It's Ladies Rights

Did you see the President’s speech on Libya on Monday? If you didn’t, you missed a fairly good speech which addressed all of the issues I outlined in my previous blog. I still believe this president comes across as too detached when on television. However, I understand that he has more of a cool demeanor, and I ultimately appreciate this cool head being in the oval office. Although the president makes the final decision in matters such as Libya, he also listens to several advisors. Many news outlets have been reporting that the women in his circle were major players in the decision to provide a no fly zone for Libya. Those “women” were primarily Hilary R. Clinton and Susan E. Rice. It seemed almost ironic that these women would play such an integral role in the Libyan mission during Women’s History Month. It was only heightened by the images of President Obama answering questions regarding Libya while standing next to Brazil’s first female president, Dilma Rousseff. It served only to remind me that a woman’s influence should never be underestimated in any given circumstance. As Women’s History Month comes to a close, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the passing of Elizabeth Taylor and Geraldine Ferraro. Both women are recognized as trailblazers of their time. During a time where the entertainment industry was ruled by men, Elizabeth Taylor was a celebrity before many understood the meaning of the word celebrity. She clearly loved marriage, but at the same time defied that notion that a woman must stay in an unhappy one. Most importantly, she was one of the first leading advocates for HIV awareness establishing the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS foundation in 1993. Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman vice-presidential candidate on a national party ticket in 1984 (yes, I know it’s a mouthful) paving the way for future politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, Nikki Haley, and yes, even Sarah Palin. Although many people know about Ferraro’s candidacy, I’m not sure how many people know that her most important work was done on the ground fighting for justice for women. She served in the United States House of Representatives before her vice-presidential candidacy and fought for equal compensation for women in terms of wages, pensions, and retirement plans. In 1984, she sponsored the Women’s Equity Act which ended pension discrimination against women. As seen by the pending Wal-mart class action suit (more on this in a later blog), women are still fighting for equality in the workforce. Ultimately, we owe a great debt of gratitude to these women and countless others, and we, as women, should ask ourselves, are we doing enough to ensure that the work of these women wasn’t in vain? In that spirit, I want to end this posting with my thoughts on the Republican’s move to totally defund Planned Parenthood. First, we need to look at the facts. Planned Parenthood gets about a third of its money from the government. This would mean that two-thirds or the majority of its money comes from other sources. Second, there is a law in place that doesn’t allow Planned Parenthood to use federal funds for abortions. Third, the definition of pro-choice is someone who believes in the right of a woman to make her own choices when it comes to her body. It is not an automatic indicator that someone is for abortion. Those people would be pro-abortion. Now, I consider myself pro-choice and anti-abortion so I can sympathize with both groups when it comes to this issue. My personal belief is that abortion is wrong and life, indeed, does begin at conception. However, I will always respect the right of a woman or anyone to make her/his own medical and personal decisions. This would be my first quibble with many Republicans on this issue. Many Republicans, especially Tea Partiers, scream and holler about less government, or they don’t want the government in their business. If this is truly their belief, why do they want the government to restrict a woman’s personal choice? As stated earlier, federal funding cannot be used for abortions so I don’t understand the justification. My next issue involves the systematic stripping of funds for public programs for the economically disadvantaged particularly in the arena of education. Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood at a time when this country is economically weak. It is already a challenge to support the scores of unwanted or neglected children in this country. Planned Parenthood actually works to live up to its name by providing contraception to disadvantaged communities. It is not ok for Republicans to literally scream bloody murder in one breath and in the next cut funding to the Pell Grant program, or food stamp program, or heating assistance program, or unemployment benefits, or a host of other social service programs. These programs help families for whom there are children that need care. You cannot be anti-abortion, anti-contraception, and anti-social services at the same time. The only way for this type of thinking to work is if a vast majority of upper middle class to wealthy Americans start adopting a whole lot of children and quick. Even then, you would still miss children who are in loving but poor families. My final and most important issue surrounding the defunding is that Planned Parenthood provides critical medical care for disadvantaged citizens, the majority of whom are women. I understand to a certain extent how anyone can make arguments to support my other two issues, but there is no argument that can be made to support this one. I want to know, where are the healthcare seeking patients of Planned Parenthood supposed to go? Will they go to the local emergency room where there visit will more than likely be paid by the taxpayer anyway? Will they seek help at state public health clinics that are already underfunded and overburdened? Or Will they simply not seek help at all or wait until it is too late? In spite of all these things, I know that this isn’t an intentional attack on the nation’s poorest women, but at times, I can’t help but think, it sure feels like one.