The Bill of Rights was appended to the Constitution. It was intended to ensure that the Democrtic process could not be stifled. The framers recognized that the right to speak one's mind freely and to assemble were intiregal to successfully maintaining a democracratic government.

They did not envision that the right to free speech meant that one citizen has a right to block another citizen's path and impede their rights to pursue their own legal objectives. They did not envision this as an entitlement to scream one's views at someone else, because the speaker disapproves of somene's personal choices. We all have a right to speak our mind freely and to assemble, but a healthy Democracy does not require that this happen in another citizen's face. It was intended to ensure that people could speak freely about issues and disagree with the government without fear of government retailation.

The Supreme Court Justices (who are appointed government officials) believe's that they have a right to use the whole huge Courtyard out front of the Court as a buffer zone. Justice Robert's says he sees no problem with the protesters in front of Clinics who just want to speak with their fellow citizens. But if we just want to speak to our fellow citizens on the Supreme Court (who make decisions affecting our lives), he sees a problem. Is this hypocracy?

Justice Robert's who is in sympathy with the anti-choice protestors characterizes blocking paths, screaming, assault and murder as just wanting to talk to fellow citizen's. When someone insists on speaking to me and I don't want to talk with them, it is harassment! It is not free speech. I also should have the right to not listen and persue my business.

Our Country does limit freedom of assembly from some places. Most assemblies on public property require permits (which are not always approved). When TC NOW was picketing Hobby Lobby we were forced to picket from outside their parking lot, even though this area is open to the public. When Bush didn't want to be bothered by protesters, they set up free speech zones. These were far away from him and the media. This same tactic was used frequently with the Occupy Wall Street protests. Apparently free speech zones are constitutional to marginalize left wing protestors from elected officials.

The anti-choice supporters are free to speak their mind through mailings, media, rallies and various other venues. They can reach out to women who are considering their choices about a pregnancy (in fact various organizations already do). They already had a free speech zone that included the whole country except within a 35 ft radius of a clinic). This is a far larger free speech zone than Occupy Wall Street or the Bush protestors had. This zone is only necessary becasue they persist in harassing and violating individuals who wish to enter the clinics.

Shame on the activist Justices (many who claim to be strict constructionists) for extending the right of free speech to the right to harass other citizens of whose actions you disapprove. Shame on the Justices who (while still believing in buffer zones) ruled out buffer zones to protect the health, safety, and free access of women seeking healthcare and providers. Shame on the 4 liberal judges, who can't connect the dots and realize that free speech is not always absolute. There is not a right of free speech to yell "Fire" in a crowded theatre. In the same sense, free speech should not be extended to enable harassment, intimidation, assault, and murder.

If buffer zones are inherently unconstitutional, then theirs is too! Perhaps this should be challenged and taken to the Supreme Court.

In a recent article in Slatest Dahlia Lithwick connects the dots on the movement to increase the definition of person hood.
At one end we have Far right attempts to declare fetuses and even zygotes persons. At the other end is Hobby Lobby's attempt to increase the definition of corporate person hood in order to force its religious beliefs on its employees.
In both cases this extension of person hood diminishes the rights and person hood of actual people.
Lithwick sums it up very effectively: "If the far right succeeds in stretching these two legal fictions to their illogical extremes, American “person hood” will begin at conception, diminish somewhat at birth, and regain its force upon incorporation?"
Read the full article.

She Walks The Walk

We should all be very proud of our Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand. She doesn't just talk about ending sexual harassment in the military. She walks the walk. She is willing to cross other Democrats, when necessary, to do what is right. The following is an excerpt from a NY Times article.
New York's Junior Senator, Doggedly Refusing to Play the Part by Jennifer Steinhauer The New York Times
If there were a chutzpah caucus in the United States Senate, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York would be its natural leader.
On a fund-raising swing through Chicago this fall, she told donors to pressure their hometown senator — Richard J. Durbin, a Democrat who is one of the most powerful men in the Senate — because he had yet to sign on to her bill to address sexual assault in the military. Mr. Durbin fumed when he heard about the move, an unusual breach in the protocol-conscious Senate.
She defies her party in smaller ways: After a bipartisan farm bill was cobbled together with great effort by her colleague Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Ms. Gillibrand tried to block cuts to food stamps that other Democrats said were needed to retain Republican support and brought in high-profile foodies from New York, including the celebrity chef Tom Colicchio, to fight it.

Some Employers Want the Right to Contol Your Health Care

Hobby Lobby has decided that because they have to provide Health insurance, their employees should not be covered for contraceptives. They have challenged Obama's Affordable Care Act in court.

