The God Of Small, Mean Things
Posted: February 20, 2012 Filed under: abortion rights, Anthony Comstock, birth control, Feminists, fetus fetishists, health, Human Rights, Planned Parenthood, PLUB Pro-Life-Until-Birth, religion, religious extremists, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, Rick Santorum, Women's Healthcare, Women's Rights 41 CommentsIf there’s a positive aspect in the recent skirmishes of the Contraception Wars, it’s the exposed, full Monty view of right-wing political theology.
Rick Santorum, a self-appointed moralist in this ancient battle, espouses views that neatly summarized the public’s [primarily men’s] viewpoint on women’s issues some 100 years ago.
When I listen to Rick Santorum and his carping supporters, who fervently believe that they and only they have a right to determine a woman’s reproductive destiny, I’m certain that the Comstock Laws [back in the day] would have suited them perfectly.
In the waning years of the Grant administration, Anthony Comstock waged a one-man crusade in the US against what he viewed as pornographic, obscene and lewd materials. He was the judge and jury in this matter and after great effort and energy, the Comstock Act was written into law in 1873, amending the Post Office Act. It read as follows:
Be it enacted…That whoever, within the District of Columbia or any of the Territories of the United States . . .
shall sell…or shall offer to sell, or to lend , or to give away, or in any manner to exhibit, or shall otherwise publish or offer to publish in any manner, or shall have in his possession, for any such purpose or purposes, an obscene book, pamphlet, paper, writing, advertisement, circular, print, picture, drawing or other representation, figure, or image on or of paper of other material , or any cast instrument, or other article of an immoral nature, or any drug or medicine, or any article whatever, for the prevention of conception, or for causing unlawful abortion, or shall advertise the same for sale, or shall write or print, or cause to be written or printed, any card, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any king, stating when, where, how, or of whom, or by what means, any of the articles in this section…can be purchased or obtained, or shall manufacture, draw, or print, or in any wise make any of such articles, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof in any court of the United States…he shall be imprisoned at hard labor in the penitentiary for not less than six months nor more than five years for each offense, or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two thousand dollars, with costs of court….
For the next forty years, Anthony Comstock wielded a censoring club on all things he deemed smutty and obscene. That included any and all materials related to contraception, abortion, sex education, sex itself and managed to extend itself not only in posted materials but literature, suppressing the works of DH Lawrence and Theodore Dreiser as well as banning nudity in artworks, even images and text in medical books, describing and illustrating reproductive functioning.
This is where the push to purity takes one, a mindless rejection of the human body and human nature, an extreme Sin of the Flesh philosophy.
Comstock had a particular problem with women, particularly the likes of Margaret Sanger and her supporters, as well as the Suffragettes, who openly defied Comstock’s puritanical attitudes. These women marched, sent pamphlets to supporters,
opened health clinics, smuggled contraception devices into the country, went to jail, went on hunger strikes, put their bodies on the line. And did not give up.
Women earned/won their right to vote in 1920. Griswold v the State of Connecticut was decided by the Supreme Court in 1965. The decision protected the right of married women to practice contraception and demand access to reliable reproductive services. These rights were eventually extended to unmarried women, the right to privacy established, which later swung the door open to the Roe v Wade decision.
I have no doubt that Santorum and like-minded, right-wing adherents would have no problem, slamming that door shut, hopping into a time machine and revisiting the days of Comstock purity. Let’s review the latest Santorum Hit Parade:
Telling a crowd at the Ohio Christian Alliance on Saturday that President Obama’s agenda was a “phony ideology” not “based on the Bible,” Rick Santorum has offered two explanations: the imposition of secular ideas on the Catholic Church and radical environmentalism that he claims the President specifically and Democrats in general have been pushing to the max.
Where to begin?
On the first charge, Santorum said:
The president has reached a new low in this country’s history of oppressing religious freedom that we have never seen before. If he doesn’t want to call his imposition of his values a theology that’s fine, but it is an imposition of his values over a church who has very clear theological reasons for opposing what the Obama administration is forcing on them.
