- HubPages»
- Politics and Social Issues
Conservatives Strike Blow Against Women and Civil Rights in Their Campaign to Restore the Values of the 1700s [173*9]
TEXAS GOVERNOR RICK PERRY
THE BATTLE TO SUPPRESS CIVIL RIGHTS GOES ON!
THE 10/28/2012 ARTICLE BEGINS - "(CNN) -- Texas won another battle against Planned Parenthood this week." What followed was a report regarding a ruling denying Planned Parenthood's challenge to a Texas law denying them State funding that use to be supplied by Medicaid.
Image, in 2012, an American State doing battle with an organization, and those affiliated with it, whose sole purpose is to help disadvantaged women with health problems! Worse yet, to have a Federal Court go along with it. This sad state of affairs is easier to understand, of course, when you realize the state is Texas and the federal court is the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, both dominated by conservatives, and the fact that one of the multitude of services offered by Planned Parenthood is abortion counselling. Knowing this, it all makes sense now, given the history of conservative opposition to advances in civil rights from the abolition of slavery to a woman's right to vote to their on-going opposition to equal opportunity and affirmative action, and yes, public funding of woman's health care counselling regarding family planning because it includes an abortion option.
Conservatives believe so strongly in this that, in Texas, Governor Perry, a stand-in for Governor Romney, went so far as to first " ... give up funding from Washington and run the Women's Health Program itself. ..." and then " ... adopt a rule that required clinics funded by the program to certify they do not perform abortions or are not affiliates of entities that perform abortions." (Medicaid provided the funding to Texas' Women's Health Program until Texas chose not to accept Medicaid support any longer in order to impose their will on the poor women of Texas.) This is what Planned Parenthood had challenged and just lost on appeal. As a consequence, the disadvantaged women of Texas no longer have access to abortions, or, if they do, it is now extremely difficult and costly; just the way conservatives want it.
Concerning the ruling of the 5th Circuit, Perry said,
"Today's ruling affirms yet again that in Texas the Women's Health Program has no obligation to fund Planned Parenthood and other organizations that perform or promote abortion. In Texas we choose life, and we will immediately begin defunding all abortion affiliates to honor and uphold that choice,"
This means, of course, if you don't like my moral code, get out of Texas, because, if you don't have money, you lose your liberty to choose your own moral code; you are automatically cast as a second-class citizen.
Did you know that it was only in 1964, with the passage of the Civil Rights Act that the words,
"WE hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men [and Women] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...."
... were finally instantiated in law (and later backed up by Supreme Court decisions) to insure their FULL meaning, and not to apply just to the white, male, Protestant, property owners who were the only Americans for whom they originally meant? (BTW, take note that Jefferson included the words "among these", meaning there are more than the big three, and that "unalienable" was originally "inalienable". I just learned that either Congress or the person who wrote the final, official copy changed the spelling, nobody knows.)
In any case, conservatives, whether they be Democrats or Republicans, and progressives, again, whether they be Democrats or Republicans, continue to do battle, with one side trying to push back the gains made over the last century or so, as in the Texas case, while the other side tries to maintain what they have gained and possibly gain more.
Which side are you on?
REV. PAT ROBERTSON ON INFIDELITY
5/19/2013: I WASN'T SURE WHICH HUB TO PUT THIS IN, so this one was the winner. Here is a wonderful summary of how I think Conservatives view the role of women in today's society ... from a recent 700 Club TV episode:
Pat Robertson, the network's 83-year-old founder, was not condoning adultery when he answered a viewer's question on "The 700 Club" this week, the network said.
The viewer said she was having difficulty forgiving her husband for cheating. Robertson said the “secret” was to “stop talking about the cheating. He cheated on you. Well, he’s a man. OK.”
Robertson went on to suggest the woman focus on why she had married her husband and whether he provided for her needs and those of their children, adding, “Is he handsome? Start focusing on these things and essentially fall in love all over again.”
“Males have a tendency to wander a little bit. And what you want to do is make a home so wonderful he doesn’t want to wander.”
I doubt it ever crossed Robertson's mind to wonder why the husband married the wife or that the husband even has a responsibility toward the wife beyond the two he mentions. And you wonder why the stereotype lives on?
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
DO AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH MY CHARACTERIZATION OF THE BATTLE BETWEEN PROGRESSIVES AND CONSERVATIVES REGARDING CIVIL RIGHTS?
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY# 1
Do you consider yourself most closely aligned with
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY# 2
Are you
AMAZON ON CONSERVATISM AND CIVIL RIGHTS
Related
Comments
- Author
I appreciate your thoughts, LRC. You staying dry? You should be pleased to know, however, that Plato and Socratese did consider women one step above slaves, back in the day. Aristotle, on the other hand, near the end of his days, had a change of heart and actually raised women up to near equal status in his philosophy. The difference? Plato and Socretese were men of pure Principle and Aristotle was a Pragmatist.
It makes me sick that we are having to argue these issues in 2012. The conservatives will take us back to the day when women were nothing more than domestic help and baby ovens. This is a great hub and I hope your audience understands how serious the issue is and how important it is to be involved in the democratic process. Vote up and all the way across (except funny). There is nothing funny about it.
- Author
It is wrapped up in religion which means logic takes a back seat.
I don't see how any woman could vote to have her rights taken away. I also don't understand why the conservatives would want to take away contraception from poor women -- by making it affordable there will be less unwanted pregnancies. What is there to gain by these women having more babies that they cannot afford. Conservatives want to get rid of abortion and contracepcion and then also take away any help or support -- ensuring these children a difficult path to the American dream. I would at least think the conservatives would want birth control for women who cannot afford more children. I just don't get. To me there is no logic in this thinking. If you want women to get pregnant and keep babies they can't afford or don't want then where is the support system? I don't see well off people having to forgo sex because of birth control. I am so angry about taking away family planning from people who are struggeling so hard to succeed. Thank you for writing such a great article about this issue.
I look forward to reading your Jefferson Hub. He was a very contradictory fellow, as many were during his period. I am a big fan of Alexander Hamilton but he also was a man of his era and was also contradictory.
- Author
I am about to start one of my progressive (as in slot machine) hubs on Thomas Jefferson based on a great biography I am currently reading. He is a very contradictory soul, for sure, but would be turning over in his grave right now. As I had suspected, but didn't know the degree of it, he was one of the original American social progressives, although his fiscal and governmental politics were still rather right-wing.
His progressivism did have a couple of odd twists to it (women, you will like this); it seems Jefferson wasn't a big proponent of the death penalty, saving that for certain Murders and Treason. So, trying to be more civilized and tolerant and holding to historic tradition, the eye-for-an-eye thing, rather than having the death penalty for rape, he thought castration was sufficient, and that is what he, Pendelton and Wythe wrote into the Virginia Code of Law.
Very true. This Republican party is nothing close to the one we knew when we were younger. Nixon would almost be called a commie with this group. Even Ronald Reagan would be considered a moderate or to the Left of most in the current GOP.
- Author
Boy, that was fast! :-) Thanks, HS, although I hesitate to use the term Republican since the Republican brand was the beginning of social progressivism in America. Even Republicans Eisenhower and Nixon tended strongly in that direction when they were President. That is why I try to stick with conservative and progressive, that has been very constant throughout American history.
I totally agree with you, My Esoteric. The Republicans have certain symbolic groups that they love to oppose to keep their base happy. Planned Parenthood, National Public Radio, Acorn, and many others. They do not give a hoot about poor women, only political points. It is arrogance and callousness to the max.
9