I have been disappointed by politicians far more often than I care to admit. From Bill Clinton to Jesse Ventura to even George W. Bush — who managed to do far worse than my meager expectations to him — candidates have been elected to office only to become feckless, spineless, worthless representatives, far more concerned about their own political well-being than the people they represent. See also most of Congress.
What redeems my faith in the system is the fact that every so often, a politician comes along who actually exceeds my expectations, who comports themself the way we expect a politician to — without fear of losing, with more of a focus on the people they represent than the next election. The late, great Sen. Paul Wellstone, DFL-Minn., was one of those politicians. He ran a spirited campaign and talked a good show, but once elected he backed up his words with actions. He walked the talk.
And now, the man who holds his seat in the Senate is doing the same thing.
On Tuesday, Sen. Al Franken, DFL-Minn., served as the keynote speaker for the NARAL Pro-Choice America Roe v. Wade anniversary luncheon. And his remarks to the group were outstanding. Franken gave a full-throated, unapologetic defense of the right of women to choose their own reproductive destinies — and did so with both humor and grace. I haven’t found a video of the event yet — if I do, I’ll post it — but the transcript is exactly what pro-choice Democrats want to hear from our public officials. Here’s a selection:
Shortly after I (finally) became a Senator, I was appointed to the Judiciary Committee.
At first I thought: Well, this is weird. I’m not a lawyer. How am I going to ask the right questions?
But I did some research and discovered most Americans aren’t lawyers. It’s true.
And so to me, the right questions aren’t the ones a lawyer would necessarily ask. They’re questions the American people would ask.
And that’s what I did in my first hearing. It just happened that my first hearing was a high profile one: the Judiciary Committee was considering the nomination for Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court.
[…]Let me set it up a bit. The day before, one of my Republican colleagues had been – I guess the right word is “hectoring” – Judge Sotomayor, repeatedly asking her whether the word “abortion” appeared anywhere in the Constitution.
Of course, it doesn’t. But whether it does or not is beside the point. So she answered by speaking to the question behind the question. But finally after being asked for the third time, Judge Sotomayor replied, “No. The word ‘abortion’ is not in the Constitution.”
Which my colleague treated as an “Aha!” moment.
So the next day, I felt compelled to follow up.
I brought up her exchange with my colleague from the previous day, and then asked, “Do the words ‘birth control’ appear anywhere in the Constitution?”
“No, they don’t,” Judge Sotomayor replied quite correctly.
“How about the word ‘privacy?’ Does that appear anywhere in the Constitution?”
She said. “No, the word ‘privacy’ isn’t in the Constitution either.”
I think you can see where I was going. And so could everyone in the hearing room.
You know, there are a lot of words that express bedrock constitutional principles – words like federalism, checks and balances, and separation of powers – that never appear in the Constitution. That doesn’t mean that the Constitution didn’t set up a federalist system, enumerating certain express powers to the federal government and reserving certain powers for the states. And it doesn’t mean that the Constitution didn’t set up a system of “checks and balances” by creating the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, granting each certain powers, creating what is well known as a “separation of powers.”
And even though the word “privacy” does not appear in the Constitution, the Court has long recognized a protection for privacy.
And that is why I followed my questions about the words “birth control” and “privacy” to ask whether Judge Sotomayor agreed that the Court had held that the Constitution created not just a right to privacy, but that it was also established precedent that women had a right to choose to have an abortion.
She said, yes, that was established precedent. That it was settled law. And she agreed that the job of a Supreme Court justice was not to make new law from the bench.
You know, it’s funny. Whenever a Republican runs for the Senate or for president and is asked, “What do you look for in a prospective Justice for the Supreme Court?” Republicans always answer, “I want a judge that doesn’t make law from the bench.”
[…]
In the last year alone….
We saw Representative Bart Stupak use the health care bill as a bludgeon, restricting women’s health choices in a bill that was meant to expand them.
We watched with frustration as the Supreme Court overturned a century’s worth of precedents to further their conservative activist agenda.