This is clearly an example of contorted gamesmanship. When there is no defense to your position, you claim your opponent is doing what you yourself desire to do, in this case, impose your beliefs on the greater population. Very Comstock-like.
No one is forcing anything on Santorum, the Church or those who agree with their rigid position. The ‘compromise’ the Administration offered has already been accepted by Catholic charities, hospitals and universities as reasonable and workable. The fact that Santorum and the Catholic Bishops want to run their position into the ground does not make it right or timely. It’s simply a narrow, constipated outlook that belongs to an age when women were securely under the thumb of men like Santorum and the whims of Catholic Church. History has passed; attitudes and positions change.
In defense of the second explanation—radical environmentalism—Santorum had this to say to Bob Schieffer’s Face the Nation:
This idea that man is here to serve the Earth, as opposed to husband its resources and be good stewards of the Earth. And I think that is a phony ideal… I think a lot of radical environmentalists have it upside-down.
What pops out to me is the phrase ‘husband its resources.’
Change that phrase to the single word ‘extraction’ and we get the gist of what’s being said. So, anyone opposing the Keystone Pipeline would be deemed a ‘radical environmentalist,’ even though the 1700 mile pipeline endangers America’s bread basket and a major aquifer, would not reduce our dependence on unfriendly oil suppliers [80% of the refined tar sands is contracted for export] and would offer, at best, 5000-6000 temporary American jobs. Even an amendment to this new bill, a proposal that would have ensured that at least the steel for the pipeline would have been from the US, was rejected out of hand.
Color me a Environmental Radical. The Keystone project benefits no one but the rich financiers behind it. They get the mega-profits; we [the public] get stuck with a wasted landscape and the cost of any cleanup.
Or perhaps, Santorum is speaking about the WH’s kibosh on the uranium mining deal for the Grand Canyon. Splendid idea there. Turn one of the Wonders of the World, a national treasure into a money pit for mining interests. I’ve stood on the rim of the Canyon, marveled at the grandeur, the colors, the staggering expanse. And this, we would turn into a uranium mine? What a small, stingy idea!
I suspect Teddy Roosevelt [one of those evil progressives] is turning in his grave.
But Santorum outdid himself with this comment:
He lambasted the president’s health care law requiring insurance policies to include free prenatal testing, “because free prenatal testing ends up in more abortions and therefore less care that has to be done because we cull the ranks of the disabled in our society.”
Culling the ranks of the disabled?
Don’t mistake this comment as a defense of religious liberty because this is a coded charge that what contraception and abortion [presumably determined through prenatal testing and care] really involves is a form of eugenics. We will cull the herd of imperfections. Or we will attempt genocide of minorities. This is Glenn Beck hysteria. Billboards in Georgia revived the old smear against reproductive rights, charging that African American women were being targeted for abortion services. Black children, the claim stated, were an ‘endangered species.’
Funny that. I thought we were all of the same species.
If we truly want to talk about minorities being endangered, why don’t we talk about our prison population, comprised primarily of people of color. But, of course, that would be uncomfortable, deemed unfair by Republican politicians, who in their infinite wisdom want our prison system privatized, which will ensure maximum capacity for the sake of profits.
These arguments are old and pathetic. They’ve been leveled against anyone and everyone who have supported basic health services to women. Prenatal screening is a mainstay in the health of an expectant mother and the viability of any pregnancy. Problems can be picked up early and corrected before a delivery. The health of an expectant mother translates into the health of the developing fetus. The idea that screenings should be done away with or not offered to low income women is cruel.
The religion that Rick Santorum and his ilk would like us to swallow whole is one dictated by religious fanatics, purists like Anthony Comstock, where it’s their way or the highway. It is small. It is mean. It is unworthy of anything approaching the Divine.
We want a healthy society? Then we offer health services to all our citizens. Yes, even women, who deserve to be the arbiters of their own reproductive lives.
