Leavitt’s disgusting rationalizations, not everyone has the access to transportation, child care, money and time to “go to another provider.” That is, in fact, quite a privilege.The second thing is that many, many, if not most reproductive health centers in the U.S. receive government funding. That includes many organizations which provide abortions, which may be the only abortion provider in a given area, and already work on a strict budget. And under this rule, these organizations would not be able to fire a person for refusing to do their job.
Cara has info on how to comment online and a link to the full text of the proposed rule change.
I called the DC offices of Obama, Reid, and Feinstein this morning. Reid’s (D-NV) and Senate Majority Leader) staffer said that he issued a press release on the rule change today, but I can’t find it on his website. Feinstein’s (D-CA) staffer had no idea what she was planning to do, if anything. Obama’s (D-IL) staffer also had no idea what Obama’s position on this was.
The draft of the rule change was proposed back in July and over a month later, very, very few of my elected officials know what’s going on. Even fewer of them have done anything about it. Senators Boxer, Feinstein, Reid, and Obama oh so bravely and boldly signed onto Senator Clinton’s and Senator Murray’s letter to Secretary of HHS Leavitt, but they haven’t released press statements about their positions, they haven’t brought attention to the issue, they haven’t done anything to actually stand up and fight against the rule change. In the case of Obama, he hasn’t shown any leadership on this issue. Speaker of the House Pelosi didn’t even sign the letter. I can see how much she can be arsed to defend my ability to exercise my reproductive rights.
It is utterly important that we stop this rule change. A federal rule change will supersede state laws, meaning that even in the few states where there are no restrictions on access to abortion, health care providers will be able to deny access to abortion, abortion-related services such as referrals to doctors who do perform abortions, and counseling, birth control (hormonal, IUDs, voluntary sterilization, etc.), emergency contraception, writing prescriptions for all of the above, filling prescriptions for all of the above, and more.
So call your senators and representatives and the House and Senate Majority Leaders – it’s their damned jobs to be leaders and to spearhead party movements, so make them aware that this issue is important. Frau Sally Benz has links to Planned Parenthood’s email campaign and NARAL’s email campaign. Those are form emails, it’s just a few clicks to fill in your name and information and send a message to your senators and representatives.
Something else that might be useful is contacting candidates in local races – present the rule change as a way they can show that they genuinely support a woman’s ability to choose her reproductive future as well as her theoretical right to choose. It could be a means of distinguishing themselves from their opponents and showing leadership. I called Cindy Sheehan’s office this morning because she doesn’t have a statement on reproductive rights on her website, but the staffer wasn’t able to provide any information about Sheehan’s positions on the rule change (barely acceptable; apparently not many people who aren’t obsessed with reproductive rights don’t know about it) or on Proposition 4 (unacceptable; statewide proposition on parental notification that would amend the state constitution). I’m sending an email later and hoping to get more information. Given Representative Pelosi’s complete and utter lack of action on either the rule change or Prop. 4, this could be a way of drawing pro-choice voters fed up with Pelosi over to Sheehan and give her wider appeal on the issues.
ETA: I just got an email from HillPAC about the rule change and the petition they’re running against the rule change. You can sign it here:
Dear Secretary Leavitt,The regulations now published by HHS raise serious concerns about women’s access to family planning services. I strongly urge you to revise this policy that threatens to affect Medicaid and Title X programs that are important to millions of families, and would undermine the health of women across the country. I also call on the Department to issue final regulations that include an assurance that a woman’s access to contraception will not be compromised.
I stand with Hillary Clinton and women and men across America in speaking out against these proposed regulations. We’ve had enough of putting ideology over science and failed policies harming healthy families.
More on the HHS Rule Change
A longer SF Chronicle article:
A proposed Bush administration regulation on contraception and abortion would stop California from enforcing a state law that requires Catholic hospitals and charities to provide birth control coverage for thousands of female employees, state Attorney General Jerry Brown and family-planning advocates said Wednesday.