We are watching as the Senate continues to block Dawn Johnsen’s confirmation to a critical role at the Department of Justice because of her pro-choice views.
And we saw Dr. Tiller murdered at church… AT HIS CHURCH…. murdered for the choice he provided for women.
I want to thank Dr. Sella for being here today, and I want to join you in honoring his memory.
And that’s why the work you do at NARAL is indispensible. Because the forces on the other side are persistent, single-minded, and even violent.
A woman’s right to choose is never fully won. It must be won anew every day, every year, every Congress, and every generation.
Even though most Americans support abortion rights, even though most Americans understand that no woman ever plans an unwanted pregnancy, that no woman ever thinks she’ll have to make such a painful and personal choice, those who would deny that choice press on, undeterred.
In a lot of ways that fight is going to be incremental. In 2007 – after Justice O’Connor’s departure, we saw the Roberts Court reject the longstanding precedent that an exception for a woman’s health must be a component of any law that restricts abortion rights.
Even when the woman’s health includes her reproductive health. That’s what Dr. Tiller did so often in his work. Perform abortions on fetuses that would not be viable outside the womb in order to protect a woman’s ability to bear children in the future. Ironically, what could be more pro-life?
[…]
Now, let me say that there are millions of people in this country who have a sincere objection to abortion, and much of that is based on strongly held religious conviction. And I respect that. In America, we respect each other’s religious beliefs. But we are not governed by them.
It’s called the “separation of church and state,” a phrase which, like “separation of powers,” does not appear in the Constitution, but which is created just as clearly in the establishment clause of the First Amendment.
So to those people whose religious conviction leads them to a moral opposition to abortion, I say that’s your right, that’s your choice. Don’t have an abortion. But also, do everything you can to work together with us to diminish the reasons we have abortions.
Support comprehensive sex education and access to affordable family planning services. Support funding for maternal child health programs, WIC, and affordable child care so new mothers have security and the resources they need to raise a healthy child.
Oh yeah, and support comprehensive affordable health care for all.
[…]
I want to leave you today with a story. It’s one that should sound familiar to the millions of women across this country who understand in a very personal way the importance of protecting women’s reproductive rights.
The story is about a Minnesotan named Kim. Kim was a 19-year-old single mother. She was struggling to make ends meet, working full time as a receptionist. Her daughter had health insurance through the state, but she did not. Her boyfriend, her daughter’s father, was extremely abusive.
She was getting the pill through Planned Parenthood at a reduced rate, but after her car broke down, she couldn’t afford that either.
One day her boyfriend demanded that they have sex, but refused to use a condom. He threatened her. She was too afraid to say no. And she ended up pregnant.
She said, “Abortion was absolutely the right choice for me at that time… Had I stayed in that relationship and brought another child into the mix, I would have continued the cycle of abuse and poverty.”
“Making the decision to stop the cycle [allowed me] to concentrate on my daughter and ensure that she will have the financial and emotional stability to go to college and live a successful, happy life. Women need options, women need choices.”
I am here to ask you to keep up the fight, for Kim, and for every woman who has learned – and will learn – that women need options and choices.
Thank you for the work you’ve done – and are continuing to do — to stand up for women’s rights.
I’m proud to stand with you.
I know that’s a long excerpt, but it is as eloquent a defense of the right to choice as any I’ve seen. And it comes during a three-decade run in which Democrats have been almost embarrassed to support a woman’s right to choose, in which we’ve run away from support for abortion rights, even as we paid lip service to them.
Franken’s speech is something we need to hear out of more Democrats. Abortion rights are fundamental rights, because women — as humans — have a fundamental right to control their bodies. It’s nice to hear my junior senator say so.
When Franken was elected, I thought, “How odd. Why do people think celebrities will be good leaders?” I’m glad to hear that, at least in this case, the people were right.
Thanks for sharing the excerpt.
Wow. If only there were more like that in the world, eh?
–IP
Good point. This is why censors who argue “corporation’ doesn’t appear in the first amendment are misguided.