Garry Willis, historian, journalist and Catholic intellectual had this to say in a piece entitled “Contraception’s Con Men”:
The Phony “Undying Principle” Argument
Rick Santorum is a nice smiley fanatic. He does not believe in evolution or global warming or women in the workplace. He equates gay sex with bestiality (Rick “Man on Dog” Santorum). He equates contraception with the guillotine. Only a brain-dead party could think him a worthy presidential candidate. Yet he is praised by television pundits, night and day, for being “sincere” and “standing by what he believes.” He is the principled alternative to the evil Moderation of Mitt Romney and the evil Evil of Newt Gingrich. He is presented as a model Catholic. Torquemada was, in that sense, a model Catholic. Messrs. Boehner and McConnell call him a martyr to religious freedom. A young priest I saw on television, modeling himself on his hero Santorum, said, “I would rather die than give up my church’s principles.” What we are seeing is not a defense of undying principle but a stampede toward a temporarily exploitable lunacy.
I rest my case!
Seriously Perverted
Posted: February 18, 2012 Filed under: abortion rights, birth control, black women's reproductive health, religion, religious extremists, Reproductive Health, Reproductive Rights, Republican politics, War on Women, Women's Healthcare, Women's Rights | Tags: Republican obsession with sex 50 CommentsYou don’t really have to be a “birth control mom” to understand that the Republican and Red Beanie obsession with other people’s sex lives is just plain wrong. Trying to turn the reproductive
health of women into a moral and religious freedom issue is one of the worst perversions of our time. I no longer require birth control but recognize the importance of birth control and abortion access as central to the recognition of women as a functioning adult capable of making moral decisions in a free and functioning democracy with constitutional rights. Women’s Reproductive Health is not a fucking political football.
Just a few weeks ago, the notion would have seemed far-fetched. The country is deeply divided on abortion, but not on contraception; the vast majority of American women have used it, and access hasn’t been a front-burner political issue since the Supreme Court decided Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965.
But then Rick Santorum said states ought to have the right to outlaw the sale of contraception.
And Susan G. Komen for the Cure yanked its funding for Planned Parenthood.
And the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops teed off on President Barack Obama’s contraception policy.
And House Republicans invited a panel of five men — and no women — to debate the issue.
And a prominent Santorum supporter pined for the days when “the gals” put aspirin “between their knees” to ward off pregnancy.
Democratic strategist Celinda Lake says it’s enough to “really irritate” independent suburban moms and “re-engage” young, single women who haven’t tuned into the campaign so far.
And, she says, the stakes are high: Women backed Barack Obama in big numbers in 2008 but then swung right in 2010. If the president is to win reelection in 2012, he’ll need to win women back — and Lake and other Democrats see the GOP push on contraception as a gift that will make that easier.
“I feel like the world is spinning backwards,” said former Rep. Patricia Schroeder, who has often related the troubles she has as a young married law student getting her birth control prescriptions filled in the early 1960s. “If you had told me when I was in law school that this would be a debate in 2012, I would have thought you were nuts … And everyone I talk to thinks so, too.”
Jennifer Lawless, director of the Women and Politics Institute at American University, also sees the chance of a huge female backlash if the Republicans overreach.
There are so many things about this article in Politico–by a woman–that piss me off that I hardly know where to start. The first is the bogus description of “deep division” in the country about abortion. The only deep division that I can see comes from the right wing continually pushing lies like the existence of abortion on demand hours before giving birth and bogus, nonexistent procedures like “partial birth abortion.”
The frustration of the right wing over their inability to control access to Plan B, hormonal birth control and first trimester abortions is at the root of all this. The push to force sonograms, invasive vaginal probes, and “life” begins at the moment of conception religous tropes is building to a crescendo. If only the red beanie set were this obsessed about ending world hunger or nuclear war or ensuring universal health care. The vast majority of women have basically had, are having, are using or will use all three of those things. To characterize normal reproductive health measures as murder and anti-religious is ridiculous. But I’d like to add this warning, if the political and punditry class on either side think they can turn us all into a new voting segment, I think they’re also going to learn the meaning of the word backlash. Women’s reproductive health shouldn’t be trapped in the land of political gamesmanship. Just who the hell are they to score political points with women’s lives??
