Is There Any Room Left Under the Bus???
January 27, 2009
by Amy Siskind
|
Is there any room left under the bus?
You betcha!
Let’s step back for a moment and imagine the conversations taking place in Washington DC. President Obama is trying to push through his Stimulus Bill and is meeting with resistance from the Republicans.
Boehner: “Barack, if you want our support on the bill, you’re going to need to give up something.”
Emanuel: (whispering) “Barack, we got the women’s groups under control. They won’t say a peep.”
Obama: “Hmm…how about we give up funding of birth control and that pleases your far right base and you give us support for the Stimulus Bill.”
Boehner: “Now that was easy. Deal!”
What just happened here? Well, I’ll tell you what happened: the women of this country have been thrown under the bus again. This particular instance involves a mere $200 million of the $825 billion Stimulus Bill (yes, the latter number is billion, and the former million), or 0.02% of the overal amount, that was allocated to pay for birth control for American women who cannot afford it.
But the $200 million is only part of the story. The main plot line here is that the women of this country continue to get short changed. And why not? President Obama is a smart man surrounded by experienced advisors. Each decision is a calculated political equation of pleasing various constituencies while disappointing others. The trick is to get and keep as much overall support as possible. Problem for the women of this country is that our voice and vote have already been bartered – and for what? For some unkept, backroom promises.
Many of us have heard the old proverb: why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free. Well women of this country – take stock – our voice was sold out long ago. It was sold by a large national pro-choice group which endorsed then-Senator Obama in the Presidential Primary (are they speaking out now?). It was sold by other national women’s groups so that they could attend a DC meeting or two, and in exchange, they agreed to smile and turn their backs on 24% cabinet representation (5 of 21), Larry Summers, Jon Favreau, Tim Kaine and Rick Warren. Well, all good and fine, but the real sellout might be the economic hijacking of the millions of women who will suffer disproportionately in the recession: the women that will hardly benefit from the billions of dollars in the Stimulus Bill allocated to male bastion industries such as infrastructure and construction.
The other crime is women who speak out and say: ”no, women do not need represenation in government, we just need policies .” That is complete and utter hogwash! If we wait for a bunch of progressive (and some not so progressive) males to throw us a crumb now and then, then the women of this country will have no control or power. When 84% of our Congress and 83% of our Senate is male, what should we expect? We should expect a crumb now and then that benefits a few in DC that have been given the status to speak for all us.
Well, this woman for one says: “NO MORE!” We are not waiting in the wings hoping and praying that now and then things will go our way. It is time for the women (and like-minded men) to be brave and bold and take back control of our own destiny. Else, you’re damn right that we’ll be at the losing side of every political equation.
Then we must take action everywhere we can. On this issue, it boils down to making sure we bombard our elected officials regarding the stimulus package with any and all aspects of it that we feel leave women on the losing end of the stick. Tell them what you think. Tell them what you want. Tell them what you need. Tell them to sign Polis’s letter. And, keep hammering away contacting the media as well. And, if you think it’s worth the effort, contact the White House and tell Obama what you think.
You tell ‘em Amy!!!!!
I guess that this is one of those wonderful policies without representation the Naomi Wolf was talking about . Poor Naomi really thought that superman feminist president Obama was gonna look out for us little wimmins!
Just another reason why women need to be at the table in equitable proportions.
HELP NEEDED (Re: drafting some letters I want to write)
1. Am I correct that one of the executive orders that Obama signed had to do with releasing funding for family planning in developing nations? If so, does anyone know the precise name of the order he signed and/or the precise name of what the funds were released for (i.e. “family planning”, “planned parenthood clinics”, “contraception”, etc)?
2. fsteele, or anyone else in the know: Can you explain a bit more about Waxman’s role in this particular piece (funding for family planning for low income) of the stimulus package?
3. I realize “the Republicans” are being presented as holding together as a block re: bucking the stimulus package, or at least elements of it, but does anyone know how firm that block is? Are there any Republican women who have expressed their support for the package as is and/or at least for keeping the family planning component in?
Thanks!
We don’t need any more room under the bus. That’s why it’s easy to keep throwing us under. Our space seems to be reserved. Could that be because we are going to be frequently thrown?
Hmmm, maybe the Transit Union will let us join up. I’m sure they would give us access to healthcare . . . .
Anna,
1. Search for “Mexico City Gag Rule”.
2, Here is all I know about Waxman:
“Several Democrats said Monday night that Obama had spoken personally with Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., about removing the provision. Waxman is chairman of the committee with jurisdiction over Medicaid and a close ally of Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.”
Pelosi did speak out in favor of FP.
I’m not clear on the Medicare connection. Something about letting each state independently decide whether to include birth control in Medicare or whether each still has to get Federal approval first??? I don’t know how this fits with the amount of money Amy mentions.
3. Dunno. I don’t even know which Dem women were involved or how they voted. I’ve been out all day.
Anna,
There’s a good entry at Alegre’s with statements from NOW-NYS and Planned Parenthood that would answer some of your questions.
http://alegrescorner.soapblox......aryId=2144
re: the bus. either the stimulus package will be rewritten to include funding so that everybody under it can start picking out drapes or it’s gonna morph into an army tank.
