The Alabama Human Life Protection Act

by with No Comment CultureFeaturedPolitics

The Alabama Human Life Protection Act, a controversial bill that criminalizes abortion and attempted abortion, was enacted on May 15th, 2019. This act categorizes abortion as homicide and a Class A felony while attempted abortion is now considered a Class C felony. Section 2 letter I, compare the casualties of the Holocaust, the Soviet Regime, and the Rwandan genocide to the estimated “50 million babies… aborted in the United States since Roe v. Wade passed in 1973.” The legislation also defines an unborn child, child, or person as “a human being, specifically including an unborn child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability.” It also defines a woman as “a female human being, whether or not she has reached the age of maturity”, (House Bill 314, section 3). One of the most problematic aspects of the bill includes the lack of exception for abortions in the case of impregnation through rape or incest. The passing of the law has resulted in backlash along with praise from those who agree with the legislation.

Not only is this bill incredibly heinous for its lack of empathy but for its lack of inclusion. HB 314 denies any person that is able to get pregnant the choice to terminate that pregnancy, but specifically protects women or “female” people from criminal charges if the mother’s life is at risk. While it is possible for any person of any gender to receive an abortion, this rhetoric does not allow the same protections for trans and non-binary folk, only cis-gender women. Ericka Hart, a queer Black femme, activist, and an accomplished teacher of sex education discusses the dangers that go beyond the bill itself. She states, “One day, people are sharing about abortion being a “women’s issue” – intentionally leaving out trans people and the next day, they are sharing about the death of Black trans women. If the only time you talk about trans existence is when we are gone, you aren’t helping”. Ericka’s studies and work focus on the systemic and historical events that allow for White supremacist, sexist, transphobic and homophobic bills to pass.

This bill will have a significant impact on poor minorities specifically when Black maternal death is a profound and prevalent issue, and currently at an all-time high. There is little to no access to contraception and proper sex education for the impoverished. While the wealthy and middle class can afford birth control, condoms and emergency contraceptives these products are not accessible to people without sufficient income or insurance. When rhetoric like “pro-life” is used it demonizes people who get abortions by implying that they are anti-life or pro-murder. The use of this language creates stigma for people who have already had abortions as well as those in need of an abortion. This stigma leads to shame and isolation which can end in lethal circumstances. To take away the right to a sterile and proper abortion puts countless lives at risk and puts immense financial stress on families. Prioritizing a life that has not yet begun over a life that has current meaningful existence and relationships is hypocritical. The right using the term “pro-life” is a manipulation tactic born out of the desperate need to maintain power and control.

The abortion ban in Alabama brings attention to a lot of systemic issues that plague many government bodies and society as a whole. It is important for the public to be educated correctly on whom these bills affect the most. Unfortunately, the attention tends to gravitate towards the most privileged and powerful leading to the silencing and erasure of marginalized voices. This ban will have negative effects on many and in some cases lead to life-threatening or lethal circumstances. In times like this, it is vital to prioritize those who face immediate danger in the rise of this ban. Audre Lorde, a Black, lesbian, poet, and educator stated, “The master’s tool will never dismantle the master’s house.” This quote remains relevant and impactful in the present. It can help to explain how powerful structures have maintained control and are able to pass an oppressive and dangerous bill like HB 314. If radical and revolutionary means are not taken society cannot progress and the marginalized will continue to suffer at the expense of our collective silence.

Ericka Hart: Twitter, Instagram 

Similar Read: Legal Attack on Women’s Rights to Choose (How Did We Get Here?)

