Back in 1970, during the Vietnam War, then President Nixon ordered that the United States attack Cambodia.  In response, many students on campuses across the nation went on strike.  At Kent State University in Ohio, the National Guard was brought in to quell disturbances.  They fired at students and killed four of them.  Nine others were wounded.  The photo of a female student, screaming as she knelt over the body of dead classmate, was widely broadcast.  Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young’s song, “Four Dead in Ohio,” followed shortly after.  Soon over 4,000,000 students went on strike at 700 colleges, universities, and high schools.  34 college presidents wrote Nixon protesting the war.

     I was a graduate student at Columbia then, teaching two classes.  I and many others refused to hold classes on campus.  A few months later, two more students were killed at Jackson State University, a black institution in Mississippi.  These deaths did not receive the nearly the same amount of publicity as those of white students, causing black leaders to protest.  That was one of the many ways in which the Vietnam War impacted college campuses.

     What about now?  The Hamas attack on Israel occurred on October 7.  On the 18th, Inna Venikov, a Republican NYC council member, brought a gun, openly carried, to a pro-Palestinian rally at Brooklyn College, where I taught for many years.  She was arrested, found to have a “concealed carry” permit and a gun that didn’t work and so, was released.  The group Students for Justice in Palestine was suspended at Brandeis, Columbia, and George Washington Universities.  Three college presidents at the City University of New York then prevented students from holding pro-Palestinian rallies on their campuses.

     In early November, students at UCLA held such a demonstration, which Republicans then denounced.  Christopher Wray, head of the FBI, declared that antisemitism had reached “historic levels” and warned of attacks on both Jews and Muslims.  The White House amplified attempts to fight such attacks, but prioritized those against Jews.  “Israelism,” a film questioning Zionism, was not allowed to be shown at Hunter College and the University of Pennsylvania.  Some campuses celebrated Hamas.  On others, Jewish and Muslim students were threatened.  Jewish donors began taking back money they had previously given.

     A group I’ve belonged to for many years, Historians for Peace and Democracy, decided to present a resolution “In Defense of the Right to Learn” at the American Historical Association’s meeting in early January.  Cory James Young, a historian at the University of Iowa, sent in a letter in its support defending pro-Palestinian students.  I wrote him and the group that I thought Jewish students should be added, since they were also being threatened (by campus signs of “Holocaust 2.0” among others).  He agreed.  The final resolution called for supporting accuracy in teaching, organizing campuses not to attack history or historians, defending academic freedom, and encouraging the right to learn.

     One problem that arose in the ‘70s and also today is whether or not universities should prohibit or punish what students or student organizations declare.  During the Vietnam War a faculty committee at the University of Chicago issued the Kalvan Report, arguing that universities should not censor their students and instead should sustain “an extraordinary environment of freedom of inquiry.”  “A good university,” it maintained, “like Socrates, will be upsetting.”

     This issue was raised in the U.S. Congress a few days ago, when Republican Rep. Elise Stefanik asked three college presidents if they would condemn those advocating “genocide” for Jews.  Moustafa Bayoumi, in the Brooklyn College English Department, correctly called this “the dead cat on the table” strategy.  That means that when you want to distract people from real issues (like Trump, whom Stefanik has consistently supported), you throw a “dead cat” –- an issue that demands attention -- in its place.  What Stefanik, and every other Congress member failed to mention was that “genocide” of Jews has not been advocated on any campus.  The presidents equivocated, instead of exposing this fallacy and saying they would handle it if it arose.  One of them has had to resign for her failure to condemn this supposed threat.

     This event brings to mind the famous issue of “not yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre.”  This statement was made by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in a Supreme Court decision of 1919.  The case, Schenk vs. the U.S., ruled that speech protesting the national draft was not protected by the First Amendment.  (Obviously, you are allowed to shout “fire” if the theatre actually is on fire.)  Much later, during the Vietnam War in 1969, the court ruled that such speech could be penalized only if it produces or incites “imminent lawless action.”  

     This decision provides an important precedent for today’s campuses and their presidents.  As the Brown University philosophy professor Felicia Nimue Ackerman wrote, “Of course, the tactics of Students for Justice in Palestine ‘can provoke discomfort’ on college campuses.  So what?  Although some S.J.P. tactics, such as impeding student access to classes, are unacceptable, discomfort is inevitable institutions dedicated to the free expression of ideas.”  I completely agree.

    For almost a year I’ve been writing a memoir which has consumed most of my creative energy.  I’m now working on the eighth and final chapter.  The first one, “History,” begins with a description of a postcard I’d saved for decades.  It portrays a girl of about 10 who looks just as I did then, with black hair held back by a band.  She’s reading a book and all you can see is the title “History.”  A caption says, “I’m not cynical, I’ve just been taking notes.”  I then delineate how history has shaped my thinking and career.  The second chapter, “Family,” briefly traces the 19th-century roots of my ancestors in the United States –- my father’s family settled in Shreveport, LA; my mother’s in Johnstown, PA.  It then focuses on my immediate family life in New York City.  “Marriage” first describes my marriage to Art Anderson, whom I wed in 1965, when I was twenty-two, and left in 1976.  It then goes through my long relationship with Stanley Malinovich, whom I met in 1984.  “Sex” deals with the period in between, when I (and many others) were very active sexually.  “Friends” goes through the important friendships in my life, beginning with Judy Zinsser, whom I met in 9th grade and still am close to today.  It ends by describing a few lost friendships.  “Therapy and Medicine” deals both with two therapists I consulted and the many times that medicine has saved my life.  “Politics” describes my activism from childhood until today.  And the last one, “Living,” discusses what has enabled me to keep on going.