The Whitehouse is posting the text of executive orders, etc. online under “Briefing Room”. Here’s the text:
MEMORANDUM FOR
THE SECRETARY OF STATE
THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Mexico City Policy and Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2151b(f)(1)), prohibits nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that receive Federal funds from using those funds “to pay for the performance of abortions as a method of family planning, or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.” The August 1984 announcement by President Reagan of what has become known as the “Mexico City Policy” directed the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to expand this limitation and withhold USAID funds from NGOs that use non-USAID funds to engage in a wide range of activities, including providing advice, counseling, or information regarding abortion, or lobbying a foreign government to legalize or make abortion available. The Mexico City Policy was in effect from 1985 until 1993, when it was rescinded by President Clinton. President George W. Bush reinstated the policy in 2001, implementing it through conditions in USAID grant awards, and subsequently extended the policy to “voluntary population planning” assistance provided by the Department of State.
These excessively broad conditions on grants and assistance awards are unwarranted. Moreover, they have undermined efforts to promote safe and effective voluntary family planning programs in foreign nations. Accordingly, I hereby revoke the Presidential memorandum of January 22, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), the Presidential memorandum of March 28, 2001, for the Administrator of USAID (Restoration of the Mexico City Policy), and the Presidential memorandum of August 29, 2003, for the Secretary of State (Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning). In addition, I direct the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID to take the following actions with respect to conditions in voluntary population planning assistance and USAID grants that were imposed pursuant to either the 2001 or 2003 memoranda and that are not required by the Foreign Assistance Act or any other law: (1) immediately waive such conditions in any current grants, and (2) notify current grantees, as soon as possible, that these conditions have been waived. I further direct that the Department of State and USAID immediately cease imposing these conditions in any future grants.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal Register.
BARACK OBAMA
THE WHITE HOUSE, January 23, 2009.
As for the Stimulus Plan… well, I’m an archaeologist, and we get most of our work from the construction permitting process, so I was excited when he said “Infrastructure.” Frankly, bridges shouldn’t fall into rivers, levees and dams shouldn’t fail, much of the east coast power grid shouldn’t be able to cascade to “off”, and when the power *does* go out locally, the cell phone system shouldn’t jam up so badly I can’t call out. Plus, more work for me and the folks in our office, including our field crew, many of who are women, and many of who have been laid off. So, I was more than surprised (ok, call me naive) when this $850 billion infrastructure bill (which is still being hawked as such) became 20% infrastructure and 80% other stuff. Don’t call it infrastructure when it’s other stuff. Which also means that while Polis’ letter to the president is fantastic, he’s only looking at 20% of the pie…
Despite my self-interest in the infrastructure, women are poorly represented in the Stimulus Package overall. Even when we’re in there, it’s low-paying service stuff, like snacks after school. Or, we’re bodily removed, as in the money for contraception. I saw the news on CNN last night… Pelosi was very clear about it being included, Obama said something to the effect that she mis-spoke (I forget the quote).
This is excellent, Amy. Really sums up WHY we need our 52 percent in office. We need to represent ourselves. Otherwise policy affecting women will never go far beyond the abortion issue.
Maybe TNA’s slogan should be:
“Get out from under the bus and join The New Agenda!”
or
“Get ON the bus and join The New Agenda!”
On Alegere’s Corner the phone numbesr of the White House and the switchboard for Congress are posted. Please call and let them know how unhappy you are with the notion that the lives of poor women are not worth anything, while the pigs continue to feed at the trough buying themselves $85K rugs at taxpayer expense.
Oh, and has anybody started to collect information about what seats in the House and Senate will be vacated by current occupants? Considering that 95% or incumbents win their seats back, perhaps we should concentrate on the seats that are being vacated since we will have a better chance of winning them.
fsteele and Digger – Thanks so much for the information you posted.
Ali – I agree that we need to have our numbers in DC be more reflective of our numbers in the population, but there is no reason to presume that more women directly equates with automatic alliances on issues.
Speaking of which, I’m still trying to find out where our female elected officials fall on the issue of the family planning funding. Anyone with any info, please post. Thanks!
LETTER TO THE EDITOR. FREE TO GOOD HOME.
———————————————————————————
To the Editor:
One of President Obama’s first acts in office was to pave the way for U.S. dollars to once again fund grants that include family planning programs in developing nations. Curiously, as he negotiates the economic stimulus package, he appears willing to remove funding for family planning for low-income individuals and couples here in the United States. The impact of his decision will hit women and children living in the United States particularly hard.
As it is, men will reap far greater benefits from President Obama’s economic stimulus plan as it currently stands with an emphasis on infrastructure, an area of employment dominated by men. With the elimination of family planning funds, as well, President Obama will have crafted a package that leaves millions of women out of the loop on two important fronts. We must do better than this as a nation.
