Amos's River of Justice

Category: Reproductive Rights

It’s sad and shocking to realize that reproductive rights are even an issue. It is important to point out that those who want to deprive women of the right to control their own bodies are the rabble of the modern world. They include Supreme Court Justices who have been bought and paid for by ignorant children of wealth. The following is a paraphrase of a quote from the movie, The Man in the High Castle. This is what Rufus Sewell’s character, John Smith. said to himself In a flash of insight: “You could have been anything, but you chose to be this.”

  • Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme Enabler

    The Republicans have spent decades trying to repeal Roe v Wade.  They were out of step with reality when they started.  Now that their cherished conservative dream has finally come true, they are even more out of step with reality.  Although Republican madness is obvious to millions of people, five conservative justices, including Amy Coney Barrett, Supreme enabler who voted to repeal Roe v Wade, are bursting with pride.  Pro-life organizations are also touting this as a victory.  Their stupidity is exceeded only by their short-sightedness.

    The decision to repeal Roe v Wade was made with the help of a doctrine called Originalism.  It’s not clear if anyone really believes in Originalism, least of all, its inventors in the Federalist Society, but it doesn’t matter.  It has been very useful for conservatives who are intent on getting their way.  In fact, that has become the definition of conservatism: People who are intent on getting their way.  If only their ‘way’ was good.

    What is Originalism anyway?  In the 1980s John M. Olin set up the Federalist society and paid it to make the courts rule in his favor in cases involving his polluting company.  The Society promptly wined and dined judges, sponsored university courses to teach Originalism, and generally helped Olin avoid the nasty consequences of his polluting ways.  Amy Coney Barrett has been a member of the Federalist Society twice.  Nevertheless, the blind and the stupid applaud her latest ruling.

    What does Originalism say?  It says that the original public meaning of the constitution is binding today.  Given that the people who wrote the Constitution saw the world very differently than we do today, it is reasonable to fear that this doctrine will have regressive and oppressive effects on American society.  Confronted with this fact, Originalists agree that some amendments to the Constitution might be in order, but the constitution has to be amended democratically.  Democratic principles are the basis of their doctrine after all.

    There are a few problems with this defense.  The media is not democratic.  Neither is the electoral system.  If they were people of good will, Originalists would assure themselves that democratic institutions and principles are working before they impose binding meanings on their society.  But although Originalists claim neutrality, they act as if the proper functioning of democratic institutions is beside the point.  In fact, they deliberately weaken those institutions.  That is not a neutral position.

    This shady, cut-rate, half-baked doctrine is not the sum total of the problem.  There is also the dishonesty and irresponsibility of the politicians who foisted Originalist justices on the Supreme Court, in plain sight of the people whose democracy they have stolen.  Last but not least there are the simple, lazy, complicit souls who have failed to develop their capacity for discernment.

     

  • Lords of Chaos on the Supreme Court

    It seems the Supreme Court Justices are lords of chaos.  Leaking the Supreme Court decision on Roe v Wade was like waving a red cape in front of a bull, or a MAGA cap in front of a progressive.  It has brought out the worst in progressives and put anything good we might have done on hold.  Of course, this follows the sudden and meaningless war in Ukraine.  This has been a disaster for the progressive conversation.

    The Roe v Wade leak is not just about abortion, just like the Ukraine War is not just about Ukraine.  They both serve to drag your attention away from climate change, voting rights, and anything else that needs your attention.  The lords of chaos want to stop you from having a coherent conversation.

    I saw a clip today in which pro-life agitators goaded pro-choice protesters into a frenzy.  How they relished taunting those women.  How they loved rubbing it in!  How they basked in their Supreme Court ‘victory’.  Then the pro-choice protesters screamed their slogans a little louder, and the pro-lifers drowned them out anyway.  What a glorious hate-fest!  And all because the lords of chaos on the Court leaked an opinion that hasn’t been decided yet.

    Sewing chaos and division has been the establishment’s favorite tactic since that first Trump rally was shut down by Sanders’s supporters in 2016.  They try to get both sides all riled up, or afraid, or confused, or all of the above. They know if they can make us fear and hate each other, we will be ineffective.

    The lords of chaos on the Supreme Court may very well undo Roe v Wade, and the harm for women will be real.  But if the leak brings lasting hatred and confusion and division, it will have served its main purpose.  As long as we’re fighting each other, we can’t fight them.

    See Also: https://youtu.be/_d0URbems8M

  • Republicans Don’t Want to Reverse Roe v Wade

    Roe v Wade has been a gift to the Republican Party. A candidate can be a war monger, a corporate puppet, and eat puppies and kittens for breakfast, but if he or she is pro-life none of that will matter to conservative voters.   Another candidate can have a great plan for the economy and a sterling political record, but if she is pro-choice a large portion of the American electorate will never vote for her.   What would the Republicans do without Roe v Wade?

