Most people are familiar with the controversy over the Susan G. Komen Foundation (think pink ribbons) dropping funding for breast cancer screenings performed at Planned Parenthood ('PP' from here on out). Many people have said that this is a political move by Komen, appealing to the anti-PP crowd that's seen 'successes' over the past few months in defunding or shutting out the organization from public funding. I'm not about to get into a discussion on abortion/choice/whatever-you-want-to-call-it, mainly because of my lack of being a) a woman or b) a medical professional. But let me tell you about something that has really bothered me.
A lot of people like to point to politics nowadays and say that they are ripping us apart--that the Sarah Palins and Nancy Pelosis of the world are really the partisans that draw us apart. However, what if this is really just the mirror of the ripping apart of the fabric of American unity? Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olbermann want to tell you about different Americas, and you can tune out the other quite easily. You can buy from 'conservative' or 'liberal' companies. It's easy to imagine someone who could grow up in what we're supposed to call the 'freest society' in the world that's never met someone unlike them, never questioned the politics of their parents, and never stepped into a situation thinking "maybe there's another way."
This Komen v. PP controversy is just like that. Upon the news that the Komen Foundation was going to reverse it's decision to end funding for PP (though there is some definite doubt that they actually are going to reverse it), the internet exploded with all sorts of 'bomb-dropping sentiments--the kinds that aren't actual attempt at dialogue, but just people's best impressions of bad rappers.
Thomas Jefferson, probably smarter than anyone alive right now, once said “I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend.” As it turns out, this is correct. How do I know? Because I don't care, and it makes my point. You see what I did there? That's what I'm talking about? We shouldn't just reference our founders and then stop there. As Jed Bartlet (sic) once said, "what are the next 10 words?"
So let me get back to Komen and such: In reality, do I think that it's my role, as a (future) old, white man to decide how young, poor, non-white women live their lives? If the Right supported 100% expenses covered for adoptions in order to avoid abortions, I'd be on board with them, honestly. But could you imagine the rhetoric?
"We think you should carry your baby to term, and we're going to make sure you have excellent medical care so that when your baby is born, it will be healthy for a family that will love her?"
Further, if the Right supported more people to be loving adoptive parents (read: Gays with Bay-Bays), then I might be more inclined to believe that they were serious about non-abortion options for women who would seek otherwise.
Perhaps most importantly, when whacky and dangerous positions are allowed to perpetuate as "normal" in the Republican party, like not allowing for abortion even in cases of rape (Perry, Santorum, etc.), extremism is allowed to run wild and really bad things (with underground abortions).
Either way, this is a serious topic, even if I continue to believe that abortion is one of the least important issues of the day. It stirs up emotions, and in reality most people want some form of abortion to be legal in at least certain circumstances, mostly for the sake of safety.
In reality, when one women's organization starts fighting another, it's the women that lose. Tupac's question remains:
"And since we all came from a woman
Got our name from a woman and our game from a woman
I wonder why we take from our women
Why we rape our women, do we hate our women?"
Love the ladies, y'all. Mother's Day is (probably) soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment