broken walls and narratives

A not so revolutionary blog about feminism, socialism, activism, travel, nature, life, etc.

Archive for the tag “Duluth”

The Struggle Against the 40 Days for Life

The Struggle Against the 40 Days for Life

The Struggle Against the 40 Days for Life

Heather Bradford

10/21/19


While some people prefer to spend the fall season carving pumpkins, thousands of anti-choice activists across the United States prefer to spend it trying to carve away reproductive rights.  In over 500 cities, from Marietta, Georgia to Bismarck, North Dakota, anti-choice protesters have once again mobilized for the annual fall campaign 40 Days for Life. Beginning September 25th and ending November 3rd, reproductive health clinics are again inundated with demonstrators from dawn until dusk during the 40 day vigil.  In the wake of aggressive abortion restrictions passed last spring and summer and over forty years of attacks on abortion rights, it is critical that pro-choice activists take action against this campaign.        


What is the 40 Days for Life?

For those unfamiliar with these events, the 40 Days for Life is an international campaign which urges participants to use prayer, fasting, education, and vigils to stop abortion.  On the surface, these may sound benign compared to arson, murder, acid attacks, or other less kindly tactics used by the anti-choice movement in the past. Participants must even sign an agreement that they will obey the law and conduct themselves with non-violence.  Nevertheless, these tactics constitute harassment of patients who utilize reproductive health services. If it was truly a matter of religious fasting and prayer, this could be done in the privacy of home or in churches, rather than at hundreds of reproductive health clinics across the country.  While the actions are framed as vigils, these “vigils” are held outside of clinics, sometimes for over twelve hours a day, for the entire forty days. Participants carry signs which say “Pray to End Abortion” and “witness” or engage with staff, patients, and pedestrians. The religious language of vigil obscures the reality that it is a picket and “witnessing” often amounts to harassment.  For instance, at the WE Health Clinic in Duluth, Minnesota a few of these picketers have prayed loudly, played religious music, skirted the property, and entered the physical space of patients and counter protesters. Indeed, it is a movement to end abortion not through the imagined power of the spiritual realm, but in the very real public arena through picketing and marshaling anti-choice activists into action.  While there may be some praying involved, appearing at clinics amounts to preying upon patients.          


The 40 Days for Life initially grew out of anti-choice activism in Texas.  David Bereit, the founder of the group and former pharmaceutical sales representative for Bristol-Myers Squibb, began his activist career organizing against the 1998 expansion of a Planned Parenthood in College Station, Texas.  The Planned Parenthood had operated in College Station for 24 years, but sought to build a stand alone facility to provide abortions. In response to this, Bereit founded the Coalition for Life, which protested the Planned Parenthood on abortion days.  Over the years, he saw decreased engagement in this organizing. Looking for fresh tactics, he envisioned the 40 Days for Life as a shorter, more targeted campaign. Held in the fall of 2004, the first 40 Days for Life recruited 1000 volunteers to picket in the public right away of the College Station Planned Parenthood.  The campaign drew support from local churches and Knights of Columbus, who covered daily shifts from 7 am to 3 pm. The following year, a second 40 Days for Life was launched in Dallas, Texas to coincide with the anniversary of Roe v. Wade and quickly expanded to Seattle, Houston, and Green Bay, Wisconsin.  Owing to the swift success of the campaign, Bereit went on to work for the American Life League, a national organization opposed to euthanasia, abortion, stem cell research, and all forms of contraceptives.  The first nationally coordinated 40 days for Life began in 2007 in 89 cities and 33 states (Bereit, Carney, and Lambert, 2017). The campaign has since spread to 61 countries, has amassed 1 million participants, is supported to 19,000 churches, and claims to have closed over 104 abortion clinics (Saving lives and ending abortion, 2019)