Legal Attack on Women’s Right to Choose (How Did We Get Here?)

by with 3 Comments CultureFeaturedPolitics

There is a calculated attack happening across this country. It’s an attack on women and their bodies. In the past month, we have seen state legislative bodies in Missouri, Ohio, and Georgia pass restrictive abortion laws. Last week we saw the Alabama Senate pass a ban and the Governor, Kay Ivey, signed it into law. Georgia’s Governor, Brian Kemp, also signed a controversial abortion bill, the heartbeat bill, into law. But the bill signed by Ivy in Alabama is currently the most restrictive in the country. The bill signed by Ivy bans abortions — with the exception of when the life of the mother is in jeopardy — in all circumstances. Stop and read that sentence again. If a woman is raped or a victim of incest, according to the Alabama law, she must carry it to full term.

This is extreme to say the least. This bill along with the others passed in Georgia, Ohio, and Missouri all seem to be aimed at one thing, getting their legal challenges heard at the Supreme Court. If legal challenges get to that level then Pandora’s box is open for the Roe v. Wade debate.  Ohio passed a fetal heartbeat bill, which would ban a woman from having an abortion once a heartbeat is detected. Some state legislative bodies are even calling it a 6-week ban, a time when some women may not even know they are pregnant. Georgia’s Governor Kemp signed something similar. In Tennessee, the legislative house passed a 6-week heartbeat bill, but it was defeated in the state Senate and sent to summer study, but is likely to be reintroduced next legislative season.

It would be convenient to rant about the way men are legislating over women’s bodies and giving them no chance to discuss or fight back against that legislation. Instead, I want to challenge you to relive a brief rundown of events that have gotten us to 2019 and the heartbeat bills. The breakdown is below:

  1. 2008-2009: America elects the first Black president, Barack Obama. 
  2. Early 2010: SCOTUS rules in ‘Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC)’ that political spending is a form of free speech that’s protected under the First Amendment. The controversial 5-4 decision effectively opened the door for corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to support their chosen political candidates. Hate that your politicians are bought and sold by corporations? Blame this.
  3. Late 2010: Ahead of the midterms, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell vows to make President Obama a “one-term president” and Republicans declare a nationwide takeover of state legislatures. This begins the slow but steady Republican calculation to take over.
  4. 2010 Midterms: Thanks to the Citizens United case, Republicans flood the airwaves with political advertising to influence down-ballot elections. Republicans pick up 675 state legislative seats; swept several governorships, including Tennessee; and Republican control increased from 14 states to 26 state legislatures. They also take control of the U.S. House of Representatives, winning 58 seats.
  5. 2011: Now that Republicans effectively have the states on lock, states begin to enact strict voter ID laws, including Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, and TN.
  6. 2012: President Obama is re-elected. All is well with the world because we now have the Affordable Care Act (aka: Obamacare) and our president is still Black.
  7. 2013: The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) guts the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the ‘Shelby County v. Holder’ case. As in, Shelby County, Alabama versus Attorney General Eric Holder. As in, the (same) Voting Rights Act championed by Civil Rights activists like Dr. Martin Luther King and Congressman John Lewis. The ruling basically said, nope racism doesn’t exist anymore so Southern states no longer need permission (i.e. “preclearance”) from the federal government to change their voting laws. The decision allowed 846 jurisdictions to close, move or change the availability of local polling places (mostly in predominantly African American counties) without federal oversight. There were also cuts to early voting and purges of voter rolls. Virtually all restrictions on voting after the ruling were by Republicans.
  8. 2014: Things begin to take a turn for the worst. Republicans continue their congressional takeover during the 2014 midterms. Republicans gained control of U.S. Senate and picked up more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.
  9. Early 2016: Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia dies. His death begins the conversation about who will replace him and President Obama is granted option to choose. Obama chooses Merrick Garland, but both the Republican senators and Democratic senators have to vote on his nomination. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell blocks the nomination, claiming it’s too close to a presidential election so the next president should pick. 
  10. Late 2016: Donald Trump is elected president. Now Republicans are in control of the legislative branch and executive branch. Time to take over the judicial branch.
  11. 2017: Trump has his eye on the SCOTUS pick left vacant by Obama. 
  12. By nominating conservative judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. (Remember, elections have consequences, and in 2014, just 36.4% of eligible voters nationwide turned out in 2014 – the lowest since World War II—and Republicans gained control of the Senate, who confirms all federal judges.)
  13. Fast forward to 2018 and by now, 34 states have some form of voter ID laws. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy announces his retirement. Trump nominates Brett Kavanagh as his replacement. Senate confirms Kavanaugh in October, shortly before the midterms, solidifying the bench as a reliably conservative 5-4 majority.