The U.S. Health and Human Services Department regulation, still in draft form, would define abortion as including certain methods of contraception and would prohibit states and other recipients of federal funds from penalizing health care workers who refused to provide those services because of religious or moral beliefs.
Violators would forfeit federal health care funds, which in California amount to as much as $37 billion a year. …
California’s law was passed in 2000 in response to decisions by many health insurance plans to cover the male potency drug Viagra but continue to deny coverage for birth control pills, forcing women to pay for contraceptives.
The state Supreme Court upheld the law in a 2004 ruling that applied to 1,600 employees of Catholic Charities and 52,000 employees of Catholic hospitals in the state. The law exempts church employees, but the court said affiliated agencies such as Catholic Charities are secular institutions because they employ and serve mostly non-Catholics.
New York’s highest court later issued a similar ruling, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied review of Catholic Charities’ appeals in both cases. Similar laws exist in 25 other states, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research organization.
Such laws would be unenforceable if the proposed regulations take effect, opponents and some supporters of the Bush administration plan agreed.
“By financially punishing noncompliant states with the loss of (federal) funding, the regulation would intrude on the authority of states to enact and enforce laws that ensure women’s access to birth control,” Brown said in an Aug. 4 letter to Michael Leavitt, the administration’s Health and Human Services secretary.
Other opponents include the American Medical Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and 150 members of Congress – mostly Democrats, including California Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, prospective presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. On Wednesday, Planned Parenthood and MoveOn.org submitted 325,000 signatures on petitions to Leavitt urging withdrawal of the regulation.
“This is a giant step down a road that will potentially leave women with a major loss of access to contraceptive methods,” said Kathy Kneer, chief executive of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California.
She said the administration’s proposal would also allow pharmacists to refuse to supply contraceptives and not refer the customer to another employee or a nearby pharmacy, as California law now requires.
The administration drafted the proposal to implement laws prohibiting recipients of federal funds from penalizing health practitioners who refuse to perform abortions or provide abortion referrals.
The draft proposal covers Catholic Charities and other employers who object to abortion, by defining their insurers as health practitioners. It would define abortion as any procedure or drug that terminates a human life after conception, “whether before or after implantation.”
That language, and other portions of the regulation, cover the most common oral contraceptives and intrauterine devices, said Ellen Golombeck, a national Planned Parenthood spokeswoman.
Although some have interpreted the proposal more narrowly, Deirdre McQuade, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ spokeswoman on abortion, said the goal is to protect those who object to any form of artificial contraception.
I called a few offices today.
Senator Boxer’s office: “Senator Boxer has not yet released a statement, but I’ll pass on your message.”
Senator Feinstein’s office: left a message.
Senator Obama’s DC office: “The mailbox for Senator Barack Obama is full. Goodbye. [click]“
Senator Obama’s campaign office: Christ, the phone menu sounds like it’s for a store (options: 1. Donations! 2. Volunteering! 3. Using our website, widgets, and apps! 4. somethingsomething 5. somethingsomething), not a political candidate. To skip the phone menu and talk to a volunteer, press 6.
PD: I’m calling regarding Secretary of HHS Michael Leavitt’s proposed rule change to redefine contraception as abortion and create a conscience clause exemption that would allow health care employees to refuse to provide contraceptives, birth control, abortion services, counseling, and accurate information about abortion based on religious objections. Reproductive rights are an extremely important issue to me and one that I will be weighing heavily when I vote.
Volunteer: Er, what? I have no idea what his position is.
PD: Do you know if he has plans to do something to fight this rule change? I know he signed the letter that Senators Clinton and Murray sent to Secretary Leavitt, but I’d like to see some positive action. It would go a long way toward convincing me that he will protect womens’ reproductive rights and their access to health care services that enable them to plan their reproductive futures.
Volunteer: Well, he solidly supports a woman’s right to choose-
PD: Actually, no, he doesn’t. So far, he’s pandered to the right and made statements about making decisions in consultation with my pastor and husband.
