Before I get into dealing with disappointment, it is reasonable to ask if I remember anything from the time period when there was still a question of whether the Equal Rights Amendment would pass.
The first introduction to Congress was in 1923. No memories there, but it clearly didn't really have momentum at that point. Conflict between different feminists and opposition in Congress meant it rarely even reached the Senate floor, except for once in 1946 when it was defeated.
I think when you say "ERA" people really think of the '70s. That is reasonable, but it is also reasonable to remember that history is always more complicated than what is widely known.
In 1972 (when I was born) the Equal Rights Amendment passed both houses of Congress, which sent it to the individual states for ratification. There was an original ratification deadline set for 1979, later extended to 1982, but the real peak would have been 1977 (when I was 5). By then 35 states had ratified and only 3 more were needed. Instead, some states rescinded their ratifications.
In the states that were still up for grabs, there was probably a lot of buzz. Oregon ratified in February 1973, when I was just barely a year old, so even though the issue was still going on, I don't think I would have heard a lot about it. There are three memories that I believe are related.
One was the Batgirl commercial about equal pay that I linked to in an earlier post. I remember it in the same spot in my mind where I remember commercials encouraging you to get government publications from Pueblo, Colorado.
Two is a vague memory of people at church talking about someone saying something as a man or as a prophet. Later I remember church teachers saying "When you hear people talking about whether someone is speaking as a man or a prophet...", but I think for that first memory it was not hypothetical and it was kind of intense. I don't know how often that particular question comes up, but I have a funny feeling that it could have been about Elder Packer speaking on the Equal Rights Amendment in 1977, though the building I remember being at probably puts the memory in 1978 or '79. Maybe he gave more talks that were similar. It could fit.
(You can read it here: https://www.lds.org/ensign/1977/03/the-equal-rights-amendment?lang=eng I had great affection for Elder Packer, but not for this talk.)
The last memory is "The Liberation of Marcia Brady", episode 19 of Season 2 of "The Brady Bunch". It originally aired February 12th, 1971, almost a full year before I was born, but I remember seeing it sometime before I was 6, because we were still living in Wilsonville.
The episode starts off with a reporter asking high school girls what they think about women's equality, which Marcia finds herself feeling strongly about. Challenged on her stance, she joins the Frontier Scouts and proves her abilities, but then doesn't stick with it because it's yucky boy stuff.
I know that doesn't sound that radical, but I remember being struck by the unfairness of the stereotypes, and that she could do as good as them, and it made me not want to attend a scouting event that was coming up.
I remember it so well because it was an early conflict with my father, and I was wrong and stupid because women weren't as good as men. I don't think he said it quite that succinctly. I don't think it was that time when he gave the example of the woman in the Coast Guard who messed up a rescue, or how letting women be firefighters and police officers messes up the height requirements, but he was always very sure of the legitimacy of the inequality, both when he went to church and after he stopped.
I also know, as someone a bit older and more experienced, that it's bull. There are women who are not physically good matches for the military or fire crews, but there are also men who are not. There is enough variation among either gender to rule out any clear signs of superiority, if you are willing to look at it.
Apparently the best reason to not look at it is an unwillingness to face that you do not have clear superiority, but that you have good points and bad points and strengths and weaknesses just like anyone else. It's more complex, and there's more personal responsibility, but it's also true and that's worth a lot.
Sunday, December 4, 2016
Sunday, November 27, 2016
The failure of ERA
As I was wrapping up the ratified amendments, I had thought I might
spend some time on other acts and sections of the United States legal
code. Parts I had in mind include Title IX (passed before the Equal
Rights Amendment failed, and criticized by many of the ERA's critics),
the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act, Fair Housing Act, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Previous posts have already covered that this kind of legislation is often a way of detailing how constitutional protections work, and how they will be enforced, as well as how often these principles go back to the Equal Protection clause. Two weeks ago I posted on clear issues of unequal protection.
If people don't believe in the values that the law supports, they are less likely to comply with the law. That can play out differently, based on how widespread the belief is. When the federal government strongly supports school integration, National Guard escorts may be used to force the issue. When the segregationists then switch to private schools, there may be undercover work to see if there is racial exclusion being practiced. Often de facto segregation prevails as people keep finding new ways to support it.