It is a certainly a bold claim to say they have closed 104 abortion clinics.  But, there has been a precipitous decline in the number of clinics across the country.  For instance, in 1992 Kentucky had eight abortion facilities, but as of 2018 had one. In 1992, Louisiana had 17 abortion facilities and as of 2018 had three.  In Missouri, there were 12 abortion facilities, but in 2018, it was down to one. Many of these closures are due to TRAP laws, or Targeted Regulations of Abortion Facilities.  TRAP laws are among the 1,100 restrictions enacted since Roe v. Wade and target clinics by forcing them to comply with unnecessary regulations such as admitting privileges, minimum room and doorway sizes, and meeting the requirements of ambulatory surgical centers. The Supreme Court struck down TRAP laws in Texas in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (Arons, n.d.).  However, the decision came too late for many clinics.  In 2013, prior to the passage of TRAP Laws under House Bill 2, there were over 40 abortion clinics in Texas. This number was halved by the time the Supreme Court decision was made in 2016 and it is unlikely that many of the clinics will reopen (Ura, Murphy, Daniel, and Carbonell, 2016).  The 40 Days for Life is not specifically related to TRAP laws, but it is part of a continuum of tactics used by the anti-choice movement. With fewer clinics operating across the country, it is easier for anti-choice forces to concentrate their protests on what few remain. The Planned Parenthood that served College Station, where the 40 Days for Life began, itself closed in 2013.  The clinic, along with three other Planned Parenthood clinics, closed their doors the same day Texas governor Rick Perry announced the passage of House Bill 2. However, the clinic cited that loss of funding after the 2011 legislative session was the reason for the closure (Brown, 2013). The closure of the clinic was made more appalling by the fact that the facility subsequently went on to become a crisis pregnancy center called Hope Pregnancy Center and a headquarters for the 40 Days for Life (CCM News, 2015).  Crisis Pregnancy Centers are yet another tactic used by the anti-choice movement. These fake clinics have proliferated across the United States, using the guise of reproductive health care to spread false information and lure abortion seekers away from actual clinics. 


 

The 40 Days for Life Campaign Today


This year in Minnesota, there are seven registered 40 Days for Life campaigns.  The number of campaigns outnumber the actual number abortion clinics in the state, which is five.  According to UnRestrict MN, three of five of these clinics are located within the Minneapolis and St. Paul area (2019).  Wisconsin is hosting seven 40 Days for Life vigils this year, but only has three abortion clinics in the state. Many of these pickets are located at Planned Parenthood clinics, which often do not provide abortions.  For instance, Planned Parenthoods in Mankato, MN and St. Cloud, MN are not abortion providers, but are locations for the 40 Days for Life campaign. The campaign therefore target cancer screening, STI tests, birth control, transgender health services, and other health care.  Make no mistake, they want to end Planned Parenthood. Even communities without reproductive health providers are hosting campaigns. Although Walker, Minnesota has a population less than 1000 and is two hours away from the nearest abortion clinics in either direction, it is home to a 40 Days for Life campaign.  The remote town was even visited by Dr. Haywood Robinson, the director of campaign’s medical affairs and education. Robinson was once an abortion provider, who now describes abortion as genocide and was a founding member of the 40 Days for Life when it first launched in Texas (40 Days For Life’ speaker comes to Walker, 2019).   


The passage of restrictive abortion laws this past year has only increased the numbers of anti-choice protesters at clinics this fall.  The Red River Clinic of Fargo, North Dakota, the only abortion clinic in the state, reported a larger than usual number of protesters during this year’s 40 Days for Life.  Earlier this year, North Dakota passed a law which would require doctors to provide inaccurate information that drug induced abortion can be reversed. A lawsuit against the restriction has been filed by the Red River Clinic and American Medical Association and the law was recently blocked by a federal judge (Hyatt, 2019).  In Alabama, where the Human Life Protection Act was passed in May, protesters have reportedly increased in numbers in the subsequent months. The ban, which sought to make abortion a felony offense for doctors and outlawed abortion even in cases of rape and incest, is being legally challenged by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU.  Reproductive Health Services in Montgomery Alabama, one of three clinics in the state, has braced itself for more demonstrators, who have purchased a nearby parking lot for their operations. Their activities include a mobile ultrasound machine called “Life on Wheels,” which offers ultrasounds to abortion seekers in an attempt to sway their decision.  A local pro-choice organization called Power House, provides housing for abortion seekers and escorts them to their appointment by shielding them with an umbrella and navigating the crowds of harassers (Crain, 2019). As a whole, there has been a substantial uptick in anti-choice activities at abortion clinics over the last several years. The number of protesters outside of clinics was 21, 175 in 2015 and by 2018 had risen to 99,409.  Incidents of obstruction at clinics has also increased, from 242 instances in 2015 to 3,038 instances in 2018. One example is Red Rose Rescue, wherein anti-choice activists trespass into health clinics to harass patients under the guise of giving them a red rose. Abortion clinics reported 15,773 instances of internet harassment and hate mail in 2017, which increases to 21, 252 in 2018. Instances of hate mail and phone harassment increased by 1000 since 2015 (National Abortion Federation, 2018).  This increased activity has many causes and no doubt, the election of Donald Trump has emboldened many reactionary elements of society. Further, anti-choice activists may be on the move because their movement has been given new life by their many successes passing abortion restrictions, expanding crisis pregnancy centers, and limiting funding to reproductive health services (such as Planned Parenthood’s loss of Title X funding).     