Is there anybody seriously arguing against the right to existence of corporations?
This thread isn’t about that.
There is a thread that is about that that you are free to have that discussion in.
Cut it out.
—Myca
I was psyched for a good call to arms but I got to the end and cried. It was a good call to arms, too.
Stewart/Colbert ’12! ;)
It seems to me that in supporting establishment of programs and funding for these kinds of things, what we are actually moving towards is replacing parents (usually fathers) with the State. I do not think this is in the best interests of American civilization. Supporting a child is the responsibility of both of a child’s parents – and it is most definitely NOT the responsibility of people who are NOT the parents of that child.
Now, I understand that these programs didn’t get created in a vacumn. They were created because there are men and women who are not stepping up to their responsibilities, and because people didn’t want to see children suffer the negative consequences of parental irresponsibilities. But the more support you provide for single parents (almost always mothers), the more single parents you’re going to get – “you get what you pay for” is true in more ways than one. Generations of children raised by single mothers and the State also leads to negative consequences.
I wonder how much he means that? Because giving money to the programs he mentions and others of that nature only increase the supplanting of parents by the State. How willing is he to fund programs that will obviate the occurence of the pregnancies in the first place? I’m not talking about birth control, mind you, although there is that. I’m talking about programs that encourage the formation and preservation of two-parent families and discourage pre-marital sex and childbirth. Pretending that these things are not the public’s business or that they are not superior for society’s self-preservation to single-parent or other “alternative” families does us no good at all.
Can you provide any evidence that the formation and preservation of two-parent families reduces abortion?
Programs that discourage pre-marital sex have not yet been shown to be effective in achieving that goal.
What do you mean by a program to discourage childbirth? That sounds like one that encourages abortion, but I’m sure that’s not what you mean.
That’s just offensive and sounds like the words of a bigot.
Supporting a child is the responsibility of both of a child’s parents – and it is most definitely NOT the responsibility of people who are NOT the parents of that child.
I don’t know anyone who agrees with you on that. Supporting children, protecting children, trying to make sure that children grow up healthy and become good citizens, is the responsibility of the child’s family (not only the parents) and the child’s community. My liberal and conservative friends and family do disagree rather vehemently on who is or should be part of that community, and that’s where you get into disagreements over state involvement. But I don’t know anyone in real life who wants immediate families to be islands in the way you are proposing, and I’m glad.
So are you against public schools, medicaid, public funding for preschools, after-school programs, daycare, foster care and adoption, public parks, etc? Because all of these are examples of people who are not the parents of a child supporting that child.
Children need support because they cannot support themselves. When we remove or refuse to support children because their parents can’t or won’t do it, then we are in essence punishing that child for the failings of their family.
The reason why raising children in single parent households tends to be troublesome is that a single parent household usually has fewer resources than a two parent household. However, this problem is diminished if we provide help to that single parent, so that he or she doesn’t have to go broke paying for daycare.
And if your worry is that if single motherhood isn’t a nightmare, then more women would be single mothers, then I think we need to look at why men feel that women wouldn’t want to be with them if they weren’t forced to do so.
Do you realize that this is, objectively, the most effective way to reduce abortion, right? And you oppose abortion?
—Myca
Myca, the first link seems to be more about reducing maternal deaths by making abortion legal (as if the lives of women were the only lives involved …), and to prove that abortion rates don’t go up if abortion transition from illegal to legal. I don’t see where it bears on the question of how to reduce the incidence of abortion. The second link is a page of links which when you click on them lead to other pages of links and I’m not going to chase all around that.
However, I suspect the argument on those links is that supplying State support for single mothers likely reduces the demand somewhat for abortion, legal or otherwise, because it might make a difference in some prospective single mothers’ decision making process that they can get support for their child. But that doesn’t mean it’s the most effective way to prevent abortion.
