I wasn’t at YearlyKos, and I wasn’t involved with organizing it. So I’d really like to know why the already seriously-endangered basic human rights of half the population of America were apparently not considered important enough to be a major theme at the convention.
First, here’s the second-hand facts as I know them, from someone who did attend Yearlykos. Amie Newman over at RH Reality Check reports:
While there were plenty of women in attendance and the executive director of YearlyKos is a woman — Gina Cooper — who did a fantastic organizing job, the convention is not feminist in nature and thus did not address some basic women's issues to the extent that they should have been addressed. Reproductive health and rights — whether for women or men — was but a blip on the YearlyKos screen and should have been more conspicuously represented.
Newman observed that the majority of speakers and panelists were of the "traditional A-list male blogger variety," with a few sessions led and attended by feminist bloggers and organizers, including one focused feminist action online. But overall, in her opinion:
There were...many voices left marginalized: those of many important female bloggers including women of color, blogs representing reproductive health and rights and the myriad of issues that fall under those terms.
Abortion rights should have been a much bigger story at YearlyKos. The fact that it was sidelined speaks volumes. I fear that many Kossacks, probably mostly men, don’t understand how important abortion rights really are to both women’s rights and to progressive politics in general.
I'm not dissing men with a broad-stroke brush. Lots of women are strongly anti-choice, and lots of men are strongly pro-choice, including plenty on this blog. Such as Ian MacLeod, who just two days ago wrote a brilliant and impassioned diary spelling out exactly why abortion rights are so important.Basically it comes down to that crazy radical feminist notion that women are important and worthy of serious respect. Ian has saved me the work of explaining this, because he said it all quite eloquently. Please go check out his diary, because very few Kossacks have read it.
Which makes me wonder just what percentage of Kossacks, most of whom I'm assuming are men, never click on a diary with the word "abortion" in the title. Do they consider abortion a "woman’s issue" and they have much more important things to worry about? Well, if they happen to stumble into this diary accidentally by mistake, here’s a few points they might want to consider:
- Abortion is pretty much a litmus test for any Presidential candidate and any Supreme Court nominee.
- Abortion is a key election issue that has the power to sink campaigns and candidates.
- Abortion is a high-profile issue that consistently garners national and local media coverage.
- The majority of Americans are still largely pro-choice and want to preserve Roe v. Wade. Being strongly pro-choice on abortion can win elections.
- The Republican vote gets a huge boost from single-issue voters on abortion (and other right-wing "moral" issues). Not so much for Democrat voters, but that means their broader focus can sideline abortion rights by electing anti-choice candidates.
- Republican administrations have greatly damaged and endangered abortion rights, especially under Bush junior.
- Abortion rights are fundamental to the rights and equality of half the population.
The last point leads to probably the most important point of all – The abortion issue is not just about abortion! That’s just the deceptive tip of the iceberg. Whether we like it or not, abortion rights have become the whipping boy for women’s rights and human rights in general. Without the ability to control fertility, every other human right for women becomes hollow or takes a back seat. Without abortion rights, women are reduced to second-class citizens, children's rights become a non-issue, and men stay shackled to traditional roles that rely on women's passivity and submission.
The political focus on abortion also takes away attention and resources from the fight for those other women’s rights. As Lynn Paltrow has stated:
The abortion issue is being used to distract attention from the overwhelming number of things American women – whether pro—or antichoice – have in common, including the fact that the United States is one of only three industrialized countries that do not require any paid maternity leave; millions of pregnant women in American are not protected from workplace discrimination, and 43 million Americans, including 8.5 million children are without health care coverage.
To this list can be added many more "women’s issues," such as domestic violence, the persistent lack of equal pay for equal work, and the disproportionately small numbers of female legislators. The point I want to make here is not that we should downplay abortion rights and focus on these other rights. The point is that our enemies are using abortion rights to keep us from substantively tackling these other issues. We need to decisively protect and enshrine abortion rights for women as the linchpin of women’s rights, then serious progress on other rights will naturally follow.
Here’s a diary that asks a pertinent question: "Is it possible we believe that having a woman as a serious contender for the Presidency stands in for a discussion of the issues particular to women, including their pesky reproductive health care needs...?" Much is made of the fact that 2008 just might install America’s first woman President ever. While of course that would be a significant accomplishment in itself, the more interesting story is whether "President" Clinton would be able to effectively leverage her gender to truly make American women’s lives better and freer. But as it stands now, she seems at least as lukewarm on reproductive rights as her male competitors. Will a woman President truly be an asset for American women, or just another distraction from the fight for ordinary women’s basic human rights?
Because make no mistake - for our enemies, the fight is not simply about whether (or when or how) a woman can access an abortion. For them, it’s about attacking the core human rights of women in general. It’s about keeping women "barefoot and pregnant and-chained-to-the-bed" as Ian MacLeod puts it.
How is ignoring this Neanderthal attitude going to help Democrats win the election? How is marginalizing abortion and "women’s issues" going to make America more progressive? Is there any meaning at all to the word "progressive" when it means throwing half the population under the bus?
The bottom line is that abortion rights is not just a women’s issue, it’s everyone’s issue. Abortion involves the most fundamental aspect of our existence – reproduction. Women are largely responsible for reproduction, and without them, human beings wouldn’t be here, including men. Women’s welfare affects everyone, and all of society, and everyone should care. Women hold up half the sky (probably two-thirds of it). Women are our partners, friends, and colleagues, as well as our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters. When women’s equality and humanity are protected and respected, we all benefit from their enhanced ability to act and speak freely. When we trust women to make responsible decisions about whether and when to have a child, we all win because families become healthier and stronger. When abortion rights are championed and secured, the result will be stronger democracy, a more egalitarian society, and truly progressive politics. It's a win-win for everyone.