Weak on Women's Rights at Notre Dame
A few minutes before President Obama's commencement speech at Notre Dame, the CNN anchor was intoning that he supports stem cell research and he supports abortion rights, and that he would not shrink from his positions on either. In fact, she said, he was going to use an email he had gotten on the subject of abortion as part of his remarks.
Good, I thought. It will be from the parent of the mentally retarded high school student who was gang raped, the doctor of an 11 year old incest victim, or possibly a woman with four kids already whose husband has just lost his job and medical benefits along with it.
Boy, was I wrong.
The letter Obama cited in great detail was from an anti-choice doctor who had taken him to task for a statement on his campaign website saying he would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The president was quick to point out that while he had not changed his fundamental position (though he declined to reiterate it), he had instructed his staff to alter the wording, presumably so that "ideologue" no longer appeared.
The rest of the speech, insofar as a woman's most fundamental right to control her own body was concerned, was a big fat silence. Leading off with "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions," the president detailed all the ways we can reduce abortions. He mentioned adoption, support for women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term, and crafting a "sensible conscience clause" (whatever that means) for health care providers as well as "health care policies grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."
Coming from a pro-choice president who was elected by women - including a significant number of defectors from their rabidly anti-choice Republican party - it was faint support indeed. Instead of merely asking us to agree that abortion is a heart-wrenching decision (we all do anyway), why not ask us to agree on the fundamental moral agency of women? Why not ask us to agree that government should not interfere in a woman's most basic right to autonomy in controlling her life? If he wants to follow that with a statement about reducing the need for abortion, I'll be with him all the way.
But the president didn't do that. After brushing quickly by respect for the equality of women (and only in the health care context), he went on to extend an invitation to the anti-choice audience to engage in dialogue, where "differences of culture and religion and conviction can co-exist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love." That all sounds great, but if the president buys the idea that those who would outlaw abortion and send women back to the back alleys are not ideologues, and that they want to co-exist in civil disagreement, he's naive at the very best. And he diminishes women in the bargain.
Make no mistake. I support President Obama. I think for the most part he's doing a great job. I know he's pro-choice. But I need to know he is not afraid to say unequivocally that he supports the fundamental rights of his daughters and my granddaughters as strongly as he supports so-called open dialogue and debate. He needs to say it out loud, with conviction and without apology.
If they hear that, the women of the world will stand and applaud much longer and much harder than any crowd at Notre Dame.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The argument about protecting the life and health of women needs to be expanded beyond the idea that the alternative to legal abortion is the "back alley" abortion of the past. No one seems to be addressing the fact that pregnancy is inherently dangerous to many women. Otherwise young and healthy women suddenly develop diabetes, alarmingly high blood pressure and blood clots leading to stroke. Some women never regain their health. Some women die as a result of complications from pregnancy or childbirth. Legal abortions do not cause long lasting health problems and women do not die from legal abortions. If a woman chooses to risk her life to have a baby, her choice should be respected. If she chooses to risk her life by donating a kidney to someone, that choice should also be respected. However, no one should be forced to risk their life for another person regardless of the circumstances.
Roe is the law of the land - the President doesn't need to preside over debate or smooth the covers for the religious right. He needs to uphold the law of the land. I am sick and tired of political speak.
Obama needs to be clear that Roe is the law and it will not be overturned state by state, county by county, town by town. He needs to stand up for the doctors that risk their life to perform this procedure and not kiss the rear ends of the anti-abortion movement. ROE IS THE LAW>
Dear Ms. Burke,
I am an overeducated feminist Hispanic. I am also a survivor of incest and a victim (not my choice) of two illegal abortions in South Texas before Roe vs. Wade. The emotional cost of those 2 abortions followed me for over 40 years. I know you didn't want to hear about any survivors during Obama's address at Notre Dame... But survivors of rape, incest, sexual assault are a part of the American fabric. Survivors certainly have a viable opinion. As you know, sexual violence happens to apprx. 1 out of 3 women before the age of 35.
This is MY experiential opinion: Obama is NOT serving women well by not being full forthcoming in his address at Notre Dame. I agree with President Obama about almost every part of his agenda. Obama needs to be more informed about gender bias. Gender bias is a universal evil. From that gender bias, violence grows.
Gender bias transcends race and class.
I appreciate your comments. You have put into words my questioning of my unilateral support for Obama. (I was with him at the beginning of his grass roots quest for the Democratic nomination).
I have read some of the posts... young women; happy with their position in life, seem to feel threatened by the idea (fact) that women are not equal. They will unfortunately learn about gender bias during their own lifetimes. Please keep writing.
I think you just don't get it.
Obama didn't go to Notre Dame to make the pro-choice case in front of a pro-life crowd. And he didn't gloss over the irreconcilable differences between the two camps.