In the case of the Voting Rights Act, it has faced constant challenges. Those challenges eventually reached a Supreme Court that struck down some protections based on the argument that they were no longer necessary. It would be laughable if it hadn't resulted in disenfranchisement that had a direct impact on the election.
In Why We Lost the ERA, Mansbridge admits that in many ways the passage would not have had an impact. This was both because some legislation had already passed and because some areas were unlikely to be affected based on traditional areas of exception.
I still feel like it could have been incredibly important symbolically. When the key issues that prevent us from truly progressing are people stubbornly clinging to the past, symbolically saying "Yes, women are equal and the law will uphold that," can matter.
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
Having that language enshrined in the Constitution would have mattered. It's not that there wouldn't constantly be people pushing back against it, just as they have continued to push back against Civil Rights Legislation, but there is still a power.
We had a chance to do something good and we didn't. That echoes.
And it puts me in opposition to my church, so next week will be about that.
Previous posts have already covered that this kind of legislation is often a way of detailing how constitutional protections work, and how they will be enforced, as well as how often these principles go back to the Equal Protection clause. Two weeks ago I posted on clear issues of unequal protection.
If people don't believe in the values that the law supports, they are less likely to comply with the law. That can play out differently, based on how widespread the belief is. When the federal government strongly supports school integration, National Guard escorts may be used to force the issue. When the segregationists then switch to private schools, there may be undercover work to see if there is racial exclusion being practiced. Often de facto segregation prevails as people keep finding new ways to support it.
In the case of the Voting Rights Act, it has faced constant challenges. Those challenges eventually reached a Supreme Court that struck down some protections based on the argument that they were no longer necessary. It would be laughable if it hadn't resulted in disenfranchisement that had a direct impact on the election.
In Why We Lost the ERA, Mansbridge admits that in many ways the passage would not have had an impact. This was both because some legislation had already passed and because some areas were unlikely to be affected based on traditional areas of exception.
I still feel like it could have been incredibly important symbolically. When the key issues that prevent us from truly progressing are people stubbornly clinging to the past, symbolically saying "Yes, women are equal and the law will uphold that," can matter.
"Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."
Having that language enshrined in the Constitution would have mattered. It's not that there wouldn't constantly be people pushing back against it, just as they have continued to push back against Civil Rights Legislation, but there is still a power.
We had a chance to do something good and we didn't. That echoes.
And it puts me in opposition to my church, so next week will be about that.
Sunday, November 20, 2016
ERA opposition - Protecting whom?
Much of the opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment focused on what women would lose if it did pass. That protection largely focused on the legal responsibilities husbands had toward their wives. The first question that comes to mind for me as a single woman is "How does this help me?"
I can handle some self-sacrifice for the greater good, but that is not what we have here.
We are decades past the failure to ratify ERA, and some progress has been made, but consider the response to Donald Trump's bragging about kissing women and grabbing their privates without waiting for consent:
One thing that happens too often is that you will have a guy crudely hitting on a woman, and then when he finds out she is married he will apologize to the husband. The problem is not his boorish behavior and the discomfort it causes, but the lack of respect for previously marked territory.
I submit to you that it is not helpful for women to be property, no matter how fond the owner is of his property.
I went back and read some talks from people speaking against ERA back at the time, and one of the points made was that most women he knew wouldn't want to lower themselves to be equal to men. I'm sure that received a chuckle, and it sounds admiring, but it's patronizing in the most literal sense, because it makes the man the patron of his wife. And he will be benevolent and protect her, but all of that protection depends on his goodness. (It's not particularly respectful of men either.)
In theory, the man will provide for his wife, so she doesn't need equal wages, but very few families can afford to get by on a single income today. Wouldn't it help if her equal work was valued equally?
It goes beyond economics. What if a woman marries an abuser? Laws might allow her to leave and collect alimony, but that's assuming she can get out with her life, and receive support instead of shame, and that he won't quit or work under the table or flee or something to avoid payment. That's a lot of potential pitfalls, all of which have some precedence.
Let's get back to the shame, though, because that is the big catch of being up on the pedestal. They can say as much as they want about how women are naturally better, but do something to make them mad and see how it goes. Suddenly you're "just like a woman", and it is no longer a compliment. When all of your goodness - and the reverence your champion owes you - comes down to you fulfilling his ideas of sweetness and virtue, that sounds like objectification. Not being allowed to be a full person is dehumanization.