     All of these except the last one have been read and commented on by the wonderful German Women’s History Study Group, going strong since the 1980s.  They’ve been immensely helpful, even though little of this manuscript deals with German women’s history.  For instance, they told me that I couldn’t just say, “It was the seventies” in the Sex chapter, since everyone younger than me wouldn’t understand what that meant.  When I finish, I’ll need to rewrite everything.  But rewriting is easier than writing.  I still need a good title.  And when I’m done, I’ll need an agent and may well ask you for help with that.

     In the meantime, I’m very impressed with Bernie Sander’s remarks on the current Israeli-Palestinian crisis.  Sanders, the long-term Vermont senator, is my age and like me, a non-religious Jew.  Here’s his statement:

Hamas’ terrorist assault on Israel will have horrific short- and long-term consequences.

As a result of this attack, thousands of Israelis and Palestinians – including many women and children – have been killed and injured. That toll will rise. The gunning down of young Israelis at a music festival is an image the world will not soon forget.

Longer term, this attack is a major setback for any hope of peace and reconciliation in the region – and justice for the Palestinian people. For years, people of good will throughout the world, including some brave Israelis, have struggled against the blockade of Gaza, the daily humiliations of occupation in the West Bank, and the horrendous living conditions faced by so many Palestinians. For many, it is no secret that Gaza has been an open-air prison, with millions of people struggling to secure basic necessities. Hamas’ terrorism will make it much more difficult to address that tragic reality and will embolden extremists on both sides, continuing the cycle of violence.

Right now, the international community must focus on reducing humanitarian suffering and protecting innocent people on both sides of this conflict. The targeting of civilians is a war crime, no matter who does it. Israel’s blanket denial of food, water, and other necessities to Gaza is a serious violation of international law and will do nothing but harm innocent civilians. The United States has rightly offered solidarity and support to Israel in responding to Hamas’ attack. But we must also insist on restraint from Israeli forces attacking Gaza and work to secure UN humanitarian access. Let us not forget that half of the two million people in Gaza are children. Children and innocent people do not deserve to be punished for the acts of Hamas.

     Two prominent youth activists — gun safety advocate David Hogg and Kevin Lata, 26-year-old Democratic Rep. Maxwell Frost's 2022 campaign manager — are launching a new organization called Leaders We Deserve seeking to put more young people in elected office.  "A big part of this...is electing young people that have the values of our generation, that understand the anxiety of not knowing if you’re going to be able to survive math class," Lata told NBC News.  "Running for office is so hard, I mean, it's it's gotta be one of the hardest things there is to do and for a young person it's even harder." Lata added that "young people just don't necessarily have the political connections or fundraising connections. So the idea is ... we'll help raise money for them. We will work to try to help get them, get connected with reporters to write stories about their races ... just like work really closely to help them build out the mechanics of the campaign."

     I just learned about this group today.  I sent them $50 and am supporting them monthly.  Of course, gun control is another issue that especially concerns young people!  Attention to it can help them decide to vote.

     The Republican Party recently declared that they plan to oppose any measure to curtail climate change.  Climate change affects all of us, but especially young people, who will have to spend their lives dealing with its consequences.  In addition, Republicans have continued their attacks on gay, trans, and non-binary people.  This is another issue where young people completely disagree with this “strategy.”  For recent generations, sexual orientation is a non-issue, a simple fact of someone’s identity, which they have no problem with.  Finally, young people, as well as most Americans, are in favor of legal abortion.  And young people, who of course can get pregnant, are particularly affected by its criminalization.  Republican opposition to abortion has largely succeeded by suppressing voting rights, gerrymandering, and making it more difficult to change state constitutions, as is currently going on in Ohio. 

     When you read the Supreme Court majority opinions in the Dobbs case, which overturned Roe v. Wade, they are truly shocking.  Samuel Alito cited Matthew Hale as an authority.  Hale was a 17th-century jurist who believed that women should be burned as witches and executed if they attempted to end a pregnancy (which wasn’t even a crime then).  The other majority judges cited every single anti-abortion statute even established.  They failed to mention that the vast majority of these were passed in the late 19th century, when the nascent American Medical Association was attempting to oust midwives from the birthing process.  Not one of them mentioned the negative side of outlawing abortion: most hospitals housed “septic abortion wards” and nearly 1000 women died from illegal abortions each year.  Outlawing abortion only ends safe abortions.

     Given young people’s opposition to Republican positions on climate change, sexual orientation, and abortion, I think progressives should put their energy and money into encouraging young people to vote.  I’ve long supported voting rights organizations (another Republican strategy, and a sign that they’re on the losing side, is to curtail voting rights) and I’ve written them all this weekend.  They include MoveOn, Indivisible, and the Voter Action Project.

     I’ve written before about how I think Republicans are pursuing a losing strategy.  But to make sure they lose, let’s work to get out the vote among young people!                                

     A week ago, on July 6, Judge Lyle Frank of the Supreme Court of the State of New York issued a Temporary Restraining Order against New York City’s attempt to implement a new healthcare plan for retirees which would force us off Medicare and on to Aetna’s Medicare (Dis)Advantage Plan.

