Category Archive
The following is a list of all entries from the Politics category.
Dear SCOTUS: A reaction to the buffer zone opinion
This blog is not a political blog. However, yesterday the Supreme Court handed down a decision striking down buffer zones outside of abortion clinics in Massachusetts. As a former Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts intern, this touches me a bit more deeply. I had some feelings that I needed to express, and a pithy Facebook update was just not enough. So I invite you to read this post, or invite you to not read it. I promise that I’ll resume some normal semi-regular content shortly.
I admit that I did not read the full text of the decision, linked below, as I am not fluent in legalese. But I did read the analysis from the venerable SCOTUSblog (link above), which is much easier to understand. I reiterate that these are my opinions, but I tried to base them in fact as much as possible.
From NARAL America: A Clinic Buffer Zone vs. SCOTUS’ Buffer Zone
Dear SCOTUS:
I find your opinion on McCullen v. Coakley to be outrageous, and allege that it will have great ramifications for women’s health in the years to come. I understand that this is a first amendment issue for you; that it was almost semantic in the idea of counselors versus protesters. Perhaps it was even about public safety. But as someone who walked through that buffer zone four times a week for months, I can tell you that your opinion misses a few important points.
- Those “counselors” are still protesters
Your delineation between “counselors” and protesters is really mincing words here, judges. Most of the people outside are holding anti-abortion signs. Not everyone on the line tries to counsel women who are headed into the building on their options. What constitutes a counselor anyway? Does s/he have to try to counsel everyone? If someone tries to counsel just one person in the day, does that mean s/he is not a protester? Even armed with options and literature, these people are still protesters, through and through.
- Those “counselors” can be heard, just not as much as they want to be
That being said, those counselors/protesters can be heard by passersby and people entering the building. They have plenty of room to stand (although, admittedly it’s a little weird at the Brookline/Boston Planned Parenthood, given that the building is on a corner), and they could talk to women. They just can’t get to enough of them, and that’s why they have this problem. The first amendment isn’t about getting adequate access to free speech (or apparently to counseling for birthing options), but to allow for it at all. These buffer zones definitely allowed for it. Trust me, I saw them bright and early each week. Someone wanted to talk to me that first day, but I glared at him and the group left me alone after that.
- This decision enables “counselors” to be more confrontational
Now, I cannot claim that all counselors/protesters will suddenly become more aggressive as the space between them and the building shrinks. However, a reduction in space between where the counselor/protester can stand and where people enter the building allows for greater chance of confrontation and conflict. This is just asking for increases in violence. Now isn’t this the real threat to public safety?
- This also presupposes that these counselors are the only counseling options available for women
Hey judges, did you know that Planned Parenthood has a family planning clinic that goes over all of a woman’s options? Including all of those that the “counselors” outside do? And these actual counselors in the clinic will likely provide more sound, non-judgmental, medically accurate advice than a politically motivated layperson outside. While those “counselors” outside should certainly have the opportunity to offer advice and counsel, it should not be at the detriment to women who need wise advice and counsel.
- The buffer zones were thought up and enforced to protect EVERYONE going inside the building, not just women having abortions
Hey SCOTUS, I am sure you are aware that these buffer zones were instituted to help keep everyone safe inside, right? Because of past incidents? Don’t want to make too fine a point on this, but they are there for a reason.
- This decision will likely prevent some women from receiving the CRITICAL care they need
And SCOTUS, what I feel is your biggest lapse in judgment is the reverberating impact that this will have on women’s health. You see, many of these “abortion clinics” are actually Planned Parenthoods or similiar health centers that provide care, cancer screenings, and other important services for women. Not just abortions. In fact, they mostly do not perform abortions. The reduction of these buffer zones is more likely to prevent some women from going to or getting into these clinics to receive the care they need, either out of fear, embarrassment, or aggravation. Many women rely on Planned Parenthood for their care, and if they no longer feel safe or comfortable going to the clinic, how can their receive their care? It is bad enough that some Planned Parenthoods are outfitted with metal detectors out of necessity, but if one can’t get a cancer screening without being harassed outside by a pro-life activist, then the future is really grim.
SCOTUS, you’ve done some damage to women’s health today. I know you can’t take it back, but perhaps a future court will realize the error of your ways and allow for some more breathing room. Hopefully it is not at the expense of anyone’s lives or well-being, but I fear that may be the case.
Chandler Goes to Yemen (or How America Learns Geography)
With today’s technology, our planet is virtually tiny. We can learn instantaneously of something that happened a world away and watch it as it unfolds.