Volunteer: Well, you mentioned that you’re going to be considering this when you vote. So, what you have to do is consider him in comparison to the alternative, Mc-
PD: Actually, no, I don’t owe my vote to Senator Obama, and simply being better than McCain on this issue is not good enough. It’s not enough that he won’t appoint anti-choice justices to the Supreme Court, given that there are already enough judges on the bench to overturn Roe v. Wade and that he almost approved Roberts. He has to be good in his own right and so far, he has no legislative or policy history of defending womens’ access to reproductive services.
Volunteer: Believe me, I understand what you’re saying. But I have no idea what his position is or what he plans to do. Here, why don’t I take down your information and I’ll forward it to someone else who can hopefully get back to you.
I gave the volunteer my name and email. Hopefully it won’t come back to haunt me in the form of donate for Obama spam.
Representative Pelosi’s office:
Volunteer: Er, I have no idea!
PD: Do you know if she plans on issuing a statement or working to defeat this rule change? Reproductive rights are an issue I will be considering when I vote in November.
Volunteer: She hasn’t issued a press release yet. If you’d like to follow her press releases, you can do that at [website]
PD: Yes, I’m aware that she hasn’t issued a press release yet, what I’d like to know is if she plans on doing something in the future or if there’s a way to express that this is a deep concern for me.
Volunteer: I have no idea!
PD: Okay, thank you.
Seriously, the volunteer was perky and bouncy and chipper while declaring that he has no idea what the rule change was about and whether the Speaker of the House planned on doing anything.
Got Senate Majority Leader & Professional Pushover Reid’s voicemail, so I’ll call his office and Feinstein’s office back tomorrow.
Bias, Media, and McCain 1
Dear Financial Times,
While your recent headline is a description of Senator McCain’s speech, and therefore might not be representative of your views on his speech and candidacy, it remains misleading:
By headlining your article with “McCain puts faith in sober experience,” you lend credibility to the idea that McCain has experience and that it’s worth something. I’ll grant you that he’s held state office since 1983 and does have experience working in the House and Senate, but to imply that his experience is “sober” and that it’s something that he, or you, or any voter should put “faith” in is highly misleading, primarily because his performance in the past few years consists of rejecting his former principles and stances.
For instance, in February the Senate voted 51-45 to ban waterboarding and torture by the CIA. McCain, despite previously opposing torture, voted against the ban. There are some principles and experience, right there–the experience of caving into the Republican party and abandoning not only personal principles, but the principles of humanity as well as the Geneva Convention and international law, all in one vote. From the NYT,
Senate Republicans generally opposed the bill, but several of them also did not want to cast a vote that could be construed as supporting torture, and so were relying on President Bush to make good on a threat to veto legislation limiting C.I.A. interrogation techniques….
The prohibition of harsh interrogation techniques is part of a wider intelligence authorization bill and would restrict all American interrogators to techniques allowed in the Army Field Manual, which bars the use of physical force.
The House approved the bill in December by a vote of 222 to 199, mostly along party lines. Wednesday’s vote in the Senate was also along party lines. All the “no” votes were cast by Republicans, except for those of Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, and Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska. Five Republicans and Senator Bernard Sanders, independent of Vermont, voted “yes.”
But the White House has long said Mr. Bush will veto the bill, saying it “would prevent the president from taking the lawful actions necessary to protect Americans from attack in wartime.”
…
Mr. McCain, a former prisoner of war, has consistently voiced opposition to waterboarding and other methods that critics say is a form torture. But the Republicans, confident of a White House veto, did not mount the challenge. Mr. McCain voted “no” on Wednesday afternoon. (emphasis mine)
In another instance of betraying past principles, McCain once advocated for lobbyist reform. From the Washington Post,
Appearing as a witness on the opening day of a Senate hearing on lobbying reform, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was one of several senators to denounce earmarking, a practice he called “disgraceful.” He outlined one of several proposals to tighten rules and require greater disclosure of lobbying activities. But he told the committee, “We’re not going to fix this system until we fix the earmarks.”