     His argument began by saying that retirees won on the merits of the case, since the city had promised its workers that they would receive a Medicare supplemental plan when they retired so it could not now re-neg on that promise.  The city used the word “will” in the Administrative code, so Judge Frank argued that is “to this Court a promise that is forward looking.”  Also, New York City promised that “the City will pay the entire cost of health insurance coverage for city employees, retirees, and their dependents.”  Retirees worked for city agencies, hospitals, schools and universities and as police, firefighters, and sanitation workers as well.

     Then, the court held that many retirees do not know if their doctors will accept the new Aetna plan.  Since many of the almost 300,000 city retirees are “elderly and infirm” AND the attorney for Aetna acknowledged that “there would very likely be situations where medical care deemed to be needed by a doctor for a retiree could be turned down,” the judge concluded that “irreparable harm would result.  There can be no more specific irreparable harm than this.” 

     Therefore, everything is put on hold.  Instead of having to decide whether to go with Aetna or pay for the Medicare supplemental plan ourselves (which would cost about $6000 a year) by July 10, we now can wait and see.  The implementation of this plan on September 1st is also postponed.

     The city and Aetna will almost certainly appeal this decision.  But a lawyer friend has told me that this opinion “is very strong.”  In the meantime, we need to support the retirees’ attorneys and be ready to swing into action again.  But it’s a great decision and a weight has lifted off our shoulders.  It’s difficult enough being old (and at least 10 retirees are over 100) without having to figure out new health plans and programs.  La lutta continua!

This is a talk I recorded for the 50th anniversary of the Berkshire Conference on the History of Women. I was on the plenary session to speak on Transnationalism, but only given a few minutes to do so. I was so concerned about time that although I used Ernestine Rose as the example of a transnational person, I forgot to mention that she was an ardent feminist (then called a “woman’s rights woman”), an abolitionist and a free-thinker.

     I haven’t written a blog lately because I’ve been too busy writing about another issue:  New York City’s decision to remove its nearly 300,000 retirees from Medicare and force us onto Aetna Medicare (Dis)Advantage.  This is one of the many ways Mayor Eric Adams is hoping to cut costs.  I’m amazed both by the effrontery of the move and by the lack of response to it, except among retirees.

     I worked for the City University of New York for 33 years.  Part of my, and every other city worker’s contract, was that we would go on Medicare when we were 65.  We all pay for Medicare from our Social Security payments (the amount is deducted before you receive the monthly Social Security checks –- a surprise to me and many others).  The city subsidized the drug benefits.  I remember a cartoon from years ago where a right-wing person was shouting, “Hands off my Medicare!”

     Medicare “Advantage” programs are commercial and designed to make money.  The city worked out some special provisions with Aetna, but in a lengthy two-hour Zoom session, Aetna failed to mention that it’s only in effect for five years.  After that, they can make whatever changes they want.  Also, the Aetna representative kept stressing that “If your doctors take Medicare, they’ll take us, because we pay the same amount.”  What he failed to mention is that Aetna requires a great deal more paperwork than Medicare, which many doctors don’t want to do.

     I’ve written every city official I could think of about this situation: Mayor Adams, Comptroller Brad Lander, my Council Member Shahana Hanif –- all to no avail.  I wrote the mayor, “You may think you can do what you want to us because we can’t strike, but we VOTE!”  I also wrote the New York Times.  They require that your letter be tied to a recent article and I pegged mine to one on how doctors suffer from Medicare Advantage programs.  Nothing happened.

     Time is of the essence here.  We have to decide what to do by June 30th.  The system changes on September 1st.   We recently got an email from the NYC Retirees Group, saying “Don’t panic, things may change.”  There’s a lawsuit in the works, etc.  One problem is that the mayor’s former workmates, the Police Union, voted in favor of this change, as did the Sanitation Workers.  All the rest of us: Fire Fighters, Hospital Workers, Teachers, and Professors, voted against it.

     Having consulted a lot with colleagues and retirees’ groups, I’ve pretty much decided to opt to stay on Medicare.  I’ll take out a Medigap policy for drugs with AARP.  Both my sister and some friends have that and like it.  But I sure hope there’s publicity about this issue and that things change before the middle of June.

     My favorite cartoon after the 2022 midterm elections was Barry Blitt’s New Yorker cover of November 21st.  It depicts a dejected elephant standing on a surf board aground on a beach.  The predicted “red wave” of a Republican victory never happened.  Instead, the Democrats lost a few seats in the House and retained control of the Senate – a feat not duplicated since FDR was president in 1934.

     After such a defeat, you might expect a party to rethink its strategy.  The Republicans did so in 2013, following Mitt Romney’s loss to President Obama, writing an “Autopsy Report.”  However, it was largely ignored and President Trump’s 2016 signaled its death – Trump despised the report.

     What about this time?  Since most candidates who backed Trump’s “big lie” that he really won the 2022 presidential election lost, one might expect them to have lost ground.  On the contrary.  Ultra right-wing Republicans now sit on vital House committees, following Kevin McCarthy’s pyrrhic victory to become Speaker of the House.  After 15 separate votes, McCarthy finally succeeded, but the price was very steep.  He had to agree that a single member could ask for a vote to unseat him.  He had to put hardline right wingers on important committees, like Intelligence and Judiciary.  And he has had to support George Santos, a proven congenital liar, who faked his degrees, jobs, and expertise on his resume, including the “fact” that he was “Jew-ish” (he wasn’t).  At the same time Santos omitted important facts, like his performances as a drag queen in Brazil.  But McCarthy needs to back him, because his margin in the House is so low.

