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. 

Your Opinion, Please LEAVE Home Without It

by with No Comment Uncategorized

On June 26, 2015, my birthday by the way (shameless plug I know), the United States Supreme Court decided to amend the US Constitution and grant same-sex couples the right to marry. I think it’s important to note that this decision was made despite the United States Supreme Court being headed by Chief Justice John Roberts, who was a George W Bush appointee and very conservative. Even if a particular state did not have gay marriage, all states had to recognize gay marriage. In its aftermath, contrary to the opposition belief, civilization and traditional marriage hasn’t faltered in the two years since the Supreme Court decision. Despite the world turning out just fine, some people’s opinion on the idea of legalized same sex marriage is an issue that must take precedence over stuff that actually matters. Unfortunately, those same people have real power and influence.  

On Friday June 30, a mere two years and a few days removed from the watershed Supreme Court decision, the nine-member Texas Supreme Court unanimously reversed a lower court’s ruling favoring the city of Houston’s decision to extend health and life insurance benefits to the spouses of city employees in same-sex marriages. The court ordered the case sent back to the trial court in Houston. In summary, the Texas Supreme Court said that while same-sex marriage is legal, the reach and ramifications of the rights of gay couples have yet to be determined. Whatever that means. Here’s the thing, if the United States Supreme Court states same-sex couples have the right to marry, that would mean there aren’t any contingencies. Right? So what is the issue?

I can tell you. Sexual orientation and the opposition to it in any fashion is usually wrapped in someone’s “faith”. I really don’t buy that, I think its pure bigotry, but I’ll go with “faith” for the sake of argument. Even still, that’s your opinion. Your faith is your own theological taking, not the worlds. More importantly, no one should suffer or have their life altered because of your faith, especially when those alterations come via the hands of the government. There are real world consequences when someone’s benefits are altered.

A common phrase people throw around when stating off the wall political references is “well it’s just my opinion”. No it’s not just an opinion. An opinion is Pepsi or Coke. LeBron or Jordan. Nas or Jay Z. A political opinion is a DECISION, its impactful, it’s alerting. A kneejerk political opinion has real world consequences. In our country, political opinions have gone unchecked, more extreme, polarizing, and caused national issues to become stagnate.  

A viewpoint and an opinion is worthless when a same sex couple walks into a doctor’s office in Houston next week and unbeknownst to them, their coverage is frozen and they have to pay out of pocket. That $250 out of pocket cost now causes them to be able to get a part on their car fix, and have to only use one car. And then and then and then (in my “Dude where’s my car” voice), but in all seriousness, one unneeded decision on the part of the Texas Supreme Court alters countless lives. For what? There’s nothing wrong with having an ideology, we all have them. From taxes to foreign aid, we must have different viewpoints to have lively debates and discussions. There’s something very dangerous when that ideology becomes fixated on stances that are non-secular, separatist, denies access to services, and quite frankly wastes time.