Health care is a benefit. How is it distinguishable from a salary? Will they next decide that they must approve of how their employees spend their salary?

It is important to send a message to Hobby Lobby that they nor any other employer does not own their employees. They do not have a right to interfere in private health care decisions

It must be sarcasm

I have been puzzled by the audience response at Republican debates.

I could not understand it when they cheered at the suggestion that if people

got seriously ill and could not afford health care, they should just die.

I could not understand how they could cheer in support of Cain as he

defended his right to sexually harass female employees and made Anita Hill

jokes.

I could not understand how the audience could cheer Gingrich as he accused

the media of being liberal because they didn't ask Occupy Wall Street

distorted questions.

I puzzled over this and finally I had a revelation.
It must be sarcasm! When I think about it this way, it was actually funny.
It is utterly absurd to believe that it is acceptable to allow sick people

to die for lack of health care in the wealthiest nation in the world .
It is utterly absurd to think that using one's financial position over women to

extort sex is anything short of rape.
It is utterly absurd to believe that because people express that

corporations are not people and they need regulation and that over 25% of

the nation's wealth should not be concentrated in 2% of our population, that

they are claiming that businesses should not be allowed to make any profit.

It is even more absurd that people would cheer this. This is very funny

sarcasm. So why is no one laughing?

Republican claims of fiscal responsibilty is yet another lie.

Republican claims of fiscal responsibility is yet another lie.
The reality behind their 5 year plan belies their true objectives.
They propose 6 trillion in cuts to medicare and medicaid, environmental protection, and other programs that assist the poor and middle class. But do not be fooled into believing that this will all go to balance the budget. they plan 4 trillion dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy.

Four trillion dollars in cuts to health care and the environment is solely to enable another 4 trillion dollars of cuts to the wealthy (who already pay a smaller percentage of their income in taxes than the poor and middle class).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/11/us/politics/11deficit.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

The Truth Will Out!

While Wealthy corporations can spend millions to support Republicans (without even reporting it), Republicans continue to mount an attack on anything or anyone who might express opinions which differ from theirs.

1) They threaten to end funding for public radio and television.
2) They are systematically destroying unions
3) Now they are attacking the free speech of college professors, Gov Scott Walker and journalist Rachel Maddow.

State employees are often forbidden from supporting candidates or engaging in political campaigns. This was intended as a means to protect employees from being used by elected state officials, who might exploit them.
<A conservative Michigan think tank has requested all personal emails from labor studies faculty.
State employees can't support candidates, but they surely have a right to express their opinion on issues. Freedom of speech is a right guaranteed to every American. Well it used to be.
Oddly enough the think tank is concerned that labor relations professors might be expressing an opinion on labor issues. What next will Biology professors be forbidden from expressing their opinion on evolution?

Even more bizarre is their basis to request personal correspondence from an elected official (who surely has a right to express his opinion on issues) and Rachel Maddow (one of the few reporters who are not right wingers).

This is a blatant attack on anyone who would express opinions other than accepted Republican doctrine.
What are they so afraid of?
The Truth!
We must continue to speak the truth and speak it loudly.>

Social Security Under Attack!

Social Security is a Federal Insurance program into which every worker pays. In return workers have a guaranteed pension in their retirement and insurance/financial protection in the event of disability. It provides survivors benefits to protect a family after the loss of a bread winner.

It is entirely separate from the budget. Yet Republicans, who hate the Social Security program (or any program the doesn't make the rich richer), will attempt to cut Social security benefits under the guise of balancing the budget.

Any cuts to Social Security will be especially devastating to women. Women overall make less than men. Many women choose to take time from working out side the home in order to care for children. Because of this and the lower wages of women, women's social security benefits are lower. Many women already have inadequate or barely adequate Social Security benefits. They cannot afford cuts.

Some media sources are reporting that Democrats are willing to accept a budget compromise that would make deep cuts to entitlement programs. The New York Times continues to report that Senate Democrats are standing firm.

Contact your legislators!