     Meanwhile, what have the House Republicans done?  They have asserted that they want to get rid of Social Security, Medicare, and the income tax, replacing it with a 30% sales tax.  This would fall largely on the middle and lower classes.  None of these policies is at all popular, except perhaps with the right-wing ultra-rich.  Finally, they are now threatening to withhold raising the deficit.  This involves not paying for monies already spent by the government.  To do so would greatly affect the faith and credit of the United States of America and end payments like social security, Medicare, and the salaries of U.S. representatives. 

     Does all this constitute a winning strategy?  I don’t think so and for the first and probably only time in my life, I find myself agreeing with Donald Trump, who urged his party not to cut social security, Medicare, or use the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip against the Democrats.  President Biden has already declared he will not bargain over the deficit.

     If the Republicans keep this up, and there’s no indication that they won’t, I predict it will be a major losing strategy for what once was the “Grand Old Party.”  May it be so.

Here is my section of an event at Brooklyn College on October 18th.

I was thinking about writing a blog this month and realized that I was too busy working for the election.  So I’m writing about that.  It’s less than five weeks to the mid-term elections on November 8th.  These elections are crucially important.  If the Democrats win, laws affecting all of our lives can be passed.  If not, we return to Trump and his Republicans’ failed policies.

     Some of the most important laws are, first, reversing the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Roe v. Wade.  The Republican fiction that this “just gave power to the states” has been negated by two events.  First, a number of states have denied abortion in all cases, including rape, incest, and saving the life of the mother.  Other states prevent doctors from intervening unless the mother is near death, even if the fetus has died.  Second, Lindsey Graham and the Republicans have proclaimed that they will pass a nation-wide abortion ban.  Regardless of your personal feelings about abortion, do you believe you really have the right to determine this policy for all Americans?  The Supreme Court does.  Judge Alito’s opinion included the theories of Sir Matthew Hale, considered a misogynist even in his own time, the 17th century.  In addition to outlawing abortion, Hale argued that women could be burnt as witches and that husbands could rape their wives.  Judge Clarence Thomas went even further.  He argued that the court should rule against same-sex marriage and outlaw contraception.  (I’m not making this up.)  He did not rule against inter-racial marriage, however, since he is a black man married to a white woman.  What hypocrisy!

     It is not only abortion that is on the ballot this year.  A number of Republicans, and even their amazingly vague platform, have argued that states have the right to overturn federal elections (one of Trump’s main tactics in 2020) and against renewing both Social Security and Medicare.

     So what have I been doing to counter this – and what can we all do?  First, I have been donating money to Democratic candidates.  First, for the Senate, second for the House, and third, for Governors.  I think we have a good chance to take the Senate, in part because of the caliber of many Republican candidates, like Mehmet Oz in Pennsylvania.  We have a more difficult time taking the House, largely because of Republican gerrymandering, but it is still possible.  We won the House in 2020 and the same gerrymandering was in effect.  Finally, there are some tight and important governor’s races: in Florida, Texas, and Georgia.  Christ vs. Desantis in Florida, O’Rourke vs. Abbot in Texas, and Abrams vs. Kemp in Georgia.

     So what can we do?  First and most important, DONATE MONEY!  Now is the time!  Second, write postcards to people in swing states, urging them to vote.  Both Indivisible and MoveOn will send them to you.  Personally, I’m writing to folks in Pennsylvania.  It’s not too late to do this and it makes a big difference.

         Finally, we can canvas, especially if we live in swing states.  I did this in previous elections, but can’t right now.  But you all can – or convince those you know in those states to do so.  This election is vitally important to all of us.

In order to understand student debt in the United States, we need to know its history.  For this nation’s first decades, college was limited to a wealthy few.  But quite early on, some important founders argued for free higher education.  In 1822, for instance, James Madison wrote that “the liberal appropriations made by the legislature of Kentucky for a general system of education cannot be too much applauded….Enlightened patriotism…is now providing for the State a Plan of Education embracing every class of Citizens.”  Madison and others of his era probably relied on Adam Smith’s arguments in favor of free public education.  In his influential book, The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, Smith argued that a nation’s wealth lay not in its gold or silver, but in an educated labor force.  One of the state’s few functions “in a civilized and commercial society” should be providing institutions “for promoting the instruction of the people” so that “even a common labourer may afford it.” 

     This view was greatly strengthened in 1862, when Pres. Lincoln signed the first Morill Act.  This law gave federally controlled land grants to the states, so that they could sell them to fund “land-grant” colleges.  Throughout the nation, these colleges became large public universities.  They were either completely free to students or charged a nominal fee, like $20.

     My own institution, the City University of New York (CUNY), was free from its inception in 1849 through the Great Depression of the 1930s and into the 1970s.  But then things changed.  Ronald Reagan believed that “students are spoiled and don’t deserve the education they are getting.”  His advisor, Roger Freeman, declared, “We are in danger of producing an educated proletariat….That’s dynamite!  We have to be selective on who we allow [to go to college].”  Reagan imposed tuition on the University of California when he was governor.  As president, he urged others to follow suit.  In 1976, CUNY imposed tuition for the first time in its history.  Other public universities did the same.

     The result was both higher salaries for professors, who traditionally were poorly paid, and rising student debt.  Today, student debt in the United States has reached a whopping $1.75 trillion.  48,000,000 Americans have student debt; the average amount is almost $30,000 apiece.  87% of them make less than $75,000 a year.  Like all debts, its interest is compounded, so that those who owe end up paying far more than what they originally borrowed.       