The Need for a 40 Days for Choice


There are modest, but valiant efforts across the country to counter the 40 Days for Life.  In 2014, the Feminist Justice League in Duluth, Minnesota began counter protesting the 40 Days for Life and have continued this effort each fall, picketing once a week.  The group has also organized “Chalk for Choice” once a week. This event entails creating positive messages and images on the plaza of the Building for Women. The Building for Women is home to the WE Health Clinic, one of the five abortion clinics in Minnesota.  The clinic plays an important role in providing abortion to the northern and central parts of the state as well as Northern Wisconsin and Michigan. Locally, the 40 Days for Choice has grown, as Feminist Action Collective, founded after the election of Donald Trump, has also sponsored a once a week counter protest during the 40 Days for Life.  H.O.T.D.I.S.H. (Hands of the Decision, It’s Healthcare) Militia, an abortion fund also located in Duluth, has also joined the 40 Days for Choice, and last year hosted one night a week of protest and also organizes an abortion fundraiser during the 40 Days. Other Duluth events for the 40 Days for Choice this year included an educational presentation on the constitutional history of reproductive rights, a launch party for the 40 Days for Choice, and an upcoming poetry night that celebrates body autonomy.  University of Minnesota Duluth’s Student Advocates for Choice have also collaborated on community events for the 40 Days for Choice, including participation in the H.O.T.D.I.S.H. Militia abortion fundraiser and hosting their own protests of the Women’s Care Center, a crisis pregnancy center located across the street from the WE Health Clinic. The statewide UnRestrict Minnesota campaign has sponsored some of these events and sought to involve AFSCME in reproductive rights organizing. The collaboration of multiple groups for the 40 Days for Choice offers an organizing template of what might be possible elsewhere in the country.


Other events are also being organized.  Since 2015, the Guild of Silly Heathens in Missouri has hosted a variety of pro-choice events for a 40 Days for Choice at Planned Parenthood in Columbia, Mo.  Like many Planned Parenthood clinics, the Columbia location does not provide abortions but is still a hot spot for anti-choice protest. The sole abortion provider in Missouri is in St. Louis (Woods, 2018).   Missouri is one of six states with only one abortion clinic, a clinic which was almost closed this past summer in the wake of new restrictions. The Movement for Abortion Defense in Cincinnati, Ohio has also counter protested the 40 Days for Life last spring.  Madison Wisconsin Abortion Defense held a counter protest against the 40 Days for Life last March. Unfortunately, there is no nationally coordinated effort to organize the 40 Days for Life, so these actions are taken by individual groups or small networks of groups in collaboration.


Abortion does not have to be a controversial issue.  It is healthcare that should be available free, readily, safely, on demand, and without stigma.  Beyond healthcare, it is vital to the equality, inclusion and empowerment of women and abortion seekers who are trans and non-binary.   Forced pregnancy is degrading, inhumane, and dangerous. There is a lot of work to be done to fight back against the onslaught of restrictions and barriers that have been passed since Roe v. Wade.  One piece of this work should be a nationally organized campaign against the 40 Days for Life as part of renewed engagement in clinic defense and mass action.  The anti-choice movement is coming out in force and all defenders of reproductive justice rise to the occasion in a time when abortion rights are already barely existent in large swaths of the country.  While this is a movement that has sworn to non-violence tactics, the consequence of illegal abortion is anything but. In a society with widespread sexual assault, domestic violence, economic deprivation, mass incarceration, and marginalization of the oppressed, body autonomy is the leading front in the battleground for liberation.  prochoice


Sources:

Arons, J. (n.d.). The Last Clinics Standing. Retrieved October 20, 2019, from https://www.aclu.org/issues/reproductive-freedom/abortion/last-clinics-standing.