The most effective way to prevent abortion in my opinion is for people who can’t support a child or who for whatever reason would abort it to not get pregnant in the first place. One way to do that is for sexually active fertile people to use birth control. Another way to do that is for fertile people to not have sex. And yet another way for that to happen is for the male sexual partner of a fertile woman to recognize the possible outcomes of having sex and to commit to accepting his share of the responsibility that they both owe towards both each other and their child.
The final responsibility for all these things lies with the two people involved. But society at large is well advised to supply support for those things and to supply negative sanctions for such things that interfere with or oppose them.
RonF,
Your preferred method of reducing abortion is currently in effect in countries like Romania. It objectively does not work to meet your stated goal.
That leaves us with just a few possibilities.
You could be dumb as a post.
You could be lying about your real goals.
You could be deluding yourself about your real goals.
You could be deluding yourself about reality.
You could be a trolling bigot.
I’m hard pressed to come up with other possibilities. Oh, I guess that there’s one more possibility:
You have some, up until now, unrevealed data that supports your assertion?
I have my opinion about which of those possibilities is most likely the truth.
RonF., when it comes to the best interests of American civilization, I think admitting that the institutional structures created to serve a 19th century agrarian community are inadequate to the needs of our current 21st century postindustrial economy will serve us better. Two-parent households are in every bit as much need of child care as my own single-parent household. Child care should be seen as being as necessary as public schools.
RonF., for all the lip service you give to birth control, it seems your real objection is that unmarried people are having sex, and furthermore, we aren’t choosing abortion (which you are against, yet you aren’t willing to embrace those of us who “choose life”, as it were). This statement: But society at large is well advised to supply support for those things and to supply negative sanctions for such things that interfere with or oppose them. leads me to believe that you pine for the days of “negative sanctions” like….kicking pregnant teens out of high school (not the impregnating ones, mind you), or…firing pregnant women from the job (married or not….that’s what happened).
From my perspective, the on-the-ground perspective of the “unwed mother”—what negative sanctions looks like is punishment of the person who did step up to the plate, the person who is taking responsibility. For what do I deserve negative sanctions? And which negative sanctions should we bring back first? Throwing unmarried pregnant women out of school? Kicking us off the job? Calling the children of unmarried women “bastards”? Hmm?
Look. A lot of the problems typically associated with single parent households are caused by poverty. Take away the poverty, and you’ve taken away just about all the problems. All the problems except those caused by….archaic sexist attitudes that pressure (mostly women) into making really bad decisions (mostly regarding trying to keep/reform a bad partner, or trying desperate measures to replace a bad partner with another one). All that business about “children need a father”? Sorry, but no they don’t. For what its worth, they don’t need a mother either. They need a healthy household and a parent or parents who love them.
I’m not just speaking as a single parent. I’m also speaking as a person who grew up in a seriously toxic, dysfunctional, yet married household. My daughter has and is growing up in the healthy environment I didn’t have. It wasn’t character-building for me to grow up with that garbage. I didn’t learn anything of value from it.
Why did it have to be that way, for me? Well, certain toxic ideas made it so, from “divorce is a sin against God”, to “children need a father”, to “stand by your man”, to “he’s just a man” (meaning: it’s up to the wife to fix him or endure), to “he’s only this way when he’s drunk (not true, but hey…), to “but he said he wouldn’t do it anymore”, to “but he’s really getting himself together now”, to “this is my destiny”, to “offer it up”, to…need I go on? It’s really disingenuous to not admit that praise for traditional marriage and sanction against alternative families doesn’t contain a whole helluva lot of brutal conditions for people who try their damndest to live up to the patriarchal ideal….no matter how gaping the chasm between their lived reality and the preached fantasy is.
Speaking of which, I read the quotes around alternative families (as distinguished from single-parent families) as a gratuitous slapdown on single-sex parenting partnerships. Why was that necessary?
I’m sorry, I must quote Professor Walsh:
“And if it’s true about hiking, ergo, it must be true about life.”
Yes, it’s true that taking care of pregnant women and children encourages single parenting and irresponsible fathers. Because if you feed them, they’ll just breed.
Yes.