     Fulfilling his campaign promise, Pres. Biden recently reduced this debt to some degree.  For Pell Grant students, that is those with incomes of less than $60,000, $20,000 of debt is cancelled.  For students with incomes up to $125,000, $10,000 of debt is cancelled.  Those with higher incomes get no relief.  80% of the current recipients of debt cancellation earn less than $75,000.  There is a racial component as well: a majority of the lower  income students are black.

     For someone like myself, who wanted all student debt cancelled, this is only partial relief.  But to others, this is much too much.  A dear relative of mine recently wrote on Facebook: “People cry, ‘My body my choice.’  Well I say ‘Your student loan, your payments.’”  However, I believe the two situations are not comparable.  My body is integral to my identity and I cannot change it.  Student debt is more like taking out a mortgage.  If mortgage rates decline, no one condemns the people who then pay lower rates than they did.  Your relief should not cause me pain.  Part of Biden’s plan holds colleges accountable if they simply raise prices.  And borrowers who work in the military, government, or in a non-profit receive more credit toward loan forgiveness.  Many of the politicians who condemned this relief received far more money under the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).  They never criticized that.

     Almost every other advanced nation provides free college tuition (and free health care, but that’s another issue).  As Adam Smith argued so long ago, the “education of the common people requires…the attention of the public.”  It can only improve our nation, both in itself and in competition with others.

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that Democrats have spent $20,000,000 supporting Trump candidates in Republican primaries. The theory is that these candidates will be easier for Democrats to beat.

But this dangerous strategy was tried before: in Germany in the early 1930s. The Socialist Democrats decided to back Nazi candidates on the same theory, that they would be easier to beat. They also figured that people would be so repulsed by the Nazis that they would repudiate them. I think we all know how that turned out. Not only did the Nazis win, they then ousted the Social Democrats and all other liberal parties from all politics.

Gaming the system in this way is a very dangerous strategy. It’s far better to be straightforward and run good candidates. Our democracy is still in peril from the Trump era and this is not the way to save it.

DOJ statement: Department of Justice

Office of Public Affairs

________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, June 24, 2022

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland Statement on Supreme Court Ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland today released the following statement following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization et al.:

“Today, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey and held that the right to abortion is no longer protected by the Constitution.

“The Supreme Court has eliminated an established right that has been an essential component of women’s liberty for half a century – a right that has safeguarded women’s ability to participate fully and equally in society. And in renouncing this fundamental right, which it had repeatedly recognized and reaffirmed, the Court has upended the doctrine of stare decisis, a key pillar of the rule of law.

“The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the Court’s decision. This decision deals a devastating blow to reproductive freedom in the United States. It will have an immediate and irreversible impact on the lives of people across the country. And it will be greatly disproportionate in its effect – with the greatest burdens felt by people of color and those of limited financial means.

***

“But today’s decision does not eliminate the ability of states to keep abortion legal within their borders. And the Constitution continues to restrict states’ authority to ban reproductive services provided outside their borders.

“We recognize that traveling to obtain reproductive care may not be feasible in many circumstances. But under bedrock constitutional principles, women who reside in states that have banned access to comprehensive reproductive care must remain free to seek that care in states where it is legal. Moreover, under fundamental First Amendment principles, individuals must remain free to inform and counsel each other about the reproductive care that is available in other states.

“Advocates with different views on this issue have the right to, and will, voice their opinions. Peacefully expressing a view is protected by the First Amendment. But we must be clear that violence and threats of violence are not. The Justice Department will not tolerate such acts.

***

“The Justice Department will work tirelessly to protect and advance reproductive freedom.

“Under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, the Department will continue to protect healthcare providers and individuals seeking reproductive health services in states where those services remain legal. This law prohibits anyone from obstructing access to reproductive health services through violence, threats of violence, or property damage.

“The Department strongly supports efforts by Congress to codify Americans’ reproductive rights, which it retains the authority to do. We also support other legislative efforts to ensure access to comprehensive reproductive services.

“And we stand ready to work with other arms of the federal government that seek to use their lawful authorities to protect and preserve access to reproductive care. In particular, the FDA has approved the use of the medication Mifepristone. States may not ban Mifepristone based on disagreement with the FDA’s expert judgment about its safety and efficacy.

“Furthermore, federal agencies may continue to provide reproductive health services to the extent authorized by federal law. And federal employees who carry out their duties by providing such services must be allowed to do so free from the threat of liability. It is the Department’s longstanding position that States generally may not impose criminal or civil liability on federal employees who perform their duties in a manner authorized by federal law. Additionally, the Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has determined that federal employees engaging in such conduct would not violate the Assimilative Crimes Act and could not be prosecuted by the federal government under that law. The Justice Department is prepared to assist agencies in resolving any questions about the scope of their authority to provide reproductive care.

***

“The ability to decide one’s own future is a fundamental American value, and few decisions are more significant and personal than the choice of whether and when to have children.

“Few rights are more central to individual freedom than the right to control one’s own body.

“The Justice Department will use every tool at our disposal to protect reproductive freedom. And we will not waver from this Department’s founding responsibility to protect the civil rights of all Americans.”

11

1 Comment

Like

Comment

Share

For Americans like myself, who are old enough to remember when abortion was illegal, having to fight this battle again is both dismaying and unnecessary. Every poll insists that at least 60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal. 30% of anti-abortionists believe it should be legal in some instances, like rape or incest.[1] And yet the Supreme Court has overturned it!

