Republican War on Women (RWoW)

This deserves a thread of its own.

Google the phrase.

  1. Top 10 Shocking Attacks from the GOP’s War on Women

    pol.moveon.org/waronwomen/

    Stop the Republican War on Women. Redefining rape. Attacking the right to choose. Belitting victims of violence. The Republicans are on a rampage attacking 

This is quite clearly a freighted political catchphrase, intended so by sources like MoveOn and HuffPo.  Like the “War on Drugs” and the “War on Terror” it is intended to limit discussion of issues based on impugning motives.  Scott has been trying to make that point.

If we could define the Republican War on Women as the sum of these actions:

a failed conservative move to cut off U.S. government aid to Planned Parenthood + the Komen decision, since reversed + the attempted but failed roll back of contraception under employer health plans + the all male panel called to testify + the G’town student who was called a “slut” by Limbaugh + Santorum’s money guy’s “aspirin between the knees” comment + the vaginal insert sonogram, since abandoned in VA + the R opposition to extending the funding under the Violence against Women Act + personhood laws (thanks, Ashot), we could probably still talk about the cumulation without calling it war.

We could see it as R strategy to appeal to a fundamentalist base, that has become a bolder strategy as more and more of the active voting base of Rs claim fundamentalist religious principles, which often go far beyond the antipathy to abortion that many non-fundamentalists share.  We could see that fundamentalist faith actually does put women in a secondary role – this is true in all the Abrahamic religions.

We could see that some of the individual issues that have been tarred as part of the RWoW don’t derive their impetus from pandering to fundamentalist religion.  For example, some may derive from the desire to cut the budget.

We would not be surprised that moderate women would have no sympathy for any of the items I listed, and would be moving away from the Rs, unless some other set of issues took priority for them.

IMHO,  resisting the shorthand RWoW is worthwhile just in order to keep the issue conversation alive.  I think the same is true of other uses of the word “war” in a catchphrase intended to inflame emotions – like the WoD and the WoT.  It also cheapens the meaning of the word, fwiw.

Quick Question

I’m working on my fourth (and hopefully final) post about the Komen/Planned Parenthood debacle, and I’ve run into a conundrum.  I’ve been using the term “anti-abortion” to describe the group of people that raised the ruckus over Planned Parenthood funding.  For me, that narrows their focus down to a single point: abortion.  “Pro-life” (again, for me) can encompass everything from no contraception to no death penalty, so I feel that “anti-abortion” suffices for my purposes in this argument.

But what is the converse?  It’s not anti-life, it’s not pro-abortion (for reasons lms has pointed out), help me figure out the right term.  I’d much prefer it to be “anti-something”,  just because I think that using “anti” v “pro” terms is inherently combative and argumentative.  I’d also like it to be narrowly defined: a medical procedure which is legal under US law to women up until 24 weeks after conception (a partially arbitrary date, but consistent with current viability outside the womb standards).  If you can come up with two “pro” terms that would fit the criteria for both sides I’m willing to switch to that, too.  And let’s not go into the weeds about the viability date; I’ll explain in the post when it goes up.

So what would be the best term(s) for me to use?  I’m trying to provoke discussion here, not diatribes from either side, so I want to know what would be acceptable to most.

Whither Now, Komen, Part Three (Politics, Komen and Planned Parenthood)

As okie mentioned in a comment on Part Two, Karen Handel resigned from Komen yesterday.

This was the statement issued at the time:

Statement from Susan G. Komen Founder and CEO Nancy G. Brinker

“Susan G. Komen for the Cure’s mission is the same today as it was the day of its founding: to find a cure and eradicate breast cancer.

“We owe no less to our partners, supporters and, above all, the millions of people who have been and continue to be impacted by this life-threatening disease. We have made mistakes in how we have handled recent decisions and take full accountability for what has resulted, but we cannot take our eye off the ball when it comes to our mission. To do this effectively, we must learn from what we’ve done right, what we’ve done wrong and achieve our goal for the millions of women who rely on us. The stakes are simply too high and providing hope for a cure must drive our efforts.

“Today I accepted the resignation of Karen Handel, who has served as Senior Vice President for Policy since April 2011.  I have known Karen for many years, and we both share a common commitment to our organization’s lifelong mission, which must always remain our sole focus. I wish her the best in future endeavors.”

I hope that Nancy realizes that this is not going to quiet the firestorm, especially since Handel lashed out at dissenters in both her letter of resignation

“I am deeply disappointed by the gross mischaracterizations of the strategy, its rationale, and my involvement in it,” Handel’s resignation letter read. “I openly acknowledge my role in the matter and continue to believe our decision was the best one for Komen’s future and the women we serve.”

and in at least one interview she gave afterwards

Handel first denied that the decision had been in any way related to the political controversy, and was quick to blame Planned Parenthood for politicizing the debate.