Not just ONE way, but arguably the most effective way by a long shot. So: Would you support free or reduced cost BC, funded by the government, in order to provide the proper incentives to avoid accidental pregnancy? And would you support the proper training in its use (think ‘sex ed’ and you’re there?)
This is the best way, but also the most unlikely way. People will have sex. It’s a lot more fun than smoking and it tends not to give you cancer; if we can’t stop people from smoking what makes you think we can stop them from screwing?
Not really. This doesn’t reduce abortion unless the reason for abortion was a lack of father involvement. It has absolutely no effect on abortions based on health, for example, or abortions based on whether the woman wants to have a child.
Sure. It’s always best to give incentives for things you want, and to either penalize (or remove incentives for) things you don’t want. And you’re probably right: the existence of certain government programs may create certain incentives for people to do things we wish they wouldn’t do.
To use an example, the existence of welfare and certain types of government support almost certain has cause some fraction of people to BE on welfare who wouldn’t. The existence of abortion clinics has probably caused some people to abort who wouldn’t have done so. And so on.
But is that an argument against welfare or abortion? No, actually it’s not. here’s why:
MOST of the people on welfare–the vast, vast majority, I’d guess–would be on welfare no matter what the incentives were. They don’t have a choice. There are probably only a very few people who are on welfare because it exists, but would be OK if it didn’t exist. So removing welfare would screw over tons of people who need it, in order to affect a tiny minority of people who might not (still a ‘might’) need it.
Same thing with abortion. Making abortion more difficult, or illegal, would certainly reduce abortions. But it would only reduce the abortions of women who fall into the class “she would have an abortion if it were easy to do, but would not have an abortion if it were hard to do.” Statistics suggest that class is a damn small fraction of all women who abort. So making it harder will, just like welfare, primarily screw over a large class of people in order to create incentives for a small class of people.
I’m glad several other people were willing to take on RonF’s points logically and rationally. I’m still stuck at “reducing maternal deaths by making abortion legal (as if the lives of women were the only lives involved …).” Yeah. Who cares if women hemorrhage to death over a period of days or weeks, in agony the whole time? The important thing is that I have an opportunity to assert my moral superiority.
RonF – hate to mess up your pretty picture, but I’m married, even have two kids already. And if I get pregnant, I’ll have an appointment for an abortion before you can sneeze twice. Marriage and a devoted husband can help, but they’re hardly a sinecure against ever needing an abortion.
“reducing maternal deaths by making abortion legal (as if the lives of women were the only lives involved …)
Er…how many fathers have died due to pregnancy complications? Women’s lives are the only ones involved.
But the more support you provide for single parents (almost always mothers), the more single parents you’re going to get – “you get what you pay for” is true in more ways than one. Generations of children raised by single mothers and the State also leads to negative consequences.
Like…what? Single mothers (or fathers) without support or single mothers who don’t want to be raising children are certainly going to lead to problems. But when you look at countries with high rates of “single parents” (usually unmarried partners raising children), high rates of daycare use, and general “nanny state” situations, you see places like Sweden. I’m underwhelmed by the horror.
People will have sex. It’s a lot more fun than smoking and it tends not to give you cancer;
Sorry about the multiple posts, but I just saw this…Actually, sex can give you cancer. However, there are ways to avoid cancer and still have sex:
1. Get your HPV vaccine if you’re in an appropriate age/risk group. Boys will be approved soon.
2. Use condoms. Reduces the risk of getting HIV, hep B, and other sorts of potentially carcinogenic STDs. Not to mention non-carcinogenic but awkward ones like chlamydia.
3. Know-and like- your partner before jumping into bed with them. If you don’t know them well enough to have a 5 minute conversation about risk and to trust their answers do you really want them drooling on you anyway?
4. Abortion will not raise your risk of breast cancer. It may, however, reduce your risk of uterine cancer. The evidence is not strong enough to recommend getting an abortion to reduce your risk of uterine cancer but it’s a useful fact to toss into the abortion/cancer debate should it occur.
Pingback: Al Franken, Senator « Mom’s Tinfoil Hat