What he did, and what members of congress are now doing as well, is ask where can we find common ground to make the world a better place DESPITE our irreconcilable differences.
Surely we need more of THAT approach, not just in the pro-life vs pro-choice clash, but in the countless clashes that cause suffering and disconnect in the world every single day.
"ask where can we find common ground to make the world a better place DESPITE our irreconcilable differences."
There is no common ground. Pro-choice forces believe that a woman has the right to control her own body, including (especially) her reproductive organs. Anti-choice forces do not believe that a woman has the right to control her own body, especially her reproductive organs.
Note that neither side questions a man's right to control of own body, including his reproductive organs.
I repeat -- there is no common ground.
Martha, what I need to know is that the President of the United States represents all Americans.
I need to know that he will NOT go around saying "out loud, with conviction and without apology" whatever one side or the other in a controverial single issue wants him to say.
PS: Although I am adamantly pro-choice, I do not want the President to decide this issue for us: I want him to Preside over the debate. That is his job.
Martha the feminist says, "Boy was I wrong."
It was Commencement Ceremony for goodnes sake, quite frankly he should not have had to address the issue of abortion in the first place. However, because of his pro choice beliefs and the college in question and all the controversy he had to and he did so very well. There isn't another Graduation excercise in the United States of America that has had a guest speaker discuss abortion, pro-life, or pro-choice as part of their speech to the graduates. President Obama should not have had to do either, period.
With all due respect, Obama said very clearly that he believes a woman should have the right to choose, and he also added that it is a VERY difficult for a woman to make to have an abortion and isn't done lightly. Is the problem that he didn't use the same words you would have? What does it matter if the same point was made?
also, I feel that if he took the tone you seem to have wanted him to, it wouldn't have helped anything at all. No one there would have heard his point anyway. At the end of the day,, his responsibility and goal was to come in peace and create an open-minded and peaceful atmosphere in a very tense situation. He got his point across without acting like was in a 60s march. He can do that at another time and place. Actually, that isn't his style anyway,, thank God!
Exactly. He is one man, and while he is no doubt the most powerful man in the US, his views are not law, and he does not and should not have the power to decide the abortion debate. That's not how it works. Those who choose sides based on whatever Obama says are sheep, and we don't need those. From his speech, I doubt Obama wants them either.
Obama demonstrates once again his pragmatic attitude to problems: he's not trying to convince the world of his truths, but rather convince people to think for themselves, and while they do that, solve the problems that arise from the divisions of belief and ideology to make the Union (as it is) as perfect as possible.
Back to the "man" thing. Too many people have made a cult of the "nurturing mother," whether or not she exists and to what degree. Those who deny women the right to control what to do with their bodies may not realize that they may have bought into this cult.. Close your eyes and picture how pregnant women are considered "public property." Anyone can touch her stomach, inquire about the state of her health, ask her personal health questions. (I know, who does she think she is to determine what I know or don't know?) If men were the ones who became pregnant, considering their superior position in most aspects of society, fewer people would make an issue of abortion because we, tacitly believe that men "own" themselves and women don't. When you "own" something, you can generally treat it as you wish and people leave you alone or are extremely reluctant to interfere. (Slaves, Git'mo inmates, if you please?) No matter where you stand on choice, ponder how you came to your opinion; did you think independently to the best of your judgment, or did you swallow someone else's position whole?
"pregnant women are considered "public property." Anyone can touch her stomach, inquire about the state of her health, ask her personal health questions."
perhaps you could try excusing them for being excited and interested in pregnancy. Some people just love the whole thing, the pregnancy, other people being pregnant, newborns, babies etc. I hardly think people being interested turns the pregnant woman in any kind of property, public or private.
"Those who deny women the right to control what to do with their bodies" No one is talking about what you do with your body, but rather what you can or can't, should or shouldn't do with the body of the other human life that is inside your body.
Men's superior position in society? Well lets see, women's votes count the same. Women can hold any job and get paid the same for doing the same job. Women have held just about every high office in the country, save Pres/VP, and that's destined to change, heck it would've changed this year if Hilary beat Obama. Women are now half if not more of all students in college, and at my law school they were half of my graduating class. And women can decide to destroy a baby that is half the fathers, and the father is largely powerless to stop it.
So what part of society is sooooooo male dominated? Football teams perhaps?
I'm glad that people are "excited and interested in pregnancy," they are not to be "excused" for their excitement; as Martha Stewart would say, "It's a good thing." However, your excitement does not preclude my owning my own body. Women equal? Where? In Congress? In the Senate? In taking an amendment to give us the vote? In the lack of passage of something as non-threatening as the Equal Rights Amendment? As another writer pointed out, in the glass ceiling? Despite your assertion, no, women are not paid the same as men for performing the same job. As for women "destroying a baby that is half of the father's, then perhaps he could have performed a "pre-abortion" by not having gotten the woman pregnant in the first place. If you don't mind my saying so, you seem to be young because some of your assertions/opinions are simply not accurate. And again, if people decide, despite their state of excitement, that they get to handle another person's body, then you are, in fact, conceding that women are public property.