The majority's argument was based on the ludicrous proposition that since abortion was not mentioned in the Constitution in 1868, the 14th Amendment ("equal protection under the laws") does not apply. This is a ridiculous and dangerous argument. The Constitution does not mention abortion. It also does not mention women – does that mean that women should not exist? It does not mention slavery by name, yet slavery both existed and was protected by the original Constitution, which called slaves “other persons” and forbade ending the slave trade before 1808.

The so-called “originalist” position, held by this conservative majority, makes no sense to me. The brilliance of the Founding Fathers was to acknowledge that they did not know what the future would bring. They put the power to amend in the Constitution, only limiting it to not creating a new monarchy. Article IX of the Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would not have been ratified, states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” This seems pretty clear to me.

The Court which ruled against abortion is profoundly undemocratic. All the justices who want to reverse Roe v. Wade were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote (Bush and Trump). A number of them lied during their confirmation hearings about this issue. Finally, such a ruling would overturn the legal doctrine of “stare decisus,” which holds that long-established law should not be overturned. Anti-abortionists cited Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned segregation, as their precedent.

But overturning legal abortions will bring about terrible conditions. We know that outlawing abortion does not end the practice, it just ends safe abortions. When abortions were illegal, hospitals had what were called “septic abortion wards.” In the 1940s, 1000 women died each year from infections received from abortions.

One-third of those opposed to most abortions agree that they should be allowed in cases of rape or incest. But the states which hope to make abortions illegal do not make such exceptions. What about the eleven-year-old raped by her father? Such cases are exceptional, but they do occur.

Most abortions in the United States are now caused by medication which can be ordered online. Are states willing to interfere with people’s right to buy such products? They object to the “right to privacy” which underlay Roe v. Wade. How far are they willing to go to undermine all privacy?

Like

Comment

Share

In the middle I write that “Pro-abortionists cited Brown v. Board of Education….” in talking about stare decisus. It should read “Anti-abortionists” instead.

     For Americans like myself, who are old enough to remember when abortion was illegal, having to fight this battle again is both dismaying and unnecessary.  Every poll insists that at least 60% of Americans believe abortion should be legal.  30% of anti-abortionists believe it should be legal in some instances, like rape or incest.[1]  And yet the Supreme Court seems ready to overturn it.

     This last statement is based on Judge Alito’s leaked opinion, which is supposedly supported by four other justices.  Alito’s arguments are ludicrous, especially to a historian.  He asserts – correctly – that the Constitution does not mention abortion.  It also does not mention women – does that mean that women should not exist?  It does not mention slavery by name, yet slavery both existed and was protected by the original Constitution, which called slaves “other persons” and forbade ending the slave trade before 1808.

     The so-called “originalist” position, which Alito’s holds, makes no sense to me.  The brilliance of the Founding Fathers was to acknowledge that they did not know what the future would bring.  They put the power to amend in the Constitution, only limiting it to not creating a new monarchy.  Article IX of the Bill of Rights, without which the Constitution would not have been ratified, states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  This seems pretty clear to me.

     The Court which hopes to rule against abortion is profoundly undemocratic.  All the justices who want to reverse Roe v. Wade were appointed by presidents who did not win the popular vote (Bush and Trump).  A number of them lied during their confirmation hearings about this issue.  Finally, such a ruling would overturn the legal doctrine of “stare decisus,” which holds that long-established law should not be overturned.  Pro-abortionists cited Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned segregation, as their precedent.

     But overturning legal abortions will bring about terrible conditions.  We know that outlawing abortion does not end the practice, it just ends safe abortions.  When abortions were illegal, hospitals had what were called “septic abortion wards.”  In the 1940s, 1000 women died each year from infections received from abortions. 

      One-third of those opposed to most abortions agree that they should be allowed in cases of rape or incest.  But the states which hope to make abortions illegal do not make such exceptions.  What about the eleven-year-old raped by her father?  Such cases are exceptional, but they do occur.

      Most abortions in the United States are now caused by medication which can be ordered online.  Are states willing to interfere with people’s right to buy such products?  They object to the “right to privacy” which underlay Roe v. Wade.  How far are they willing to go to undermine all privacy?

     Now is the time to oppose such views.  I’m marching this Saturday, May 14, along with at least 700,000 of my fellow citizens.  Groups like the old Jane Collective, which enabled poor women to receive abortions are coalescing already.  Join us!

[1] Pew Research Center, May 6, 2022

I gave this presentation to the staff of NS1 in honor of Women’s History Month. Almost all the staff were tuning in remotely via Zoom. Unfortunately, the beginning wasn’t taped. I started with an old saw: “If March is women’s history month, then what’s the rest of the year? I then went on to state my theme — we’ve made some progress, but we still have a ways to go. I then began by portraying a world without feminism, that is, the world I grew up in, in the 1950s and ‘60s. I organized my description into three categories: 1. money and jobs, 2. authority, and 3. sex and gender. I began by recalled that jobs were then advertised “Help Wanted: Male” and “Help Wanted: Female.” Only 44% of women were employed and made 52 cents to the male dollar. That’s where the recording begins.

The other thing I want to add here comes near the end, when I was asked about good new books on the subject. I completely blanked on Lucy Delap’s wonderful Feminisms: A Global History, the subject of my previous blog. It’s terrific and available from the University of Chicago Press.