And it is a system that is full of ugly things, upholding rape culture and all kinds of abuse, devaluing more than half the population, and keeping it uncomfortable to talk about any of it. ERA opponents were afraid equality would rip apart the traditional family, but wouldn't it be better to have a family where two equals stayed together through mutual affection and respect, rather than lack of options and fear?
If I can't do better than that, I will gladly stay single.
I can handle some self-sacrifice for the greater good, but that is not what we have here.
We are decades past the failure to ratify ERA, and some progress has been made, but consider the response to Donald Trump's bragging about kissing women and grabbing their privates without waiting for consent:
- His white supremacist supporters said (pardon the vulgarity) "Women don't mind men grabbing pussies; just being pussies."
- Comedian Dave Chappelle said the women not stopping Trump sounds like consent to him, without considering whether there might be any elements of fear or shock at play.
- Paul Ryan said “Women are to be championed and revered, not objectified."
One thing that happens too often is that you will have a guy crudely hitting on a woman, and then when he finds out she is married he will apologize to the husband. The problem is not his boorish behavior and the discomfort it causes, but the lack of respect for previously marked territory.
I submit to you that it is not helpful for women to be property, no matter how fond the owner is of his property.
I went back and read some talks from people speaking against ERA back at the time, and one of the points made was that most women he knew wouldn't want to lower themselves to be equal to men. I'm sure that received a chuckle, and it sounds admiring, but it's patronizing in the most literal sense, because it makes the man the patron of his wife. And he will be benevolent and protect her, but all of that protection depends on his goodness. (It's not particularly respectful of men either.)
In theory, the man will provide for his wife, so she doesn't need equal wages, but very few families can afford to get by on a single income today. Wouldn't it help if her equal work was valued equally?
It goes beyond economics. What if a woman marries an abuser? Laws might allow her to leave and collect alimony, but that's assuming she can get out with her life, and receive support instead of shame, and that he won't quit or work under the table or flee or something to avoid payment. That's a lot of potential pitfalls, all of which have some precedence.
Let's get back to the shame, though, because that is the big catch of being up on the pedestal. They can say as much as they want about how women are naturally better, but do something to make them mad and see how it goes. Suddenly you're "just like a woman", and it is no longer a compliment. When all of your goodness - and the reverence your champion owes you - comes down to you fulfilling his ideas of sweetness and virtue, that sounds like objectification. Not being allowed to be a full person is dehumanization.
And it is a system that is full of ugly things, upholding rape culture and all kinds of abuse, devaluing more than half the population, and keeping it uncomfortable to talk about any of it. ERA opponents were afraid equality would rip apart the traditional family, but wouldn't it be better to have a family where two equals stayed together through mutual affection and respect, rather than lack of options and fear?
If I can't do better than that, I will gladly stay single.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
The Equal Protection Clause
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This is from the 14th Amendment, and it seems pretty straightforward. It's kind of not. At the time it did not really cover women. While it covered Black men it did not make people of other races citizens, and soon the government was going to greatly relax enforcement efforts so that they could be better reconciled with the South.
So yes, it seems straightforward, and has been used as a way of holding state laws to a higher standard, but there are constantly decisions being made about who gets to be equal and what is equal enough. I would like to point out three examples where there is not equal protection under the law.
First of all, there is often not equal protection under the law for people with disabilities. While statistics about police shootings frequently focus on race, disabilities are often overlooked. Traumatic brain injuries and seizures have played a role in some shootings, deaf people have been shot for not following orders they did not hear, and people on the autism spectrum are often in danger.
I have no doubt that police response could be improved there, but these incidents often start without them knowing that there is a disability in play. When they are responding to a mentally ill person having a breakdown, or a suicidal person, that should be enough information to handle things differently. Responders still frequently escalate the situation, and then shoot. We know how to do better - Memphis has pioneered progress in how to do better - but too many cities don't choose to improve, making an important segment of the population not protected, but more endangered.
But that race issue is there too. Drug policy has been selectively enforced, showing a clear racial bias. Communities that fund through fines target poor communities, which often includes racial bias, because there is a perception that people of color will be less able to successfully combat the fines. Stop and frisk is a racist and ineffective program. There is compelling evidence that there is not equal protection under the law or from the law by race.