It’s now 2019 and Republicans control the state legislature in 31 states. That is over half the country. Congress is divided – Democrats took back the House in 2018, but Republicans still control the Senate, Presidency, and Supreme Court.

What we are seeing play out today is a deliberate playbook, run by American Legislative Executive Council, also known as ALEC. This is the conservative right-wing organization that essentially creates all the bills and runs them through state legislative, congressional and Senate bodies across this country. They can’t do it unless our elected officials agree to push their proposed legislation. It’s interesting to note that ALEC will pay for members of Congress to attend some of their meetings where they discuss policy and legislation. Elected officials then go back to their respective seats and run their (ALEC) bills. Ultimately, the bills introduced by legislative branches across the country are so egregious and blatantly unconstitutional in an attempt to move the battle to friendly territory – the courts. And we see this happening with the abortion bills across the South. And in case you want even more examples let’s take another look at some recent history and see how there is calculation about the process of moving controversial legislation to the court system.

As soon as Trump became president he introduced the Muslim travel ban. A few judges across the country struck it down because they believed it was unconstitutional. It is now an active open court battle, but the dangerous part is Trump has already had two successful appointees to the Supreme Court and has been placing members on the Circuit Courts as well. This is important to note because states can fight these laws and challenge them, but if they end up in a court where a judge has been appointed by Trump or has a conservative view of the law then these abortion laws could be upheld along with other extreme laws coming out of Republican-led legislatures.

Trump has called for the separation of migrant families at the border. Again, this is something that judges are challenging and it’s heading to legal proceedings within the judicial system. The Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos, and her team are challenging public education with school vouchers. Legal proceedings will take place. Again, this will be headed to the courts. Voter registration is also under attack in states like Tennessee pushing the envelope and criminalizing the civic act. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing and guess where this will end up, in court. And let’s not forget about the 2020 census. The President is trying hard to remove some provisions on how Americans are counted, which will affect funding for states. There are lots of unknowns about the upcoming census, but one thing that will likely take place – a court battle.

When we talk about the calculated attack on women and their bodies, we have to look at how long this has been in play. The attack on abortion laws are systematically set up to eventually end up in the Supreme Court in an attempt to overturn Roe v. Wade. We should be upset about abortion bans. Louisiana has a case before the Supreme Court and we should all pay close attention to its outcome. It’s a law that would force doctors to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of where an abortion is performed, a structure that those opposed to the law insist violates the “undue burden” notion. In 2016 the state of Texas had a similar bill struck down in court.

We will begin to see court cases pop up about abortion bans because as soon as they are signed, they will immediately be appealed. It will be up to state judges, first, to decide their fate and with the stacking of conservative judges across the country we can only hope women’s right to choose is just as important to them as forcing a woman to carry an unwanted baby that the government doesn’t want to financially support once it gets here. 

Women’s Rights (and Kavanaugh Hearing)

by with One Comment CultureFeatured

Christine Blasey Ford had to reveal herself and now the U.S. Senators, who were prepared to vote on Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, are all of a sudden rethinking their decision.  According to reports, Senators received an anonymous letter months ago detailing sexual assault allegations from Ford, but because her name was not revealed her allegations didn’t go far. 

We are in the #MeToo movement where anonymity is no more.  A woman is not believed unless her story can be polygraphed and verified, which hers was.  But what does this scenario say about the government’s ability to allow a man accused of sexual assault to get confirmed for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court and possibly vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

As a woman this is simply disturbing.  What’s most disturbing is learning that members of the committee were in acknowledgement about the allegations and prepared to vote on his confirmation and only after her identity was revealed, heads are rolling. 