If you are having trouble seeing the video, go directly to the YouTube page

Lucy Delap’s Feminisms: A Global History is a magnificent book that widens the entire field of feminist

studies and employs a uniquely creative format to do so. The author, eager to overcome the exclusively white

and Euro-American sources of previous accounts, has used persons and sources from throughout the world

to narrate this saga. Employing a thematic approach rather than a chronological one, she is able to overcome

the limitations and biases of past histories. This tactic also enables her to show the connections and

influences among both disparate regions and time periods. She accurately surveys the last 250 years of

women’s activism. Feminisms, A Global History successfully remakes an entire field of study.

     The range of Delap’s scholarship is astonishing. She begins by citing an unnamed “lady of Africa”

claiming feminism in 1886. In her first few chapters, she goes on to portray feminists from India, Brazil,

China, Algeria, Trinidad, Japan, Burma, and Nigeria. And she doesn’t just mention these

activists. She conveys how they came to be feminists, what they did, and who they influenced. She also

demonstrates the conflicts and tensions they experienced and produced. “As a movement, feminism insists

on women’s inclusion in all areas of social and political life,” she writes in her Introduction. “But feminism

has its own forms of marginalization and has struggled to extend its boundaries to all women on equal

terms. Black, working-class, lesbian, trans, and bi-sexual, disabled, non-Western and non-Christian women

have often been shut out….”  Delap also includes better-known European and American feminists. Arguing

that feminism is best understood as a “conversation,” she advances the concept of “mosaic feminism” with

“politics in the cracks.”

     Here are some specific examples of these methods. In her second chapter, Delap has a section on the

Chinese concept of nannü. Composed of the Mandarin words for “man” and “woman,” “nannü” enabled the

early twentieth-century Chinese feminist He-Yin Zhen to link “distinctions of gender to the organization of

bodies, labor and power through cultural and economic life.” Ignoring Western European concepts, nannü

let He-Yin conceive of a world where the concepts of “man’s nature” and “women’s nature” would no longer

be necessary. “For her,” Delap concludes, “this implied the end of capitalism, the state, private property, as

well as racial and sexual difference.”

     In this same chapter, Delap reaches out to trans activists. Citing Raewyn W. Connell, a trans Australian

theorist, she details her analysis of the advantages of being male. Men’s incomes are twice that of women’s;

men have ten times the political accession of women; world-wide, men control the means of violence,

weapons and armed forces. “I call these advantages the ‘patriarchal dividend,’ for men, and this dividend is

not withering away!” Connell concludes. This section contributes powerfully to Delap’s discussion of

patriarchy.

     In another important example of Delap’s inclusivity, she analyzes early twentieth-century women’s

protests in British-governed Nigeria. The Igbo people of the Niger Delta gave women the power to control

their own market activities, the “omu.” When the British challenged this female authority, Nigerian women

contested their actions, using traditional methods. They stripped themselves almost naked to protest, threw

sand at the authorities, and loudly insulted them. Carrying machetes, the women opposed both

colonial and local male authorities. This so-called “women’s war” ended in disaster, as troops fired on the

protesters, killing 21 of them. Despite this loss, Delap concludes that these “memorable protests of 1929 can

be read as a contribution to the anti-colonial movements that resulted in the eventual ejection of British

rulers in 1960,” citing later women’s protests in the 1940s as well.

     While describing global feminist actions, Delap does not neglect European and North American ones.

Her fourth chapter begins with a detailed description of the English abolitionist Anne Knight’s creation of

brightly colored labels crammed with feminist inscriptions to be glued to letters. “‘Never will the nations of

the earth be well governed,’” began one, ‘until both sexes…are fairly represented, and have an influence, a

voice, and a hand in the enactment and administration of the laws.’” In this chapter on objects feminists

created, Delap easily segues to describing the colors suffragists wore to distinguish themselves. She also cites

later feminists writing chain letters to publicize their protests as well as using clothing, sanitary pads, and

colored wool to mark the fence they built to protest the missile site at Greenham Common in the 1980s.

     These events are detailed in Delap’s fourth chapter, entitled “Objects.” Her method of organizing chapters

thematically adds to her revolutionizing the subject of feminism. Most of these themes work extremely well.

Chapter One, “Dreams,” surveys utopian books and conceptions which furthered feminism. In addition to

citing the well-known Western novel, Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland of 1915 with its all-female society,

Delap analyzes the Bengali Rokeya Sakhawat Hussain’s Sultana’s Dream of 1905. In “Ladyland,” women

govern and set standards while men are confined to a harem. Arguing that Islam could set women free,

Rokeya also founded a Muslim Women’s Association, campaigned for female education, and translated

feminist texts from Britain and Afghanistan.

     Delap then turns to actual attempts to liberate women. She recounts the Russian Alexandra Kollontai’s

efforts advance women’s lives in the new Soviet Union. She then discusses the Indian Pandita Ramabai’s

Arya Women’s Society of 1882 which attempted to educate women. This effort influenced a young

Indonesian, Kartini, who went on to campaign for female education and against polygamy. After describing

a feminist dream of the English philosopher, John Stuart Mill, Delap concludes this chapter with a

discussion of late twentieth-century women’s poetry by Adrienne Rich and Audre Lord.