Sincerely,
Name
City, State
————————————————————————————-
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR LINKS
http://www.publishaletter.com/
http://www.allmyfaves.com/
http://www.mondotimes.com/
http://newslink.org/
http://www.democrats.org/page/.....uilderLTE/
http://www.npr.org/ombudsman/
http://www.centerforinvestigativereporting.org/
http://www.womensmediacenter.com/index.html
This is going to make me unpopular, but I gotta say it. I am very worried about the size of the deficit. I believe that the stimulus package is overstuffed in many ways and should be stripped of everything that does not directly create jobs and stabilizing the economy. Programs for women shouldn’t be singled out for removal as this one has been, but IMO those programs and many many others should be removed. Then each worthy program, and birth control is a worthy program, should be funded in ways that are above board and transparent. And yes, I agree that birth control has positive effects secondary effects on the economy. So I’m with you on the end goals.
Anna – You wrote, “I agree that we need to have our numbers in DC be more reflective of our numbers in the population, but there is no reason to presume that more women directly equates with automatic alliances on issues.”
Agreed; equality doesn’t mean “equality only for those who think like me”, it means equality for ALL women, even if they don’t think like me, or would rather curl up and die than be considered a feminist. Again, call me naive (you wouldn’t be the first, ha!), but feminism to me has always meant “choice” … of opinions, of jobs, of education, of relationships, of barefoot and preggers if I wanted to – see also “Blaming Women for the Patriarchy” over at Reclusive Leftist for some thought-provoking (if I do make a fully informed decision that you don’t like, will you respect me then? Just askin’) http://www.reclusiveleftist.co.....atriarchy/
I’d actually like to see more Republican and Other representation here at TNA… like the ACLU, who support free speech for EVERYONE. Women need a voice in politics, even if I don’t agree with what it is.
“$200 million for condoms?”
$200 million is what would be SAVED by this provision. Here is a cite from the Washington Post, quoted and linked at Heidi Li’s blog,
http://tdg.typepad.com/heidi_l.....ially.html
As the House version of the legislation came to the floor on Tuesday, Democrats stripped from it a provision that Republicans had ridiculed as having nothing to do with economic stimulus, one expanding federal Medicaid coverage of family planning services. (The Congressional Budget Officehad estimated that the provision would actually save the government $200 million over five years by reducing pregnancy and postnatal-care expenses.)
The problem with telling birth control advocates to go to the back of the line is that every day without these services is going to mean more unwanted babies nine months from now.
Thank you, Amy….I just sent this to a seriously deranged “liberal” Obama groupie.
She just had a column posted in a local paper…now I supose I have to write a letter to the ed to help deprogram the entire town.
Digger – Absolutely. I agree. But, since TNA does have some stated goals and since many comments imply an agenda as well, I was making my point to address those observations. For example, TNA posts and comments have blasted Obama on issues such as his selection of Tim Kaine as the new head of the DNC. But, likely more conservative folks may have no problem with Kaine’s less than complete and robust support of all forms of family planning and abortion guidelines. Obama’s been slammed for his alliance with Rick Warren, but if we truly want to be inclusive and non-partisan, likely there are women out there who belong to Warren’s church who agree with Warren, etc. Now, it’s hard for me to imagine how they might also be interested in TNA, but who knows. So, I agree with your point, but I also see the concrete challenges where theory bumps up against reality.
Digger – ugh, sorry. not the most articulate comment. i hope you can make sense of my half sentences. hope you get the gyst.
[...] the fate of women’s issues. So, it should come as no surprise that President Obama would cut $200 millionwhich was meant to provide a safety net to cover the cost of women’s birth control, while more [...]
Anna,
You were no less articulate than I was (take that as you will!)… I hear you. And I still agree with you… theory meeting reality is generally messy, and isn’t best dealt with by sweeping the inconvenient bits under the rug. Messy in politics, messy in archaeology… just messy, but a necessary part of the process.
As a lesbian, I was very unhappy about Rick Warren being selected to give the invocation. But I also get that the government isn’t all about me, and if you’re going to be inclusive, then you have to be INCLUSIVE (sometimes the best deals are the ones where no one is thrilled…). What really burnt my ass was first the “oh shit they’re REALLY mad” sudden inclusion of Bishop Robinson in the ceremonies… and THEN the exclusion of Bishop Robinson’s prayer from public consumption (it wasn’t broadcast on HBO, and even if you were at the ceremonies, if you weren’t in the front area, you couldn’t hear what he had to say because the sound system wasn’t working right). I’m really, really, not a conspiracy theorist, but I wonder.
All that said, the first legislation Obama signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. And that counts for something.
Digger – I hear every word you’re saying and it’s all right on!
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
February 6, 2012 at 4:25 pm
January 30, 2012 at 2:36 pm
January 26, 2012 at 4:38 pm
January 23, 2012 at 1:04 pm
January 15, 2012 at 11:37 am
January 9, 2012 at 6:36 pm
January 7, 2012 at 10:10 pm
January 5, 2012 at 9:31 am
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...