Third, let's talk about rape. A backlog in rape kit testing has been a scandal, but in many cases kits were not prioritized not because there was no budget, or there was too long a wait, but because the responding officers did not find the victim credible. Attacks on other victims may later make the case for some credibility, but there is a pressure on rape victims that other crime victims don't get. What were you wearing? Did you know him? Are you sure you didn't lead him on? Do you really want to ruin his life? Quite possibly the only people to face similar pressure are those complaining of police brutality.
That is not equal protection.
Recently a friend of my sister was mad because a boy kissed her granddaughter - who did not want it - and both the boy and the granddaughter got in trouble. This reminds me of policies in some departments where on a domestic violence call the standard is to arrest both people in the dispute. I believe the justification is to discourage false complaints, but it is a policy that discourages true complaints as well, and punishes someone who is already suffering.
Thinking about that, and how often children asking for help are told to just ignore their bullies, I think the real issue is that we are uncomfortable challenging the power structure. The bully is the one with the power, or the one doing the beating - we can't fight that! Police officers and principals are after all establishment, so it should not be too surprising if they support the traditional power structure.
It should be a little surprising that so many of us put up with a power structure that is disadvantageous to so many, and we make dents in it here and there, but it really isn't satisfactory. We should not be satisfied with "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
This is from the 14th Amendment, and it seems pretty straightforward. It's kind of not. At the time it did not really cover women. While it covered Black men it did not make people of other races citizens, and soon the government was going to greatly relax enforcement efforts so that they could be better reconciled with the South.
So yes, it seems straightforward, and has been used as a way of holding state laws to a higher standard, but there are constantly decisions being made about who gets to be equal and what is equal enough. I would like to point out three examples where there is not equal protection under the law.
First of all, there is often not equal protection under the law for people with disabilities. While statistics about police shootings frequently focus on race, disabilities are often overlooked. Traumatic brain injuries and seizures have played a role in some shootings, deaf people have been shot for not following orders they did not hear, and people on the autism spectrum are often in danger.
I have no doubt that police response could be improved there, but these incidents often start without them knowing that there is a disability in play. When they are responding to a mentally ill person having a breakdown, or a suicidal person, that should be enough information to handle things differently. Responders still frequently escalate the situation, and then shoot. We know how to do better - Memphis has pioneered progress in how to do better - but too many cities don't choose to improve, making an important segment of the population not protected, but more endangered.
But that race issue is there too. Drug policy has been selectively enforced, showing a clear racial bias. Communities that fund through fines target poor communities, which often includes racial bias, because there is a perception that people of color will be less able to successfully combat the fines. Stop and frisk is a racist and ineffective program. There is compelling evidence that there is not equal protection under the law or from the law by race.
Third, let's talk about rape. A backlog in rape kit testing has been a scandal, but in many cases kits were not prioritized not because there was no budget, or there was too long a wait, but because the responding officers did not find the victim credible. Attacks on other victims may later make the case for some credibility, but there is a pressure on rape victims that other crime victims don't get. What were you wearing? Did you know him? Are you sure you didn't lead him on? Do you really want to ruin his life? Quite possibly the only people to face similar pressure are those complaining of police brutality.
That is not equal protection.
Recently a friend of my sister was mad because a boy kissed her granddaughter - who did not want it - and both the boy and the granddaughter got in trouble. This reminds me of policies in some departments where on a domestic violence call the standard is to arrest both people in the dispute. I believe the justification is to discourage false complaints, but it is a policy that discourages true complaints as well, and punishes someone who is already suffering.
Thinking about that, and how often children asking for help are told to just ignore their bullies, I think the real issue is that we are uncomfortable challenging the power structure. The bully is the one with the power, or the one doing the beating - we can't fight that! Police officers and principals are after all establishment, so it should not be too surprising if they support the traditional power structure.
It should be a little surprising that so many of us put up with a power structure that is disadvantageous to so many, and we make dents in it here and there, but it really isn't satisfactory. We should not be satisfied with "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
Sunday, November 6, 2016
The Equal Rights Amendment
I did extra homework for this one.
I felt I should. It was the most recent of the failed amendments, happening during my childhood, though while I heard about I certainly didn't have much understanding of it. It was one the church was specifically against, which I believe I would feel conflicted about. When I feel like I don't know enough, my usual solution is to read.
I read Why We Lost the ERA by Jane Mansbridge. Knowing more, I have more to say, and I think there will be more than one post.