Tuesday: John Wayne Gacy, Freudian Slips, “the Liberal Bulldozer,” and other Valentine’s Day Reads
Posted: February 14, 2012 Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, 2012 primaries, morning reads, Reproductive Rights, Republican presidential politics, U.S. Politics, Women's Healthcare | Tags: "severely conservative" Freudian slip, capital punishment, death penalty, John Wayne Gacy, Mary Todd Lincoln portrait, Mitt Romney, payroll tax holiday, Rick Santorum, serial killers 31 CommentsGood Morning!! I’ll have a few political links for you later, but first I want to share an interesting story I came across yesterday. Remember John Wayne Gacy? He was a supposedly upstanding member of the Chicago business community and active in Democratic politics, even having his photo was taken with first lady Rosalynn Carter when she visited Chicago in May, 1978. In his spare time, Gacy dressed as “Pogo the Clown” and entertained at charity events and kids’ birthday parties.
All that ended in late 1978, when it was revealed that Gacy had 26 bodies buried in the crawlspace under his house and 3 others under the concrete floor of his garage. The gregarious businessman and clown was a serial killer. In March of 1980, Gacy was sentenced to death for 12 of the murders. He was executed on May 10, 1994. It’s too bad Gacy is dead, because two Chicago attorneys have convinced Cook Country Sheriff Tom Dart to do some further investigating on the case. It might be helpful for investigators to be able to interview Gacy about new evidence.
Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart said Friday that he will ask his investigators to look into a theory that serial killer John Wayne Gacy had one or more accomplices.
Criminal defense attorneys Robert Stephenson and Steven Becker recently examined Gacy’s work and travel records and suspect he was out of town when victims Russell Nelson and Robert Gilroy disappeared in 1977.
They also think Gacy didn’t have enough time to abduct and kill victim John Mowery because he disappeared about 10 p.m. in Chicago and Gacy’s work records show he showed up at a job in Michigan at 6 a.m. the following day.
There is more detail on these victims in an article at Time Magazine.
So far, the lawyers believe Gacy may have had accomplices in at least three of the notorious killings of 33 young men and boys, the Chicago Sun-Times reports. This supports an earlier claim from Jeffrey Rignall, a victim who survived, who said another man was in the room while Gacy raped him, WGN notes.
One of the murders raising questions is that of Robert Gilroy. Apparently, the convicted murderer had been in Pittsburgh when the 18-year-old disappeared on Sept 15, 1977. Allegheny Airlines tickets indicate Gacy had been out of town from Sept. 12 to 16, making it unlikely he could have snatched and killed Gilroy, the Sun-Times reports. This also echoes claims Gacy had made while in prison, saying he was not in Illinois during 16 of the disappearances.
Gilroy also died in a completely different way than most of Gacy’s victims. He was apparently suffocated by having a cloth shoved down his throat. Many of Gacy’s victims were strangled by a rope.
Russell Nelson, the Minneapolis architecture student kidnapped while with a friend outside a bar in October of the same year. Stephenson told the Sun-Times he doesn’t believe Gacy could have seized the 21-year-old without the friend noticing. And like Gilroy, Nelson had been suffocated with a similar cloth stuffed in his throat. Thirteen victims died the same way, according to WGN.
The friend who was with Nelson at the time of his disappearance is also allegedly suspect. According to WGN, the friend demanded money from Nelson’s mother in exchange for helping the family search for him. Nelson’s mother had also reported a striking coincidence. Following her son’s disappearance, Nelson’s brothers went to Chicago to look for him. They met with the friend, who offered the siblings contracting jobs with Gacy.
All three victims were found in Gacy’s crawlspace.
Last fall, eight Gacy victims who had never been identified were exhumed for DNA testing, in hopes of discovering their identities. Since then, two men who were believed to have been murdered by Gacy have been found alive.
Harold Wayne Lovell was found in Florida.