Bereit, D., Carney, S., & Lambert, C. (2017). 40 Days for life: discover what God has done … imagine what He can do. Nashville, TN: Cappella Books. 

Brown, B. (2013, July 19). Planned Parenthood announces closure of Bryan clinic, two others in Texas. Retrieved from https://www.theeagle.com/news/local/planned-parenthood-announces-closure-of-bryan-clinic-two-others-in/article_f5ded327-fe5a-5694-b5e3-35a759a33ef2.html.

CM News. (2015, November 10). Planned Parenthood Facility Repurposed In Bryan, Texas. Retrieved from https://www.ccmmagazine.com/news/planned-parenthood-facility-repurposed-in-bryan-texas/.

Crain, A. (2019, September 25). 40 Days for Life means more protesters outside Alabama abortion clinic. Retrieved from https://www.al.com/news/2019/09/40-days-for-life-means-more-protesters-outside-alabama-abortion-clinic.html.

How many abortion clinics are there in Minnesota? (2019). Retrieved from https://unrestrictmn.org/faq/abortion-facilities-in-minnesota/.

Hyatt, K. (2019, September 25). Protesters gather outside Fargo abortion clinic on start of 40-day campaign. Retrieved from https://www.westfargopioneer.com/news/4678872-Protesters-gather-outside-Fargo-abortion-clinic-on-start-of-40-day-campaign.

National Abortion Federation. (2018). 2018 Anti-Abortion Violence and Disruption Statistics. (pp. 1–10). Retrieved from https://prochoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2018-Anti-Abortion-Violence-and-Disruption.pdf

Saving lives & ending abortion. (2019). Retrieved October 20, 2019, from https://www.40daysforlife.com/about-results.aspx. 

Ura, A., Murphy, R., Daniel, A., & Carbonell, L. (2016, June 28). Here Are the Texas Abortion Clinics That Have Closed Since 2013. Retrieved from https://www.texastribune.org/2016/06/28/texas-abortion-clinics-have-closed-hb2-passed-2013/.

Woods, E. (2018, January 3). 40 Days for Life: Protesting the Protesters. Retrieved from https://reproaction.org/40-days-for-life-protesting-the-protesters/.

’40 Days For Life’ speaker comes to Walker, (2019, October 17). Retrieved from https://www.bluemountaineagle.com/life/national/days-for-life-speaker-comes-to-walker/article_16d52b8a-84c2-567b-b1d9-4815c43db3f8.html.

 

Advertisements

Book Review: Abolitionist Socialist Feminism: Radicalizing the Next Revolution

Book Review_ Abolitionist Socialist Feminism

Book Review: Abolitionist Socialist Feminism: Radicalizing the Next Revolution

H. Bradford

6/27/19

An edited version of this post appears in Socialist Action news:

https://socialistaction.org/2019/06/21/books-abolitionist-socialist-feminism/


Zillah Eisenstein, “Abolitionist Socialist Feminism: Radicalizing the Next Revolution” (New York, Monthly Review Press: 2019), pp. 160


An astonishing three to five million people participated in the 2017 Women’s March in the United States and this year, 600,000-700,000 people are believed to have participated.  Yet, the Women’s March and in the feminist movement in general has been critiqued for ignoring racism and how the experiences of women of color differ from those of white women. Although women of color were leaders in organizing the Women’s March, the march has been criticized for failing to address racism in signs, leaders, and demands.  Another critique, such as from Alicia Brown a co-founder of Black Lives Matter, was that those who attended the march had neither spoke against nor shown up to protest the racist nature of mass incarceration, unemployment, police violence, and homelessness. The feminist movement today is often criticized as “white feminism” or a movement which fights for middle or upper class white women, only giving lip service to racial issues when it furthers their own goals or image.  A similar critique is sometimes launched at socialists, who are at times accused of sidelining race and gender issues in the interest of class struggle. The substance and meaning of Bernie Sander’s version of socialism is debatable, but he has been accused of color blindness and avoiding of racial issues. For those who associate Sander’s with socialism, it sends the message that race is not important to socialists. Abolitionist Socialist Feminism: Radicalizing the Next Revolution by Zillah Eistenstein seeks to remedy of the problem of “white feminism” and color blind socialism by connecting anti-racism, feminism, and socialism.