If we start out by focusing on the failure of ratification, there were some interesting factors. One point Mansbridge made was that no controversial amendments had passed for years. Child Labor had organized opposition from factory owners. So just the fact that there was organized opposition - and enough controversy to provide organized opposition - lowered its chances of ratification.
At the beginning the odds still looked good. It received fairly broad congressional support on the federal level, but then opposition heated up in the states.
Part of the problem was disagreement about what it would mean. Opponents focused on how it would force women into the draft and into combat. Mansbridge makes a pretty solid legal argument for why that would not necessarily be true, but the perception was there.
That might seem like the war was lost on a fairly insignificant battle, but at the same time it was significant. Many states had laws giving veterans preferential treatment in hiring, so military service was a jobs issue. Many women were serving in the military, but the most prestigious assignments, with opportunities for higher pay and advancement, were closed off to them.
Over the years from the beginning of the push for an Equal Rights Amendment to the final defeat, the already existing Equal Protection Clause from the 14th amendment had been being referred to more, and being interpreted more generously, where some of the initial benefits one might expect from the ERA would be seen as already resolved. That's an interesting idea, and next week I want to spend more time on Equal Protection.
For now, one common focus for proponents was the equal pay issue. That brings us back to the issue of whether you always need an amendment or whether other legislation can suffice, with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, arguing that it can be done without an amendment but making its argument a few decades later.
On that note, I leave you with this ad that I remember from my childhood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is5vIf7nwsU
It's not a joke indeed.
I felt I should. It was the most recent of the failed amendments, happening during my childhood, though while I heard about I certainly didn't have much understanding of it. It was one the church was specifically against, which I believe I would feel conflicted about. When I feel like I don't know enough, my usual solution is to read.
I read Why We Lost the ERA by Jane Mansbridge. Knowing more, I have more to say, and I think there will be more than one post.
If we start out by focusing on the failure of ratification, there were some interesting factors. One point Mansbridge made was that no controversial amendments had passed for years. Child Labor had organized opposition from factory owners. So just the fact that there was organized opposition - and enough controversy to provide organized opposition - lowered its chances of ratification.
At the beginning the odds still looked good. It received fairly broad congressional support on the federal level, but then opposition heated up in the states.
Part of the problem was disagreement about what it would mean. Opponents focused on how it would force women into the draft and into combat. Mansbridge makes a pretty solid legal argument for why that would not necessarily be true, but the perception was there.
That might seem like the war was lost on a fairly insignificant battle, but at the same time it was significant. Many states had laws giving veterans preferential treatment in hiring, so military service was a jobs issue. Many women were serving in the military, but the most prestigious assignments, with opportunities for higher pay and advancement, were closed off to them.
Over the years from the beginning of the push for an Equal Rights Amendment to the final defeat, the already existing Equal Protection Clause from the 14th amendment had been being referred to more, and being interpreted more generously, where some of the initial benefits one might expect from the ERA would be seen as already resolved. That's an interesting idea, and next week I want to spend more time on Equal Protection.
For now, one common focus for proponents was the equal pay issue. That brings us back to the issue of whether you always need an amendment or whether other legislation can suffice, with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, arguing that it can be done without an amendment but making its argument a few decades later.
On that note, I leave you with this ad that I remember from my childhood:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is5vIf7nwsU
It's not a joke indeed.
Sunday, October 30, 2016
About abortion
For many people this election (and all elections) appears to come down to the issue of abortion.
I believe that life and people are too complex for single-issue voting anyway, but it is a real concern for people. I have had some thoughts on it, and I am going to propose something very radical.
Allow me to suggest that what is wrong about abortion is for the parents, not for the children.
If there is one thing that my faith is sure on, it's that God has a plan for all of us, including the ability to heal and resolve things that are done to us. I believe that any children that could have been born will not miss out on anything that they could have had. Maybe religions that believe unbaptized infants go to Hell have a picture of God where aborted children are erased or punished or something horrible, but that is not our our doctrine, and that is more fear than faith.
For adults to become like God, following His plan, then understanding the power to create life, and to not take that lightly, and to learn the value of chastity and fidelity, then yes, it makes sense that abortion would not be desired or needed for the most part. There might be times when the pregnancy is high risk and you still choose to proceed because of your value for that life, but you are choosing. There is no one forcing you to carry or forcing you to terminate, because it is your choice.