“He was high on the list,” said Sheriff Tom Dart. “If not one, two, or three, in someone’s mind, of the most likely person that was one of the eight down in the crawl space.”
As Sheriff’s detectives began their renewed search, they quickly learned there had been recent activity by Lovell in Florida. It was about that time that the family came across a booking photo of a Harold Wayne Lovell, 53, from South Florida. It was him.
“I almost gave up hope in the late 90s,” said Lovell’s brother, Tim, 48. “I dreamed about it. I’ve only had maybe a one percent inkling that I’d ever, ever see my brother again, and here we are. It’s just amazing.”
Lovell said he left home because of a “family situation.” He took a train to Florida because he “couldn’t stay around the house any longer.”
Lovell may have been fortunate, because he did yard work at Gacy’s before leaving for Florida. He says Gacy tried to get him to come in the house, but Lovell refused. In addition, Gacy had apparently taken some belongings of Lovell’s and they were found in Gacy’s house. Lovell’s mother had identified them.
A second missing man, Theodore “Ted” Szal, turned up in Oregon.
Szal admits that he simply vanished. There were family issues. A troubled marriage, coupled with a belief that his mother had assisted his wife in getting an abortion.
“I didn’t have too much money. I didn’t have a job. So I drove to the airport, threw my keys down a sewer drain so I wouldn’t change my mind and got on an airplane. That was 35 years ago.”
Thirty five years without a single word to his family. Szal travelled first to Colorado Springs, then California, and finally to Oregon, where he settled down and eventually remarried. He admits that the memory of his family had haunted him, especially on holidays.
“Christmas has been hard. But this year, Christmas is going to be different.”
One of the unidentified bodies is now known to be William George Bundy
For years, Laura O’Leary has visited the graves of her family members in southwest suburban Justice, but she didn’t know her brother was buried in the same cemetery — as an unidentified victim of serial killer John Wayne Gacy.
O’Leary recently learned her missing teenage brother, William George Bundy, was one of Gacy’s eight unidentified victims more than three decades ago. He was buried in Resurrection Catholic Cemetery where his grandparents and an aunt were also laid to rest.
On Tuesday, O’Leary hugged Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart to thank him for a DNA initiative that led to her brother’s identification on Nov. 14.
“Today is a terribly sad day for my family. But it is also a day that provides closure,” she said at a news conference with Dart.
Another mother, Sherry Marino, has always wondered if the body buried in the grave she visits frequently is really her 14-year-old son Michael Marino and if he was really a Gacy victim. She plans to have the body exhumed for DNA testing as soon as she can raise the money.
Now that I’ve indulged my fascination with true crime, I’ll give you a few news headlines. Everyone is laughing about Mitt Romney’s Freudian slip at the CPAC conference. He told the audience he was “severely conservative” as Governor of Massachusetts. I say it’s a Freudian slip, because it makes being conservative sound like a disease–that’s probably what Romney really feels in his subconscious mind.
At the New Yorker, Ryan Lizza provides A “Severely Conservative” Lexicon, with examples of the use of the odd expression. Here are a few examples:
“Like so many alcoholics, or criminals, or sexually promiscuous people who reform, Janet had flipped to the opposite extreme, to severely conservative behavior. At some level, Janet was doing penance for her past destructive behavior. She was full of self-hatred and was operating out of fear. ”
—“Mastering Your Moods: How to Recognize Your Emotional Style and Make It Work for You,” by Dr. Melvyn Kinder (1994)
“As philosopher James Rachels has observed, ‘the opposite is true: the rule against causing unnecessary pain is the least eccentric of all moral principles, and that rule leads straight to the conclusion that we should abandon the business of meat production and adopt alternative diets. Considered in this light, vegetarianism may be thought of as a severely conservative moral stance.’ ”
—“Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog?,” by Gary Lawrence Francione (2000)
“Only severely conservative jewelry is worn by the bride. She may wish to wear pearls or other simple jewelry given her as a gift by the groom or her parents.”