Lessons of the Great Depression

Are we destined to repeat the great depression, because we failed to learn from it? Reagan initiated trickle down economics, deregulation, and the corrosion of collective bargaining rights. We slowly continue to implement it. Our wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the top 1% of Americans. The percentage of wealth concentrated in the top 1% of our population has only been this high one other time since 1913 (before the great crash and depression). Workers bargaining rights and progressive income taxes had insured that wealth was more evenly distributed and that America had a strong middle class. If giving the wealthy more money creates jobs and the wealthy have more money than they have had since 1929, why is unemployment so high? If their trickle down economic were a vaild theory , record wealth at the top should correlate with record employment. The hidden truth is that jobs are created when the middle class has money to spend and create small businesses. Trickle down creates increases in poverty, homelessness and unemployment. What direction are the extremists in this country pushing? To cut public jobs (increasing unemployment). Roosevelt took us out of the great depression with a public jobs program--not massive public job cuts. To cut Social Security benefits. Many elderly and disabled individuals who paid in and relied upon these benefits will be driven into the streets. Maybe we will throw them into concentration camps or execute them--like the Nazi's. To dismantle collective bargaining rights What will be left besides the rich, the slave labor (that makes them wealthy) and millions of homeless left to die in the streets. We must not sit back or be driven by these insane and faulty slogans. We must make this Country understand the dangerous path we are on before we all end up real life characters in "The Grapes of Wrath".

Judicial Nominations

Everytime (in recent history) Democrats have a President in the Whitehouse--Republicans hold up judicial nominations. During Clinton's term Republicans had control of the Senate and the held the Judiciary Committee in thrall to their own agenda.
So now when Democrats have a majority (and theoretically a filibuster proof majority), why has Obama been able to get only 3 of his 23 nominations on the bench. 90 Judiciary seats reamin empty and cases are backing up.
Republicans continue to hold our Country captive with their annonymous holds and filibuster threats. It is obvious to everyone else (if not yet to Obama) that bipartisanship won't work. Obama wishes to reduce partisan rancor over judicial nominations. One has to wonder how that could ever happen? As long as Democrats appoint judges who believe in the right to privacy and individual rights, Republicnas will be vehemently opposed.
The best part about having Democrats in control is that, we get to put judges on the bench who agree with us. Many women voted for Obama to protect the courts--not to appease Republicans.
The Democrats need to rally their majority to stand together and do the job they were elected to do. Obama needs to lead them and stop fretting about what the Republicans want. The Republicans want to be back in control. If the Democrats let the Republicans immobolize them, the people will return control to the Republicans.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101504083.html?hpid=topnews
Lori

Ithaca Community Members Rally for Single Payer Health Care

In light of Obama’s plan for single-payer health insurance reduced bypolitical differences in Washington, about forty Ithaca communitymembers gathered on the Commons last Thursday afternoon in a rally forsingle-payer health care featuring Terry O’Neill, president of theNational Organization for Women. She said in reference tosingle-payer, “Well, I say it should happen and it needs to happensoon. We need a robust and full public option.”Single payer health care is named as such because doctors andhospitals are paid by one entity, usually the government. It is verysimilar to universal health care, which has been implemented by nearlyall industrialized countries and some of the developing world indegrees ranging from a nationalized health system (as in the UnitedKingdom) to decentralized health care (as in France).O’Neill also stated that an improved insurance system was necessaryfor women because “women are two to three times more likely to die inchildbirth without prenatal care” and “in eight states and theDistrict of Columbia, insurance companies can say that domesticviolence is a pre-existing condition. Also, “the reason women shouldhave single-payer is because insurance is predominantly throughemployment. Women predominate in part time employment” as well asminimum wage and non-union jobs, which O’Neill said are the leastlikely to have comprehensive health insurance.O’Neill’s appearance at the rally was part of a short tour of upstateNew York, including stops in Syracuse, Ithaca, and Buffalo. AllendraLetsome, vice president of membership for NOW, continued on toRochester. Although construction near That Burrito Place churned behind them,speakers stood on the concrete benches at the edge of the BernieMilton Pavilion and addressed the standing audience through amicrophone. The mayor of Ithaca, Carolyn Peterson, said that sevenmillion dollars out of Ithaca’s fifty million dollar budget for nextyear would go towards health care. Peterson is a member of the U.S.Conference of Mayors, which passed a resolution in June 2008supporting single payer healthcare.The New York State president of NOW, Marcia Pappas, and TompkinsCounty chapter head Lori Gardner also briefly addressed the crowd.Local NOW member Beverly Livesay, longtime Ithaca resident and inattendance at the rally, said “I think it’s one of the crucial issuesof our time—we’re killing young people, we’re killing our elderlybecause of a lack of insurance.”According to 2004 Institute of Medicine findings, “The clinicalliterature overwhelmingly shows that uninsured people, children aswell as adults, suffer worse health and die sooner than those withinsurance.” The IOM also stated in a 2009 report that “Individualswithout employer-sponsored health insurance who are not eligible forpublic insurance must rely on a limited nongroup health insurancemarket to obtain coverage. The premium costs for nongroup coverage canbe exceedingly high and individual subscribers must pay the entirecost without a contribution from an employer.”Bethany Schroeder MFA ’85, president of the Ithaca Health Alliance’sBoard of Directors, is working to provide health care for those whocannot pay those high costs. The Ithaca Health Alliance providesgrants to those who cannot afford health care bills and runs a freeclinic on South Fulton Street. She said that in Ithaca health careresources are “necessary because we have a great many people who arewell educated but underemployed and they just don’t have the resourcesto pay for insurance.” Schroeder estimated that “seventy percent ofthe people that come to visit us come to get primary care from aphysician” and said that “they don’t have insurance and this is theonly way they can get the care.” The free clinic also providesholistic and integrative care, which approximately thirty percent ofvisitors utilize, according to Schroeder.A popular bill in Congress for advocates of single payer is H.R. 676.Ithaca’s local representative to Congress, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)of the 22nd district, cosponsored H.R. 676, also known as the UnitedStates National Health Care Act or the Expanded and Improved Medicarefor All Act, with eighty-six other members of Congress. The bill, ifpassed, would provide free medically necessary care to all individualsresiding in the U.S. or U.S. territories, including primary care andmedicine. It would also prohibit any for-profit institutions fromparticipating.Allendra Letsome, membership vice president for NOW, had advice tooffer to Cornell students. She remarked in a telephone interview that“the minute you leave the wonderful bubble of campus, your health carebecomes your own responsibility. When you make fifteen dollars perhour without health care coverage, your health care costs are going tobecome very relevant to you and you’d wish you’d said something.”
Emily Coon