     Delap’s other thematic chapters are equally global and rich. “Ideas” surveys feminism’s opposition to

patriarchy and male domination. Drawing on such disparate traditions as “Christianity, socialism,

liberalism, constitutionalism, nationalism and republicanism,” feminism contends that

“sexual difference is not a natural division, but is imposed in different forms across time and space.”  Her

third chapter, “Spaces,” details how feminists have created not only “rooms of their own,” but also libraries,

presses, markets, shelters, and worship areas. Chapter 4, “Objects” is discussed above. Chapter 5, “Looks,”

delineates how feminists displayed themselves, whether in pink pussy hats, male clothing, Bloomer

costumes, or hijabs. Her section on “hijabistas” is sophisticated, recounting how some Muslim women wore

the veil to gain power against colonialism. Chapter 6, “Feelings,” explores how feminists have used anger,

the Chinese concept of “speaking bitterness,” and love for themselves and other women to advance their

actions. Chapter 7, “Actions,” follows naturally. While feminists avoided harming others, they used attacks

on property, strikes, and marches to oppose their antagonists. The universal Icelandic women’s “national

day off” in 1975 was especially effective, engaging 95 percent of the female population.

     Delap’s last chapter, “Songs,” is her least successful. It’s difficult to convey music in words. But her

conclusion regains this book’s power. Delap invokes Betty Friedan’s fear that feminism might have to “start

over.” Her book ends by asserting that “the richness of the global feminist past suggests otherwise.”

     A short while before the Russian attack, a friend declared that Ukraine should not fight because it would surely be defeated.  I replied, “I couldn’t disagree more.”  As a historian, I know how important motivation is in wartime.  The Ukrainians were fighting for their homes; the Russians were fighting because they were ordered to.  And whether or not the Ukrainians win, surely their struggle has been impressive.  Using what is available, they have slowed the Russian advance to the point where the Red Army is running out of food.  The Ukrainians have, for instance, used glass beer bottles from the Russian brand to make Molotov cocktails, re-inscribing the labels to read “Fuck you, Russians.”  They’ve removed all road signs and written the same on them.

     As a result of their endeavors, most of the world supports them.  Russia has become a pariah nation, shut off from banking, air travel, supplies, sports, and musical groups.  There’s a saying that goes back to Ancient Greece: “It is better to die on your feet than live on your knees.”  No one person has proved this more than Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine.  Before the current events, I remembered the Ukrainian support of the Nazis in World War II.  But now they have a Jewish president and what a president!  Asked if he wanted a trip out of his embattled nation, he said, “I want ammunition, not a ride.”  There another old saying – that “God hates a coward.”  Both Zelensky and the Ukrainians have been heroic rather than cowardly.

     That is more than could be said for a number of Republicans, most notably Donald Trump, who asserted that Putin was “a genius” when he invaded Ukraine.  For a while, some Republican commentators, like Tucker Carlson, supported him.  So have Senator John Hawley of Missouri, and Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene, Paul Gosar, Matt Rosendale, and Thomas Massie, all of whom voted in Congress against support for Ukraine.  Now the Republican Party is back-peddling as fast as it can – except for Trump.  It may loosen his grip on the GOP.

     But regardless of U.S. politics, I believe that a Russian invasion of Ukraine cannot ultimately succeed.  Suppose they occupy that nation.  Will opposition and protest completely stop?  I don’t believe it will.  The cost of keeping innumerable Russian soldiers there, often against their will, plus the damage done by the other measures NATO and the United States have taken, have caused the ruble to plummet and the Russian stock market to close. 

     From its beginning to whatever its conclusion, this is a war fought with internet participation.  The Russians cannot be secretive any longer.  When it was revealed that the oligarchs who support Putin still had their yachts, those yachts were taken away.  Russia has alienated most of the world and the Ukrainians have won its support.                    

I’ve always hated winter, and the older I get, the more I dislike it.  Part of the reason is how long it is – much longer than the other seasons.  The Chinese divide winter into two seasons: Early Winter and Late Winter.  And this year, unlike last, we’re having a “real” winter.  Tomorrow the high is supposed to be 19.

     All this is compounded by Covid.  I was exposed by a friend last Monday and I’ve been lying low ever since.  I have no symptoms at all.  The testing sites here are jammed, and therefore quite dangerous, so I’ve opted to wait before I use the one test kit I have.  I’ll do it this Friday, before I have a scheduled massage.  My masseuse asked me to test before I saw her.  New kits should arrive on Saturday.  It’s been very hard to find them anywhere.

     In addition, there’s politics.  I found the anniversary of January 6th very difficult.  As a historian, I have to go back to the War of 1812 to find a similar event — when the British invaded and burned the Capitol to the ground.  The Confederacy never reached Washington, D.C.  The first time Confederate flags were raised in the Capitol was on January 6, 2021.

     But I’m very glad Biden finally spoke out.  His speech, where he continually referred to “the former president” but never used his name, was excellent.  I especially liked when he said, “He’s not just a former president, he’s a former defeated president.”  However, it continues to be shocking that almost every Republican in Congress, regardless of how they themselves were menaced, continues to downplay the event and support Trump.  Hopefully this will change.  The rate of people getting, and dying from Covid is far higher in Republican districts than in Democratic ones.  The Republicans’ platform now consists of opposing vaccinations, opposing voting, and opposing women.

     I believe this is a losing strategy.  People have voted under even more arduous conditions than those the Republican states are creating.  I hope that the Supreme Court will not overturn Roe v. Wade.  In addition to stare decisus (the principle that the court not reverse long-established policies), Chief Justice Roberts cares that he has a good reputation.  He does not want to preside over a court that makes political rather than juridical decisions.  Let’s hope his view prevails.

     Also, this outbreak of Covid may decline as rapidly as it arose.  It did that in South Africa, which does have a much younger population.  But we can hope that it will diminish within a month or so here. 

     Finally, with regard to Covid, politics, and the weather, remember the end of the quotation with which I started this piece.  Shelley wrote, “If Winter comes, can Spring be far behind.”