—“Planning LDS Weddings and Receptions,” by Lois F. Worlton and Opal D. Jasinski (1972, revised edition 1999)
Hmmmm….maybe that’s where Romney picked up the expression.
As everyone knows by now, Rick Santorum is ahead of Mitt Romney in Romney’s home state of Michigan. Santorum is also running neck and neck with Romney in the national polls.
Via Charlie Pierce, right wing Catholics are thrilled that Rick “the Dick” is “fighting the liberal bulldozer.”
Rick Santorum was impossible thirty years ago. If Rip van Winkle woke up today he would be dumbfounded. How could such an overtly religious and socially conservative politician have so much traction on the national scene?
The answer comes from the Left. Since the Sixties our liberal elites have become increasingly anti-religious, increasingly opposed to traditional moral norms, and increasingly aggressive. As a result they have made our national politics much more extreme.
To a great extent, post-sixties American politics has been shaped by liberal aggression. As Lyndon Johnson knew, the Civil Right Act of 1964 would trigger a fundamental shift in national politics. The South would no longer be in the hip pocket of the Democratic Party.
I don’t know how the author of the piece, R.R. Reno, knows this, but he or she says that Johnson didn’t predict “liberal overreach.”
Mandatory school busing—modern liberalism always tends toward coercion—as well as crudely imposed quotas in the 1970s led to a great deal of unhappiness among white ethnic and blue collar voters who had for decades been pillars of the Democratic Party. They weren’t (for the most part) in favor of Jim Crow, but they didn’t like being moved around like chess pieces by liberal elites. It was during those years that the term “limousine liberal” gained currency as a new and telling term of abuse in American political culture.
The Equal Rights Amendment would have encoded gender equality into the Constitution. It seemed a sure thing in the early 1970s. But opposition mounted and it failed to secure ratification. That’s not because most Americans were opposed to women’s liberation. Instead support for the Equal Rights Amendment dwindled because John Q. Voter was coming to see how modern liberals use rights—not as instruments of freedom but as new warrants for social control.
And so on. It’s like going through the looking glass with Alice.
House Republicans have agreed to extend the payroll tax holiday without accompanying cuts.
House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and his top lieutenants said they do not want to be held responsible for the tax increase on 160 million workers that would happen if the tax holiday were not extended.
The two sides have been negotiating for weeks but have been unable to strike a deal. Republicans want to continue negotiations over financing the rest of the original legislative package, including an extension of unemployment benefits and a key tweak to maintain Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, while ensuring that taxes will not rise on workers.
“Because the president and Senate Democratic leaders have not allowed their conferees to support a responsible bipartisan agreement, today House Republicans will introduce a backup plan that would simply extend the payroll tax holiday for the remainder of the year while the conference negotiations continue,” Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) said in a joint statement.
Awwwww…that’s big of you boys. Now you can devote full time to the war on women’s health care.
A famous portrait of Mary Todd Lincoln has turned out to be a fraud.
A long-celebrated portrait of Mary Todd Lincoln which hung for decades in the Illinois governor’s mansion has been deemed a fake.
James Cornelius, the curator of the Abraham Lincoln Library and Museum, described the painting as part of an elaborate fraud that befell President Abraham Lincoln’s descendants in the 1920s, the Chicago Tribune reports.
“It was supposedly a gift Mary Lincoln planned to give to her husband, but then he was assassinated and she became a widow before she could present it to him,” Cornelius told the Tribune Saturday of the painting’s alleged backstory.
But the truth of the matter, as the Daily Journal reports, is that the portrait supposedly painted as a “secret” present for the president actually depicts an unknown woman who was later doctored to look more like Lincoln. Barry Bauman, a conservator, discovered that the “artist’s” signature had been added to the portrait later, while he was cleaning it.
That’s it for me, except to wish you a Happy Valentine’s Day! Are you getting the feeling it isn’t one of my favorite holidays? What can I say? I’m getting old, and I’m jaded about romance.
What are you reading and blogging about today?







Recent Comments