Haliburton Covers up Rape and Sexual Harassment Against Women Employees.

While enjoying the benefit of government contracts, Haliburton (KBR) has been covering up acts of sexual harassment, rape and kidnapping against women employees. Rather than filing charges against (or even firing the men) they fired women, who chose to press charges.

Corporations which enjoy the benefits of our tax dollars must face extra scrutiny. They must prove that they are providing a workplace that is free from discrimination. It must be one that offers equal opportunities to everyone, where sexual harassment is dealt with harshly. Most assuredly the rapes and gang rape that occured at Halliburton should have been dealt with severly (to the full extent of the law). http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/world/middleeast/13contractors.html?_r=1
Lori

Sgt. Maj. Teresa L. King Becomes First Woman to be Top Drill Sergeant.

No woman has ever run one of the army's rigorous shools for drill instructors. Today, Sgt King becomes the first. Accd. to NYT's just 8% of the active-duty Army's highest ranking enlisted soldiers are women--even though more than 13% of Army personnel are female. Prohibitions against women serving in combat is cited as one reason for this discrepency. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/us/22sergeant.html?th&emc=th
lori

Ill-Gotten Gains

When Terry O'Neill decided to visit Ithaca, our chapter deceided that the critical issue to address right now is health care reform. Our Country has an opportunity to take a step forward, but appears to be poised to actually take a step backwards. It is better to do nothing than pass Baucus' plan. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/17/health/policy/17health.html?_r=1&th&emc=th
Governement taxes us and provides us with services. That is the role of government---To promote the general welfare. I read it in one of those dusty old documents we keep in the Smithstonian.
We just keep forgetting about it. The problem with Baucus' plan is that it forces people to buy into private insurance. This is in essence allowing the insurance companies to tax American citizens. Unlike when we are taxed by the government, we will have no representation there. We can't vote out the insurance companies CEO! We can't vote on their bloated salaries? We will have no say, when they raise our taxes.
Taxation without representation! We fought a revolution against that. A little before my time, but I heard that we won. Not the insurance companies!

Insurance Companies profit off illness. They turn around and use their "ill-gotten gains" to fight against real health care reform. Do we really want to subsidize them and make them stronger?
We need to oppose the Baucus plan vigorously. It is a step backwards.
Lori

Rape Is Not A Joke

OK-- So many people thing that if there is more than a token number of women in politics that women are taking over. Our culture doesn't see this as sexism.
Many think that cultural sexism is acceptable because it is cultural or condoned by religon.
Women still only make about 70 cents to every dollar men make.
As wrong as all this is it is totally outrageous and unacceptable to make jokes about rape!
Russell Brand joked at the MTV music video awards, about drugging Megan Fox and raping her. More outrageos than the comment was that virtually no one commented on it. While President Obama called West a "Jackass" for an outburst at the program. He has been silent about Brand's denigration of all women.
People who proclaim themselves feminists. People who even proclaim to care about women need to speak up. It is not acceptable to use women for sex. It is not acceptable to have sex with a woman without her consent. It is not acceptable to joke about it or create the appearance that rape is funny, amusing, or acceptable.
Enough--Society must speak up. This behavior cannot be condoned!
Lori

Post to healthcare blog Thanks!