This mindset erases the need to crusade for the unborn, and puts us back to trying to create a better world through service and evangelism.
One friend posted an article recently about how abortions tend to go up during Republican administrations and decrease during Democrat administrations:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/hillary-clinton-is-the-best-choice-for-voters-against-abortion-170258/
That should be the opposite, based on policies, but in a world where you focus more on taking care of the living, and respecting their choices, you have a world that is more welcoming to children.
In a world that tells you "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em", without working toward a living wage, a lot of people might feel unable to be parents, even if it had been something they wanted.
I often go back to the "fruit of the spirit" as my guide to whether something is right: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Do the following circumstances lead to those feelings?
A heartbroken woman, one child already dead, the other with no hope of survival, crying for twelve hours waiting for an ethics committee to decide whether she could end the pregnancy.
http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-womans-resonse-about-late-term-abortion-going-viral-after-presidential-debate
A woman dying in a hospital because her miscarrying was not enough to justify saving her life.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
Lawmakers saying that abortion in the case of rape isn't an issue because if it were really rape she wouldn't get pregnant.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/todd-akin-abortion-legitimate-rape_n_1807381.html
It is not uncommon for those justifying anti-choice laws to start saying really twisted and horrible things, where it appears that they are more concerned with controlling a woman's sexuality than anything else.
Maybe the problem is really that they have chosen the wrong battle.
I believe that life and people are too complex for single-issue voting anyway, but it is a real concern for people. I have had some thoughts on it, and I am going to propose something very radical.
Allow me to suggest that what is wrong about abortion is for the parents, not for the children.
If there is one thing that my faith is sure on, it's that God has a plan for all of us, including the ability to heal and resolve things that are done to us. I believe that any children that could have been born will not miss out on anything that they could have had. Maybe religions that believe unbaptized infants go to Hell have a picture of God where aborted children are erased or punished or something horrible, but that is not our our doctrine, and that is more fear than faith.
For adults to become like God, following His plan, then understanding the power to create life, and to not take that lightly, and to learn the value of chastity and fidelity, then yes, it makes sense that abortion would not be desired or needed for the most part. There might be times when the pregnancy is high risk and you still choose to proceed because of your value for that life, but you are choosing. There is no one forcing you to carry or forcing you to terminate, because it is your choice.
This mindset erases the need to crusade for the unborn, and puts us back to trying to create a better world through service and evangelism.
One friend posted an article recently about how abortions tend to go up during Republican administrations and decrease during Democrat administrations:
http://www.christianpost.com/news/hillary-clinton-is-the-best-choice-for-voters-against-abortion-170258/
That should be the opposite, based on policies, but in a world where you focus more on taking care of the living, and respecting their choices, you have a world that is more welcoming to children.
In a world that tells you "If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em", without working toward a living wage, a lot of people might feel unable to be parents, even if it had been something they wanted.
I often go back to the "fruit of the spirit" as my guide to whether something is right: love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. Do the following circumstances lead to those feelings?
A heartbroken woman, one child already dead, the other with no hope of survival, crying for twelve hours waiting for an ethics committee to decide whether she could end the pregnancy.
http://kutv.com/news/local/utah-womans-resonse-about-late-term-abortion-going-viral-after-presidential-debate
A woman dying in a hospital because her miscarrying was not enough to justify saving her life.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
Lawmakers saying that abortion in the case of rape isn't an issue because if it were really rape she wouldn't get pregnant.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/19/todd-akin-abortion-legitimate-rape_n_1807381.html
It is not uncommon for those justifying anti-choice laws to start saying really twisted and horrible things, where it appears that they are more concerned with controlling a woman's sexuality than anything else.
Maybe the problem is really that they have chosen the wrong battle.
Sunday, October 23, 2016
When you need an amendment
We have one unratified amendment left, and then some other laws, but I wanted to stop and focus on when you might have an amendment.
With the first 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, there was a need to put in the values that were important to the nation that had just set up how it would run. Shortly after that, there is some fine-tuning to be down; this process isn't specific enough, or we forgot to address this issue that has come up now. That is the case for the 11th and 12th, and for the 27th, though ratification was delayed.
Sometimes the amendment is to grant a power not previously specified. The 18th for Prohibition gave the Federal government power to do something they did not previously have the power to do. Now it seems like the silliest amendment, requiring a new amendment to repeal it (the 21st).