    They use abortion to get votes the same way they use the bad behavior of foreign leaders to justify military intervention.  Their rhetoric implies that pro-choice voters are baby-hating monsters while it promotes suspicion of  every woman of child-bearing age.   And votes are just one part of the story.  The abortion issue allows them to co-opt the conversation with constant threats, horror stories, and authoritarian legislation.  As a result, reasonable people find themselves fighting for the rights of women they don’t know, as if abortion is some kind of prize.

    Some judges have said they will not enforce Alabama’s law, and Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) is on record saying the legislation is so severe he is concerned that it won’t be effective in overturning Roe v Wade.   Maybe that is the purpose of Alabama’s extreme approach.  Republicans don’t want to reverse Roe v Wade.

     

     

     

     

     

  • The Seducer State and the Free Labor of Mothers

    Paul Ryan told American women in a televised speech that they must bear more children.  Because this speech closely followed the passage of the scandalous tax bill that reduces taxes for the rich and therefore endangers funding for social programs that help mothers, Ryan’s proposal demonstrates the connection between the seducer state and the free labor of mothers.

    The following video from Chris Hedges’ On Contact discusses government policies, which are meant to increase the birthrate in the face of decreasing financial support for families.

    https://youtu.be/ZeY8p5rdy9M

     

  • Will a Higher Birthrate Lead to Love and Compassion for the World?

    There was a time when it made sense for our politicians to argue that a higher birthrate was necessary to prop up an ailing social security system, but that argument is no longer convincing. Our government has shown an interest in eliminating or privatizing the social security program, it has demonstrated that it has every intention of reducing social spending, and it has indicated that it is willing to destroy the very earth on which we depend. Yet politicians like Paul Ryan continue to demand a higher birthrate without batting an eye.

    From the government’s point of view there are several benefits to overpopulation. It provides a broad tax base; leads to high unemployment and a large pool of low-wage workers; and provides more children for the adoption mill. I’m not claiming the ability to read Paul Ryan’s mind, but regardless of his reasons we know that he, or his donors, expect benefits from a higher birthrate. We know this because even though they favor reducing other types of benefits they re willing to increase the Child Tax Credit. That’s why I view the Child Tax Credit as the modern version of bridewealth. But I haven’t forgotten that the CTC is not a gift.

    The CTC is permission for women who bear and raise children to keep a little more of the money they would otherwise give to the government in taxes. When you compare this to the spirit behind the practice of bridewealth the cynicism is remarkable. But there is good news. It is merely a financial offer, meaning that women are free to take it or leave it. The big guns in this fight are ideological.

    The chief ideological proposition is unspoken: human procreation is a virtue. So our first question should be, how (and why) did large families become a virtue?

    Additional claims stem from this proposition. These include: large families are an act of solidarity with the human race; large families are an act of love and compassion; and a shrinking birthrate indicates that the whole society is giving up on humanity.

    If you accept the first assumption the rest might make perfect sense, but are they true? This is an important question because these kinds of arguments do have an effect. What we need is evidence–perhaps we could start with a series of surveys. In the meantime I think I’ve noticed an inverse correlation between Paul Ryan’s compassion and his demand for a higher birthrate.

  • The State is Your Daddy

    It’s been my policy to ignore the Republicans. However, I feel I should say something about the government shutdown and the House tax bill. Since the Republicans control both houses of Congress I suspect that they actually want the shutdown to happen. Therefore, their threats represent a clear and present danger and must be stopped by force if necessary.

    As for the tax bill, I think it can be addressed on the basis of principle. It is important to be aware that certain ancient principles are still being honored today. The law of bridewealth is acknowledged in the Bible in a perverse way–in the changing of it. This takes place in the third chapter of Genesis.

    And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

    …Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to they husband and he shall rule over thee. (Genesis 3: 13, 16)

    I would argue that this story is justification for marriage without compensation. It suggests that marriage by default was always the norm, however there is evidence that the custom of bridewealth was practiced in the Old Testament. T.M. Lemos provides evidence of marriage gifts in the legal and narrative texts of the Bible, and in extrabiblical sources. Lemos also lists biblical references to marriage gifts other than bridewealth. Obviously, indebtedness to childbearing women is not admitted today but I believe it is acknowledged in the story of Adam and Eve. Please keep this in mind as we discuss the increase in the Child Tax Credit.

    The House Republican tax bill would increase the maximum Child Tax Credit (CTC) from the current $1,000 to $1,600 per child. However it would exclude 10 million children whose parents work for low pay—about 1 in 7 of all U.S. children in working families, including thousands of children in every state. Another 12 million children in working families would receive less than the full $600-per-child increase in the credit (in most cases much less). Altogether, about 1 in 3 children in working families would either be excluded entirely or only partially benefit from the CTC increase. In almost every state, 25 percent of children in working families would be partially or completely excluded. In 12 states, at least 40 percent would be excluded. If you include cuts to or elimination of 1 million immigrant children in low-income families, the total number comes to 23 million children.

    The credit is partially refundable. The refundable portion is limited to 15 percent of a family’s earnings over $3,000. So a single mother with two children and earnings of $10,000 is eligible for a CTC of $1,050 or $525 per child, rather than for the $2,000 ($1,000 per child) that a middle-income family with two children receives. The poorest children qualify for only a very small CTC or none at all.