A quick trip down memory lane will remind you that Kavanaugh is the same judge who attempted to block an immigrant woman from obtaining an abortion.  Even though it was HER body and HER right to choose, he tried to infringe upon her right by pushing his decision further and further out in an attempt to make it harder for her to terminate her pregnancy. Ultimately, she was able to move forward despite his acts.

But what does this one case state about his ability to rule justly on behalf of women?  Currently, the U.S. Supreme Court is made up of five men and three women, with one vacancy looming. If Kavanaugh is confirmed the court will have six men and three women.  The court will make decisions about issues that affect women without enough voices by women to weigh in on the decision.  Such is with lawmaking.  Women are left out of many narratives simply because they aren’t present in the room.  In states where women make up more than half of the population men overwhelmingly represent the state in legislatures and on Capitol Hill.

For Kavanaugh, delaying and/or stopping his nomination would be a victory for anyone who cares about women’s reproductive rights. But what does it say about our Senate Judiciary leaders who had this information and did not act on it? What will this narrative mean for the next woman who wants to ‘accuse’ a powerful man of sexual assault? 

Women have to think about their careers, families, and even their safety above their healing and ability to move on from traumatic life events. After all, this is how women are socialized to deal with sexual assault – it’s her fault and she should feel guilty for coming forward to ‘out’ a man.

When our country takes women’s sexual allegations as serious as supposed public outcry about patriotism and NFL players kneeling, then maybe our country can get to the gender parity we deserve.  Until then, we will never know why members of the Senate Judiciary Committee decided to move forward on a critical vote ahead of Ford revealing her identity. But what we do know is victims have to relive trauma in public, and no one is legislating that. 

Was Michelle Obama Wrong?

by with 6 Comments CultureFeatured

In 2016, Michelle Obama left attendees at the Democratic National Convention in awe after finishing her speech in support of Hillary Clinton’s bid for President. A speech that will surely be remembered for decades was highlighted by her now famous moto that has probably been echoed and repeated more than a billion times since…

“When they go low, we go high!” 

In reference to not stooping to the level of a figurative bully, how could anyone regardless of their socioeconomic background or political beliefs disagree? It’s a perfect example to set for our children and followers alike. It’s also a courageous and impressive thing to say regarding an opposition who has taken shots at the legitimacy of your husband’s citizenship and faith, who’s been accused of sexual misconduct by numerous women, and who’s incited violence at his protests… to say the least. I don’t think anyone on the left would’ve faulted Michelle for stooping low. But she didn’t, she stayed high just as she informed and directed millions of people do to that evening in Philadelphia, PA.

Except, there’s one problem.

In reference to the 2016 election, she was wrong… dead wrong. Candidate and soon to be President Donald Trump went low, extremely low… and won. Hillary and Democrats tried to go high, much higher than Trump and his surrogates, and they lost. How did this happen?

Did Hillary run a bad campaign? Maybe

Did FBI Director Comey’s announcement about her emails hurt her campaign? Maybe

We could go on and on about who and what potentially impacted the election. But in the game of politics, can Democrats continue to go high when their opposition is willing to do whatever it takes to win?

Regarding our moral compass, the ramifications of going high have and will continue to cost Dems and their constituents a lot. Countless criminal justice reforms have been rolled back, LGBT protections have been reversed, environmental regulations have been cut, we’ve imposed tariffs on our allies, the Courts upheld his travel ban which could last for decades, he’ll get to nominate another Supreme Court Justice (Kennedy’s resigned – 6/27/18), and Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling which legalized abortion, will likely be on the table in the near future. It hasn’t even been 2 years, and that’s just a few of the going high costs that will hurt Dems for years to come.

So looking back, and looking forward, was going high worth it… when going so low paid off?

Subscribe for free to receive similar content.