The failed Child Labor amendment from last week stems from an inability to regulate interstate commerce in the needed way, to an attempt to instead of regulating the commerce, simply making the protection of children and labor laws regarding them a federal matter.
Many of the successful amendments have been to extend rights and protections. We did not grant this group full citizenship before, and it was wrong of us. A lot of additional legislation has been in support of that.
There may sometimes be confusion over why things work in certain ways. For example, with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, it was established that not only was slavery not allowed but Black men could vote and were citizens (with Black women still having to wait until the 19th).
There were still many obstacles to the enjoyment of that citizenship. In time that led to the Civil Rights Act (which included the Fair Housing Act) and Voting Rights Act. Without judging their efficacy here, the key issues were nonetheless seen as something that was already constitutional.
It seems like that could have been true for the abolition of the poll tax as well, but that did get an amendment, the 24th. It had previously been argued that the poll tax went against the Equal Protection clause, which certainly sounds reasonable.
Perhaps it was different because people had been talking about it for longer, with opposition to state poll taxes being offered by FDR, continued investigation under Truman, and urging for the amendment from JFK. There were arguments that the laws imposing the poll tax were based on the Constitution, and it could be seen as a states' rights issue.
It may only obfuscate the issue to remember that both Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education treated "separate but equal", and they came down on different sides.
I don't know that I can provide much additional clarity, but one thing to remember is that if you study almost any amendment, there is at least one associated legal case that got people thinking about the issue, and whether the current laws were sufficient or even correct. Even with the amendments from the Bill of Rights, there were legal examples of problems that had happened under British rule that inspired them.
Beyond that, sometimes a law that should be sufficient isn't. That may be because there are too many people who don't believe in it. When that is the issue, passing the new legislation will probably not resolve the issue, but it may still provide an avenue for recourse that can be valuable.
But really what you need is better people. We should always be working on that.
With the first 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights, there was a need to put in the values that were important to the nation that had just set up how it would run. Shortly after that, there is some fine-tuning to be down; this process isn't specific enough, or we forgot to address this issue that has come up now. That is the case for the 11th and 12th, and for the 27th, though ratification was delayed.
Sometimes the amendment is to grant a power not previously specified. The 18th for Prohibition gave the Federal government power to do something they did not previously have the power to do. Now it seems like the silliest amendment, requiring a new amendment to repeal it (the 21st).
The failed Child Labor amendment from last week stems from an inability to regulate interstate commerce in the needed way, to an attempt to instead of regulating the commerce, simply making the protection of children and labor laws regarding them a federal matter.
Many of the successful amendments have been to extend rights and protections. We did not grant this group full citizenship before, and it was wrong of us. A lot of additional legislation has been in support of that.
There may sometimes be confusion over why things work in certain ways. For example, with the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, it was established that not only was slavery not allowed but Black men could vote and were citizens (with Black women still having to wait until the 19th).
There were still many obstacles to the enjoyment of that citizenship. In time that led to the Civil Rights Act (which included the Fair Housing Act) and Voting Rights Act. Without judging their efficacy here, the key issues were nonetheless seen as something that was already constitutional.
It seems like that could have been true for the abolition of the poll tax as well, but that did get an amendment, the 24th. It had previously been argued that the poll tax went against the Equal Protection clause, which certainly sounds reasonable.
Perhaps it was different because people had been talking about it for longer, with opposition to state poll taxes being offered by FDR, continued investigation under Truman, and urging for the amendment from JFK. There were arguments that the laws imposing the poll tax were based on the Constitution, and it could be seen as a states' rights issue.
It may only obfuscate the issue to remember that both Plessy v Ferguson and Brown v Board of Education treated "separate but equal", and they came down on different sides.
I don't know that I can provide much additional clarity, but one thing to remember is that if you study almost any amendment, there is at least one associated legal case that got people thinking about the issue, and whether the current laws were sufficient or even correct. Even with the amendments from the Bill of Rights, there were legal examples of problems that had happened under British rule that inspired them.
Beyond that, sometimes a law that should be sufficient isn't. That may be because there are too many people who don't believe in it. When that is the issue, passing the new legislation will probably not resolve the issue, but it may still provide an avenue for recourse that can be valuable.
But really what you need is better people. We should always be working on that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)