Nowadays, however, he is receiving money from 507 bundlers and 70 lobbyist bundlers. Among their number are representatives of large financial institutions (e.g. JP Morgan, Credit Suisse, UBS, Blackstone, Granite Capital, Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns [heh], Kohlberg Kravis Roberts, NYSE Group, Goldman Sachs), health care firms (e.g. Vanguard Health Systems, Blue Cross Blue Shield, AMN Healthcare), energy firms (e.g. Mosbacher Energy, TXU), and assorted large corporations (e.g. Disney, Sony BMG Music, Starwood Hotels, Anheuser-Busch, Johnson & Johnson, AT&T, Visa, MGM, FedEx). He’s not just taking cash from lobbyists, however; he’s also staffed his campaign with them. From Washington Post,
But when McCain huddled with his closest advisers at his rustic Arizona cabin last weekend to map out his presidential campaign, virtually every one was part of the Washington lobbying culture he has long decried. His campaign manager, Rick Davis, co-founded a lobbying firm whose clients have included Verizon and SBC Telecommunications. His chief political adviser, Charles R. Black Jr., is chairman of one of Washington’s lobbying powerhouses, BKSH and Associates, which has represented AT&T, Alcoa, JPMorgan and U.S. Airways.
Senior advisers Steve Schmidt and Mark McKinnon work for firms that have lobbied for Land O’ Lakes, UST Public Affairs, Dell and Fannie Mae.
More recently, McCain’s campaign declared that warrantless wiretapping by the executive branch is A-OK, no court oversight required. This position might come as a shock, considering that he had previously said,
“There are some areas where the statutes don’t apply, such as in the surveillance of overseas communications. Where they do apply, however, I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.”
From the NYT, his position these days is,
A top adviser to Senator John McCain says Mr. McCain believes that President Bush’s program of wiretapping without warrants was lawful, a position that appears to bring him into closer alignment with the sweeping theories of executive authority pushed by the Bush administration legal team.
In a letter posted online by National Review this week, the adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, said Mr. McCain believed that the Constitution gave Mr. Bush the power to authorize the National Security Agency to monitor Americans’ international phone calls and e-mail without warrants, despite a 1978 federal statute that required court oversight of surveillance.
Mr. McCain believes that “neither the administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the A.C.L.U. and trial lawyers, understand were constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,” Mr. Holtz-Eakin wrote.
In other words, McCain is saying that four more years of the Imperial Executive and unfettered power above the law are what he believes in. Corporations have no need to obey the law and respect the privacy of the little people, individual citizens, and neither does the executive branch.
McCain has repeatedly turned his back on his principles and abandoned the policies he once advocated in order to pander to the Republican party and its supporters, corporate and otherwise. He’s demonstrated experience in casting integrity and convictions aside for the sake of political expediency–and not for the sake of the public good, but for his ambitions. That is not the kind of experience that anyone with an interest in fixing the corruption and devastation wrought by the Bush administration should put faith in, sober or otherwise. So I’d like to suggest some alternate headlines for the article, which more accurately reflect the nature of McCain’s candidacy and are more in keeping with the content of the article:
* McCain Favors Extending Bush’s Aggressive, Imperialist Foreign Policy
While Mr Obama favours engagement with US foes and wants to end the war in Iraq, Mr McCain would seek to increase pressure on Iran, North Korea and Cuba and keep US troops in Iraq indefinitely.
* McCain Remains In Denial About Iraq. Possibly Contemplates Another Marketplace Stroll with Armed Troops and Helicopters As Escorts.
Mr McCain set out his case against the Illinois senator in Tuesday’s speech, portraying him as dangerously inexperienced on foreign policy and dangerously liberal on domestic policy.”He is an impressive man who makes a great first impression,” the Arizona senator conceded, before going on to explain why Americans would reject him once they got to know him better.
“Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he’s ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, but hasn’t travelled to Iraq to meet with General [David] Petraeus, and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse,” Mr McCain said, highlighting the two main foreign policy differences with his rival.
* McCain Puts Blind Faith In U.S. Efforts In Iraq
Mr McCain accuses his opponent of an ideological commitment to “surrender” in Iraq, ignoring evidence that US forces are making progress since last year’s troop surge.