One important way that the book addresses racism is by centering itself around the voices of people of color.  Although author Zillah Eisenstein is white, she highlights the insights of a large number of antiracist thinkers and activists such as Kimberly Crenshaw, Angela Davis, bell hooks, Ta-Nehisi Coates, and Frantz Fanon.  Centering the voices and experiences of people of color is important to anti-racist movement building and Eisenstein models this throughout the text. The book itself ceners upon examining multiple oppressions in ways that are inspired from Kimberly Crenshaw’s intersectionality as well as the Black feminist thinking that preceeding it, such as the work of the Combahee River Collective.  The Combahee River Collective argued that “sexism, racism, heterosexism, and capitalism are interlocking systems of oppression that necessitate revolutionary action (p. 57).”  Thus, as the name suggests, Abolitionist Socialist Feminism: Radicalizing the Next Revolution (2019), takes a multifaceted approach to feminism and socialism and is a tool for building a movement which fights against racism, while fighting for workers, women, and other oppressed groups.  The book begins by posing a series of questions meant to provoke deeper thinking about the interconnectedness of racial, class, and gender oppression. These questions are explored throughout the book, though the big idea is that socialism and feminism must be anti-racist, anti-racism needs socialism and feminism, feminism must be socalist, and socialism must be feminist.


While the book offers many insights, there are a few which are particularly important.  Again addressing the issue of white feminism, the book vigorously pursues the important point that white women have been complicit in maintaining white supremacy.  A largely white female jury determined that George Zimmerman was not guilty of murdering Trayvon Martin. White women historically supported the lynching and castration of Black males.  They also obtained social standing by controlling slaves. Eistenstein also argues that white women helped to get Trump elected, as 53% if white women voted for Trump (with the caveat that half of eligible voters did not vote at all.)  She posits that white women voted for racism and sexism when voting for Trump, who represents misogynoir, a term coined by Paula Moya. Misogynoir is a term to add to the vocabulary of multiple oppressions and is used several times in the book to describe the intersection of sexism and racism.


Another important point made in the book is that the working class is not white and male, nor has the global working class ever been predominantly white and male.  The struggles of workers of color are spotlighted in the book, such as the example of the 2014 fast food strikes, which were led by women of color and the largest to occur in the history of the industry.  Around the world, women engage in paid and unpaid labor and while laboring, have been the victims of rape and murder, such as in Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo where women have been killed while gathering wood.  This connection between labor and vulnerability to sexual assault is an important observation, as women are often victim blamed when they are assaulted at work, especially if they are sex workers or work at bars, alone, or on night shifts.  Labor and sexual assault warrants more attention in feminist and socialist circles. While there are many differences in women around the world, labor and experiences of violence is a common experiential thread that binds many of the world’s women.  This leads to another important point, which is that feminism is often predicated upon an imagined “we” of female experience. Eisenstein makes the point that women are both presidents of nations and die in the hundreds of thousands in childbirth. Women are not a heterogeneous group, but do share some similarities, most markedly in their experiences of sexual violence and for many, their expanded role as part of the proletariat.  A third important point is that Black women are the fastest growing segment of the prison population. The prison system itself is a continuation of slavery, and the point is made that Sandra Bland had no more rights than she would have had as a slave. Because of the racist nature of the criminal justice system, the answer to crime against women is not punishment but restorative justice.


Despite the many strengths of the book, there are some weaknesses.  For one, the book does not say enough about the solution to prisons.  While it is established that the United States’ criminal justice system violently upholds white supremacy, the question of prisons is not given full attention.  The word “abolition” in the title may suggest prison abolition, though prison abolition, reform, and restorative justice are giving passing attention. Instead, the title of the book refers to the author’s conception of a more revolutionary version of intersectionality.  Abolition as described in the book means “the abolition of white supremacist misogyny and its capitalist nexus alongside the racist misogyny of everyday practices (p. 99)” Abolition is further described as interlocking, revolutionary, radically inclusive, and multilayered.  It challenges white dominance by redistributing white wealth through taxes and reparations, ending white privilege, and calling upon white people to no longer act as deputies of the carceral state. A more revolutionary version of interlocking oppressions is a welcome development, especially when Eisenstein states early on that comrade is a better term than ally or accomplice, which imply distance from a struggle.  However, the book would have been strengthened by offering a bit more on the “what is to be done?” aspect of criminal justice, especially when carceral feminism is the dominant solution to issues of justice for women.