Well - while we can never know exactly when a fetus becomes a human being, let's say that a fetus is just that while inside a woman's womb and, thus, a woman does have the right to decide what to do in regard to her body, which includes the fetus.
If we took your position, instead, we would be telling rape victims that they had to carry the resulting pregnancy to term. Well - that's just wrong!
"perhaps you could try excusing them for being excited and interested in pregnancy. Some people just love the whole thing, the pregnancy, other people being pregnant, newborns, babies etc. I hardly think people being interested turns the pregnant woman in any kind of property, public or private."
ummm no - it's fine to be excited but that in no way way gives another person the "right" to intrude on another person's privacy just because you can "see" the pregnancy doesn't make it public property.
"So what part of society is sooooooo male dominated? "
Where do you live? Women still make far less than men and in the majority of organizations - government or private - women's contributions and opinions are discounted daily. They are given the message loud and clear that women have nothing to offer so just shut up and do your job. Women, far more than men, are not given credit for what they do.
And if a woman dares to "act like a man", i.e. logical and dispassionate then she is considered to be a cold b****
So, you may think women are treated equally in American society but you are wrong in so many ways. Yes, women have come a long way but we have not arrived at equality yet.
I do not know what speech you were listening to but POTUS made it very clear, ever so eloquently, that he still believes a woman should have the right to choose. He addressed it appropriately, what would you have him do make some banners or something? And I don't know about you, but I don't need any president's support to know that I have rights as a woman of the United States of America. I made it just fine the previous 8 yrs, because if I need to stand up for my rights...I will!
If you have enjoyed this nine-page collection of rants from single-issue voters, let me direct you to the "Conyers sez Obama's Too Conservative" story for thirteen pages of the same thing.
It really is amazing how many one-issue voters get so frustrated when it seems like Obama is not living up to their expectations. I think they have really sold the man short. I think he's a lot smarter than any of those people give him credit for. He really is trying to be inclusive and not divisive.
There are a myriad of difficult issues out there for him to have to deal with and he won't be "right" on all of them, nor should anyone expect that. He's a human being first and as such, mistakes are part of the deal, as are disagreements on issues.
Although I don't agree with Ms. Burk's position, I do admire her passion, and I try to understand it as well (as a man, I realize I can never completely understand a woman's perspective on this issue). She is furious over the idea of a government dictating to her (and her daughters, granddaughters, etc.) what she can do with her body. That makes sense to me. I would hope, however, that she might understand anyone who is furious to a similar degree about the destruction of innocent life. That fury makes sense to me as well. Obviously, I am deeply conflicted over this issue -- to the point sadly where both sides have an immediate reaction to pummel me (fortunately, everyone has shown restraint in that regard). Given Ms. Burk's position, I am curious whether she is also upset that the government will dictate to her what kind of light bulbs she can choose in her home? And how will she feel when the government decides what kind of car she can own? Finally, given her obvious determination to defend her rights as a woman (a determination that I salute), I wonder if she hopes to continue having the right to purchase a gun?
Thank you, Martha. I agree that voting "Present" is simply not enough on the issue of women's reproductive freedom.
He voted "present" at the behest of Planned Parenthood. Check your facts.
Oh good Lord, Martha...President Obama faced INTENSE, insane, acrimonious, spurious, and insensitive criticism from the Catholic Bishops and the extremists on the right.
He face them with grace and courage.
And yet, here you are WHINING with unrealistic and unfounded criticism on the man.
GIVE ME A BREAK.
You are, IMO, the one who needs to take a step back and reevaluate your hyper-critical...and unnecessary stand. It's coming across as a shrill screed!
We finally, after 8 years, have a President who is PRO-FEMALE.
Get off your high-horse, Martha.....he's FOR US!
So, don't work AGAINST him.
What part of the past 8 years was anti-female?
The right to choice is, for me, the real issue. When women make choices to manage their own life they are not relying on men for permission, approval or acceptance. They are clearly saying that they are equals. I watched Obama's speech and found it to be subtle, profound and with a willingness to open a dialogue. He was also quite clear when he said the two sides are irreconcilible - in referring to abortion. However, he was also quite clear in stating that we must respect each other and speak with kindness. He has repeatedly said he wants his daughters to have the same opportunities that he has had as a man. That means making their own choices in life, following their own path, developing their own beliefs. There is an old fable that states when women make their own choice they are beautiful all the time. We don't need men, the church, or the government making those choices for us. We are capable of wrestling with tough decisions and living with the consequences.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