Headlines are important because they’re the visuals that people first see and remember; they’re the first words people read in an article and therefore shape how they perceive the content of the article; and they’re nifty tag lines or summaries that people remember. Knowing that, I find the FT headline “McCain puts faith in sober experience” troubling. It presents a misleading image of McCain as a sober, rational person rather than the hot-tempered jerk he is–the article cited there was also published by the FT, back in April–and presents his experience as something worth a damn. He has all the wrong kinds of experience, in pandering, in working with lobbyists, in abandoning principles, in supporting the abrogation of the separation of powers (and therefore the Constitution and the limits it places on the executive branch), in serving the interests of corporations rather than the people, in ignoring the rule of law, and in voting for evil legislation.
————————————-
Financial Times, Andrew Ward, “McCain puts faith in sober experience,” 2008/06/05
NY Times, David Herszenhorn, “Senate Passes Interrogation Ban,” 2008/02/13
Washington Post, William Branigin, “McCain Calls to Reform Pork Barrel Politics,” 2006/01/25
Public Citizen
Washington Post, Michael D. Shear and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, “The Anti-Lobbyist, Advised by Lobbyists,” 2008/02/21
NY Times, Charlie Savage, “Adviser Says McCain Backs Bush Wiretaps,” 2008/06/06
Media: Clinton Sexism Watch
Dear The Economist,
I realize that your “Primary Colour” segment is all about providing sardonic captions to quotes from the campaign trail that are, as far as I can tell, completely unrelated to any significant issues. When I first skimmed it, I was annoyed that the quotes were basically about fluff. When I read
Senator Patrick Leahy has introduced a resolution declaring Mr McCain a natural-born citizen, as is required of presidents. Mr McCain was born on a naval base in Panama. Both Democratic candidates are co-sponsors. The Hill, April 10th
my first reaction was disbelief that Congress was wasting time and attention on this incredibly vital, oh so important procedural non-issue. Frankly, birth location and questions about a candidate’s citizenship proceeding therefrom are the kind of stupid hair splitting I’d expect the Republicans’ attack machine to capitalize on, not the Democrats’. Since McCain is the Republican nominee, he’s safe and there’s no reason that the Senate needs to be wasting time with this crap when it could be focusing on the melting economy or the melting ice caps.
Then I skimmed the rest of the article and saw this caption, which is not okay:
Kill Hill
“She’s talking like she’s Annie Oakley…She’s packing a six-shooter.”
Barack Obama mocks Hillary Clinton’s hunting stories. AP, April 13th
I’m not sure how this caption could be remotely amusing. I get that it’s a play off of Kill Bill, but in context of the violently sexist language in the MSM right now regarding Clinton’s campaign, it’s not just a play on words. When people are talking about the macabre Hillary Deathwatch, when there is a long history of violent threats being used to silence women who overstep the narrow roles circumscribed around them by gender norms, it’s important to watch your language and be careful that it doesn’t play into misogynist frames. “Kill Hill” is a play on a movie title, but I initially read it as Kill Hill, with Hillary as the direct object of the verb. There’s more than one way to read the caption and given the context of reality, which is full of staggering amounts of violence against women and girls and which is full of violent threats and actual violence being used to make women shut up, I’m disinclined to persuade myself to look the other way and pass this off as a joke. If it’s a joke made out of ignorance, then the writer ought to rub his or her brain cells together a bit more next time and think. If it’s a joke made while fully aware of the double violent connotations in “Kill Hill” and the long history of violence against women (i.e. history, period), then the writer ought to grow up and grow a conscience. It’s little things such as oh so clever jokes that normalize violence and misogyny by making it acceptable, little doses at a time.
The writer also ought to consider reading Melissa’s post (Shakesville) for an example of being aware of the power of words, social and historical context, and being responsible for one’s speech:
I am reluctant to use violent imagery generally, but extremely averse to using it when discussing women I don’t like. Despite the distinct unlikelihood that anyone would mistake misogyny as my motivation, even a (metaphorical) attack within a culture in which women—particularly strong, opinionated women—have historically been silenced with threatened or actual violence borrows and legitimizes misogynist strategies.