Why are we the only wealthy industrialized country that has thousands of uninsured citizens? These other countries offer single payer insurance except a for few that combine private and public insurance options, e.g. Holland. Despite being capitalist countries, they believe that healthcare for all is a necessity. I suppose we need to study their healthcare history to understand how this came about in those countries and and what prevented it here. (Think insurance companies?!)
Small, poor countries such as Panama and Costa Rica have very good single payer systems. Here's a recent quote from a Costa Rican paper: "It's been more than 65 years since this small country of 4.6 million people introduced a public health care system. Spending $6,000 less per capita than the United States on health today, Costa Rica boasts a longlife expectancy and an infant mortality rate nearly equal to that of the U.S." ("The Tico Times," " Caja, a Model Health System?" by Chrissie Long, August 21, 2009, p. 1)

Just where is our outrage?
Karen

Response to persistence of Sexism blog of 9/12

One reason sexism persists is that social change tends to be slothfully slow just like our present Congress in action. It takes years of educating people through plodding, prodding and repetition to make the positive changes we seek. (Look at how long it is taking to create legislation to prevent a worldwide catastrophe due to global climate change. While predictions are dire, people remain nonplussed and mired in entropy.) Another problem is that sexism has become more subtle. In addition, although we see sexism as dysfunctional it still serves some functions otherwise it would vaporize. Recently, we've been told that there are now more women in the workforce than men. At some level, this may look good. But it is not a kudo for women. It could simply mean that some employers would prefer to hire women because they pay them less, are less threatened by them, etc.

Your point about people perceiving some sex roles to be intrinsic is certainly one major roadblock. People don't even think about changing something that is written in DNA.

I may be perceived as soft on the crime of sexism, but my gut feeling is that we just have to continue patiently taking small tripping steps. Sometimes monumental gains are made by a stroke of serendipity but then it's usually back to the pokey glacial grind.

Karen

Why is sexism still a socially acceptable ism?

Why is sexism still a socially acceptable ism?

Why is it that people can express sexist views and still be considered politically correct?

Why is it that commercials still portray women cleaning the toilets, vacuuming, and breaking up with their mops?

Why is it that when we see women heros on TV they always have short, tight skirts and low cleavage?
Why is it that we finally have 2 medical shows where the headline charcters are women and both are in the stereotyped role of nurse?

Why are all late night talk show hosts men?

Why are the vast majority of TV political pundits men?

Why is it still acceptable to refer to grown women as girls (as if we are still children who need guidance and protection)?

Why is it seen as acceptable that 50% of the population has only token representation on the US Supreme Court, Congress, and the US Senate.

Why is it socially acceptable to regard women as sex objects rather than whole human beings?

Why is it that society still assumes that there are intrinsic sex roles?

I know that there are alot more whys, but I think that the answer is connected with my last why. The continued acceptance of intrinsic gender roles allows all the other examples of sexism to be acceptable.

Health Care Reform Must Have a Public Option

NOW supports a single payer health care plan, because health care and health insurance is an issue that disproportionately affects women. Women are disproportionately stuck in minimum wage jobs without health insurance. Women who stay home to care for children, are dependant on their husbands health insurance plan. Medicare as an exaple of a government plan, is administered much more efficiently than private health insurance plans, because they don't make a profit. Insurance companies are making a desperate bid to maintain their ability to make a profit off the suffering and illness of people in need of care.

Enough!! Let us get out there and cut through the lies and mud of the insurance companies. We may not be able to get single payer right now, but any health insurance reform needs a public option. We need a vehicle to compete with the insurance companies. Too bad if they can not compete and make a profit. It is more important that we deliver health care to all rather than provide profits for insurance companies.
Write or call President Obama and tell him to lead America toward real health care reform (with a public option).
http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ and 202-456-1111.

Lori

Women in Combat

Whether or not we support the war, as feminists we believe that women should be treated equally and have equal opportunities in the military. Women in the military will never be treated as true equals by their male counter parts until they also serve in combat. According to a recent NYT article, GI Jane Breaks the Combat barrier as the War evolves, women are proving themselves in combat roles.

The military is using women more and more in combat roles, even though Congress has relegated women to non-combat roles. Modern combat is not a matter of pure physical strength. In peace keeping actions, inter personal skills may even be a greater advantage than sheer strength. Throughout history, women disquised themselves as men and served in combat. They were so successful that they often went undiscovered. If this weren't proof enough that women are capable, this article proves it.

It is past time that Congress removed the restrictions on women in the military.

Lori