The news today not only keeps us informed and entertained but it also educates. I guess it has always educated us, but I realized today that a major news story is teaching something to Americans about geography.
The attempted Christmas Day bombing on a flight to Detroit has been featured nonstop since the holidays (and rightfully so). This shocking story has brought on policy reform, broad security changes and talk show stars out of formerly anonymous travelers. Yet it has also brought out something else: Yemen.
For those of you with closed ears, the young Nigerian man charged with attempting to destroy a plane, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was trained by Al-Qaeda in Yemen. This brings Yemen into a new national spotlight as a hotspot for terror, and a hot topic for television political pundits. Yet the State Department have always had Yemen on their list of countries harboring terrorist groups and training camps. This is not new information, just a revelation to the greater US (and possibly the world). This likely is the first instance where Joe Smith in Everytown, USA has heard of Yemen, previously not even being able to find it on a map.
At first I scoffed at the idea that so many Americans were only just learning of this country’s existence; I even tweeted about it. But then my friend Shayra pointed out that any fan of Friends would have known about it for years (Chandler claims he is transferring to Yemen for work to get out of a relationship with his annoying ex Janice), and I realized that that was how I first heard of it too. At the time, Yemen seemed an inconsequential and almost random country, home to not terrorists but Chandler Bing.
Which media-based revelation is worse? A classic pop culture reference or a major news story? Can Americans really be faulted when sitcoms are their only exposure to the smaller Middle Eastern countries? Can we charge the media with keeping America engaged in this knowledge? And now armed with this new geographical knowledge, what are Americans going to do with it?
Blood of the Same Color
I am inspired, motivated and moved.
Tonight we received two representatives from the Parent’s Circle, a large organization of bereaved Palestinian and Israeli families. They come together to share their stories with the world, and talk about how they have all found common ground in working together to find a way towards peace.
An Israeli Jew and Palestinian Muslim man shared their stories of loss, each heartbreaking in its own way. Yet what was incredible is that both of these men said that instead of growing angry and finding vengeance upon their “enemy,” they chose to find understanding. While they could grow angry each day, they instead work to educate the world about the issues surrounding the conflict and occupation.
What was most remarkable to me was the presentation. Framing it with the human experience is something that literally everyone can relate to. While the problems of the Middle East might not matter to many of those across the world (particularly in America), hearing about the blatant human rights violations these people have experienced first hand is appalling. Hearing them both realize that Palestinians and Israelis are “human beings, with blood the same color, pain the same pain and tears just as bitter” plucked my heartstrings. What was best for me, though, was the diplomacy of the whole experience.
Since college I have been a huge proponent of public diplomacy via cultural understanding: bringing experiences to those of other cultures to garner more knowledge and compassion. These personal stories do just that. I was inspired by what this organization is doing; finding a common ground approach towards humanizing peace.
What more is that I found reassurance (so early! I know!) that this truly is what I want to do with my life: creating international change organically through advocacy. Their approach invigorated me and pushed me towards a new level of nirvana of learning on this trip.
I head to bed tonight eager for the historical menu of tomorrow’s agenda, but ready to put all this knowledge into constructive and peaceful action.
Are voters apathetic or uninformed?
Last week I voted in my first Massachusetts election, casting my vote in the municipal primary for Boston mayor and councilor-at-large. Voting in Massachusetts is a completely different (and far more confusing) experience than voting in my native New Hampshire, but that is a different story.
Voter turnout for this primary election was 23%. That’s less than a third of eligible voters. I know it’s a primary, which some people find frivolous, but I find this appalling. Primaries give voters a voice just as much as a general election; helping to whittle down the candidates to (in theory) the most qualified and competent. Why not be a part of that?
I blame apathy largely for this, but I also want to blame the City of Boston.
Coverage outside of the mayoral race was scarce if not impossible to find. Although there were articles here and there in the local papers and endorsements, they weren’t apparent. Unless you already knew the names of any of the 15 candidates for councilor-at-large, you were left in the dark. A comprehensive list didn’t even appear on the official elections website until the day of. How can the voters make informed decisions without even knowing who is running?
The City of Boston needs to provide a full list of candidates as soon as it becomes official. The local media outlets need to cover all races, not necessarily equally but more in depth. Voting regulations and registration rules need to be made clear far ahead of time for new residents and citizens. Polling places and dates need to be advertised far and wide.
I just hope that now that we have a much smaller candidate pool, the general election come November will be easier to understand and navigate.
Falling Feet First 