ETA: Maybe I should start a new tag: “My legislators are doing WHAT?”
————————————-
The Economist, “Primary Colour,” 2008/04/17
Melissa McEwan, Shakesville, “Take Your Boobs and Go Home Watch,” 2008/03/29
Melissa McEwan, Shakesville, “Clinton the Woman vs. Clinton the Person,” 2008/04/17
Dear Rep. Nancy Pelosi
Following up on my last post, this week’s letter is to Representative Nancy Pelosi, in response to her actions telling Defense Secretary Gates that his bigotry is not ok. You can find out how to reach your own Representative here and your Senator here.
Dear Representative Pelosi,
Today, I read about how you intervened with Defense Sec. Gates to have Representative Baldwin’s partner accompany on her fact-finding trip, as she is entirely entitled to do. Thank you for standing up against the policies of discrimination that deny same-sex couples the legal standing of married couples, and then use the “they’re not married, so they’re not entitled to the benefits we give heterosexual, married couples” excuse to dismiss committed, loving same-sex couples and treat them as inferior because they’re not legally married.
As one of your constituents and a queer person, I am glad to see you stand up for the civil rights of GLBTQ individuals. I hope that in the future, you will continue to do so and that you will actively advocate for the civil rights of all GLBTQ individuals, even ordinary citizens who lack political connections and power. I was extremely disappointed in your actions on the transgendered-exclusionary ENDA bill last fall, which essentially declared transgendered and gender non-conforming individuals expendable and undeserving of civil rights. However, I am encouraged by your actions today and hope that they are a better indicator of your commitment to standing up for the human rights of all people.
Sincerely,
Pizza Diavola
Writing letters is actually a lot easier than I thought it’d be. Blogging about issues translates well into writing letters about them, because I already have the content I need: what the matter is, why it’s important, what I think about it. All I have to do is alter the style so that it better fits a letter than a blog post, alter the tone so that it’s more civil, and slap on a header and a footer, and voila! Letter!
Dear Sharpton & NAACP
NAACP National Headquarters
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore MD 21215
National Action Network
Rev. Al Sharpton
106 W. 145th Street
Harlem, New York 10039
To Whom It May Concern,
I recently heard about the NAACP’s involvement with the Dunbar Village rapists’ case. Seeing as how the NAACP’s mission statement is to “Ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination,” I thought for certain that the NAACP was standing up for the victims in the case, who suffered rape, assault, disfigurement, and grievous bodily and mental harm. Advocating for them, providing legal counsel, pressing law enforcement agencies to do their utmost to find the six rapists currently not in custody, and ensuring that the cases of this black woman and her son would not be lost. That injustice would not prevail again in the case of a population that has consistently been disregarded, silenced, and abused.
I was horrified to find out that instead, the NAACP is standing up for the rapists. This is completely unconscionable, particularly given the DNA evidence and confessions, and the magnitude and monstrosity of the rapists’ crimes. By standing up for the rapists, you’re telling every woman of color in this country that we do not matter. Our suffering does not matter. When we’re raped, assaulted, abused, and victimized, even a group supposedly committed to fighting racism and injustice will not be our allies. Instead, you will ignore women and ignore children, because in your eyes, we don’t matter.
With your actions in this case, you do no more than perpetuate the subhuman status of women of color in American society. By standing up for these rapists, you are not fighting racism for a world of equality–you are fighting for a world in which white men and black men are equally patriarchal and can rape with impunity, while everyone else is left cowering in fear, unheard and oppressed. If you were fighting racism, you would have stood up for the victims and would have advanced a case where, for once, sexual violence against a black woman and a black child are being taken seriously rather than dismissed.
I am completely appalled, and furthermore, I will never support or contribute to the NAACP until you renounce your position and demonstrate a commitment to helping all people of color–remembering that people means women and children, and not just men.
Sincerely,
Me.
Feel free to take, copy, expand, make much more eloquent, whatever–just so long as you print and mail to the NAACP and Sharpton.