“The mission was always foremost in everyone’s mind:  the mission and the women that we serve,” Handel said. “The only group that has made this issue political has been Planned Parenthood.”

But when asked later about her role in the decision, Handel appeared to admit that the group had long been under pressure from anti-abortion advocates.

“It’s no secret that Komen and other organizations that were funding Planned Parenthood had been under pressure for some years, long before my time,” Handel said, later adding, “Komen was doing its level best to move to neutral ground — and I will say, I was asked to look at options for doing that.”

But when asked whether the funding-cut push was her idea, as was contended in a Huffington Postinterview that cited internal emails, Handel sidestepped the question.

“I’m saying that this was long an issue for Komen, dealing with the controversies of Planned Parenthood,” she responded.

In addition, our Affiliate’s Executive Director wrote an opinion piece that was scheduled to be published in our local newspaper today (don’t know if it made it in yet as I haven’t seen the paper):

Susan G. Komen for the Cure found itself caught in a media storm this week. In short, a decision made by the head office regarding Planned Parenthood’s eligibility for grant funding was reversed.

Across the country, Komen affiliates felt the fallout. The Salt Lake City office received calls, Facebook posts and emails. Most expressed outrage at Komen’s move to pull funding from Planned Parenthood. When the decision was reversed, we had some angry feedback then too. Meanwhile, it was clear that many of the comments came from people who had little or no idea of what we do, who we are, or how we spend our money. So let me take the opportunity to clarify what Komen represents here in Utah.

First, we are small. We have two full-time and one part-time paid staff. But, with a corps of passionate volunteers, we raise a lot of money, thanks mainly to the 16,000 or more people who join us every year in the Komen Salt Lake City Race for the Cure.

Second, 75 percent of our net funds stay in our local community. We granted $735,000 in 2011 to Utah nonprofits. We fund mammograms performed by Intermountain Healthcare for the uninsured or underinsured. And we support breast health education and other programs, like a van service organized by a small group in Price to ensure that women can travel safely (and free of charge) to Provo for mammography, chemo, or radiation. Our grantees are listed on our local web site, www.komenslc.org. They also include groups that serve minority populations. One of our goals is to increase the mammography rate. Utah ranks second to lowest in the entire nation for screening. We want to change that ranking.

Third, 25 percent of our funds go to Komen headquarters–not for overhead, but for research projects selected at the national level to avoid duplication and ensure impact. Frequently, the funds that we send to Komen HQ for research come back to Utah. For example, Huntsman Cancer Institute is currently working on a project to learn how to isolate breast tumors and prevent them from spreading because that’s when cancer may lead to death. This research is occurring thanks to a $180,000 Komen national grant.

Many women are alive today because of Komen funding. Twenty five years ago, the five-year survival rate for a woman diagnosed with breast cancer (when detected early) was 75 percent. Now it’s 98 percent. Progress is being made. That said, breast cancer remains a serious, life-threatening disease that affects one in eight women.

Regarding Planned Parenthood: Have we given them money in the past? Yes. Will we continue to do so? Yes, if their request is related to breast health, and if our independent panel of reviewers decide that their proposal is a priority, given other requests and funds available. Some may still feel that the very fact that we provide funds of any kind to Planned Parenthood constitutes tacit endorsement of their organization. It is not an endorsement of any kind. It is simply a response to a need in this community for breast health information or services.

In summary, the REAL Komen, the Komen that I know, respect and support, is the Komen in your backyard.

We continue to hope for a great turnout at the Race for the Cure this year as fellow Utahns show their trust and belief in us, and join us in the war against breast cancer.

Debbie Mintowt, Executive Director, Salt Lake City Affiliate of Susan G. Komen for the Cure

Over the weekend I heard from our Board’s President that all of the Affiliates that were on that particular conference call with Nancy Brinker and HQ staff flat-out stated that Karen Handel had to go, and at that time Nancy didn’t want to do that. . . so something happened between Saturday and yesterday.  Sooner or later I imagine I’ll hear what it was.  Although I have always known that she is a Republican and a conservative Christian religiously conservative woman,  up until now Nancy Brinker kept politics out of the Komen brand.  I don’t think that we’ll ever shove that genie back in to bottle, so from here on out we’re going to have to be hypervigilant about sponsors, grantees, honorary chairs–everything that is the public face of Komen, and that’s a shame, because both Komen and Planned Parenthood do good work.

Part four is in the works: women’s health, Planned Parenthood, and Komen.  I see that part two is up around 180 comments now.  If nothing else, I seem to be able to write posts that spark a lot of discussion.

 

EDIT:  Both Mark and Karla pointed out that Nancy Brinker is possibly Jewish rather than Christian; I don’t know why I’d always been led to believe that she’s Christian, but after looking into it I can’t find a citation one way or the other, so I edited it above.  I know from meeting her at Komen events and public information that she is a conservative and religious woman (who I admire greatly), so I’ve decided to go with those two descriptors.