    On the other hand, families with six-figure incomes would be made newly eligible for the credit or receive the largest CTC increases. The CTC of a married couple with two children earning $200,000 would rise from zero today to $3,200 under the plan.

    The Rubio-Lee proposal would help but it still falls short. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Senators Sherrod Brown and Michael Bennet, and other lawmakers have also introduced improvements. They would improve the CTC proposal in the House tax bill but they would not touch the biggest shortcomings in the plan: its heavy tilt toward the highest-income households and profitable corporations, and its impact in substantially increasing budget deficits and debt. (Emily Horton Child Tax Credit Increase Excludes Thousands of Children, Available: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/house-tax-bills-child-tax-credit-increase-excludes-thousands-of-children-in-low

    Rising deficits in turn would lead to increased pressure to make deep budget cuts in areas such as health care, food assistance for struggling families, and education – cuts that would fall heavily on low- and middle-income families and render them net losers, even if the plan’s CTC provisions are strengthened.

    “Overall, the House tax bill is heavily skewed toward high-income households and profitable corporations. When fully in effect, 38 percent of its benefits would go to the 0.3 percent of filers with annual incomes over $1 million…”

    Of course not even the full amount of the CTC will defray the costs of raising a child in the middle class. The Republicans seem to be counting on our ignorance of the principles involved here. I conclude that the central obligation in the resistance should belong to the parents of girls. Since the government seems to be playing the part of a spouse or in-law, I would also advise young women to cooperate with their parents to assure proper compensation from the government. I think this type of organization is a matter of self-defense under this regime.

    Maybe this will lead to a society in which Paul Ryan and his ilk cannot seduce women into having more children for a few pennies, and fill the coffers of the rich while denying those same women the entitlements they’ve paid for.

    See also: Emily Hales, Can government incentives reverse falling birth rates? Deseret news, June 27, 2014. Available: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865605862/Governments-use-incentives-to-counter-falling-fertility-rates.html

    Buttonwood, Political power follows economic power, The Economist, Feb 3, 2016. Available: https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2016/02/economics-and-democracy

  • Humanity at the Crossroads

    I just read the New York Times article about the baby homes in Ireland. Patriarchal ‘morality’ creates a throwaway culture. It turns love to hatred, beauty to ugliness, and human kindness to cruelty. If we really want to make things better we have to let it go. [1]

    [1] Ireland wanted to forget but the dead don’t always stay buried New York Times, 10/28/2017 (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/10/28/world/europe/tuam-ireland-babies-children.html)

  • Irreconcilable Differences?

    We’re all aware of the conflict in the Catholic Church between those who want the Church to be more modern and those who want it to maintain traditional discipline and forms of worship. For those of us on the outside, the public comments have been so cryptic and contradictory it’s impossible to know which way it is headed. That’s probably why a recent news story on Crux Now took me by surprise. The writer congratulated the pro-life faction on the election of Donald Trump because Trump plans to cut funding to Family Planning. This was published shortly after the bombs were dropped on Syria and Afghanistan. Apparently the Church is fine with Trump’s military brutality even as it applauds his pro-life agenda. This is very disappointing.

    I’m sure you’ve heard the pro-life claim that protecting life in the womb will assure world peace. I would argue instead that the frantic determination to conquer the womb is the root cause of disorder in our society. For forty years conservatives in the United States have been using the abortion issue to attack our democracy. One of their most effective strategies has been electing presidents who will appoint Scalia-type justices to the Supreme Court. Now we can see where this has led us. Their persistent efforts have finally brought our republic to its knees.

  • This is How We Should Talk to Each Other

    Two Italian designers made a statement about gay marriage that turned out to be very controversial. However, I believe this is how we should talk to each other.

    Domenico Dolce and Stefano Gabbana said in a recent interview that they oppose gay adoptions. They also oppose gay marriage. They believe ‘the only family is the traditional one’.

    Gabbana said, ”A child needs a mother and a father. I could not imagine my childhood without my mother. I also believe that it is cruel to take a baby away from its mother.”

    I wanted to share this story for two reasons: first because it demonstrates kindness and consideration for mothers; and second because it’s surprising that men are questioning whether gay men should be raising children together. I agree with this point of view.

  • It Depends on Your Definition of Tradition

    The birth control debate has focused on single women. However married couples depend on birth control more consistently than single people. I’d like to invite the legislators to include married women in the discussion.

    There is a disconnect in our understanding of sexual relations in marriage. We laugh about old television shows that depict married couples sleeping in twin beds because we think we know better. The implications of twin beds are lost to us because the control of fertility no longer depends on the control of sex.

    Many people are not aware that married couples once slept in separate bedrooms. They also may not be aware that there used to be biological and seasonal prohibitions on marital sex. Apparently, ancient people understood the importance of population control. Or was it that they still saw women as people?

    A decrease in marital sex is not what our legislators have in mind when they limit access to birth control. Their goal is a higher birthrate. These men may pose as defenders of tradition, but there is nothing traditional about what they are doing.

error: Content is protected !!