Abolitionism is the theoretical backbone of the text, but the book would be strengthened by expanding the this concept by answering some important questions about the nature of multiple oppressions.  Socialist feminists should have no qualms with the notion that oppressions are interconnected, as Eisenstein posits. She does not believe that these oppressions are bifurcated, or can be examined without examining each.  And, there should be no argument with Eisenstein that these oppressions are a part of capitalism. Yet, the nature of oppression is never quite expanded upon. Yes, it is interconnected, but by what mechanisms, by what origin, and to what end?  Social Reproduction Theory seeks to connect oppression back to the functioning of capitalism and thus would fortify the arguments of the book. A full examination of the topic of social reproduction and intersectionality is beyond the scope of this book review, but a glimpse of what the theory has to offer is made in an article by David McNally and Susan Ferguson (2015) entitled Social Reproduction Beyond Intersectionality.  David McNally and Susan Ferguson argue racism, sexism, homophobia, and other “isms” serve capitalist accumulation and dispossession but not evenly, neatly, or with crude economic determinism.  They state that the ways in which labor power is produced and reproduced exists in a social world that is bound and differentiated by race, nationality, gender, sexuality, age, and so on. These differences serve as determinants for the conditions of production and reproduction.  For instance, McNally and Ferguson use the example of migrants. In the interest of higher profits, labor power is often sourced from outside of wealthier countries such as the United States, where there are higher wages and often better conditions. Some work is less mobile, such as childcare for American families or work within the service industries of the U.S.  Migrants are a cheap labor source to fill this need, but are also vulnerable because they are not afforded the same legal or labor rights. The oppression of migrant workers can be connected to their precarious position within capitalism and the differentiated status that keeps them vulnerable. Thus, the oppression of immigrants intersects race, gender, and class and this oppression can be understood through the mechanism of extracting labor power, their role in social reproduction, and their place in a social world which renders them vulnerable.  Capitalism contains contradictions, unevenness, struggle, and agency, but it fundamentally divides workers from the means of their sustenance (social reproduction) and in doing so, is the totality in which oppressions exist.


A more significant shortcoming is the book’s contradictory message regarding elections.  For example, the book begins with some biographical information about Eisenstein, who has been engaged in anti-racist activism since her childhood in a communist family.  Her family’s principled stance against racism invited hardship in their lives. For instance, she could not buy a prom dress because of a boycott of the segregated department stores in Atlanta and she missed out on visiting a pool because it was unwelcoming to Blacks.  Unfortunately, these immutable principles did not prevent her from voting for Hilary Clinton, which was a disappointing conclusion to an otherwise compelling introductory chapter. Eisenstein correctly describes Hilary Clinton as a neoliberal feminist, beholden to corporate interests, and implicated in her husband’s racist, carceral state.  More could have been said about her role in the State Department. While this critique correctly recognizes Clinton as an accomplice to capitalism and white supremacy, she is still framed as the lesser evil and it is puzzled over why white women voted for Trump over Clinton. The two-party system, like so many things in the lives of women, is a choiceless choice.  Trump is overtly sexist and racist, while Clinton is perhaps less overtly either, but still an agent of U.S. imperialism, which relies on racism and sexism to function. Eisenstein describes how lynching became the electric chair and how the electoral college privileges slave states. She describes how Barack Obama sided with the rule of law in Fergusson after the death of Michael Brown.  She even calls for the formation of a third party and working towards revolution, but, she is unfortunately unable to break from Democrats entirely.


Part of Eistenstein’s unwillingness to break with the Democratic party is perhaps due to Trump exceptionalism.  Trump exceptionalism is the narrative that Donald Trump is uniquely horrible and therefore, voting for the most abhorrent Democrat is preferable to Trump’s unique brand of racist misogyny.   Every Republican is framed as the next worst thing, as it seems like just yesterday when George Bush Jr. was the worst president for being a warmongering, civil liberty defying dolt. Now, he is looked upon favorably by some who critiqued him before.  Understandably, the 2016 election is a central focus on the text. This is an important focus as many of the readers may have been recently radicalized by the election of Trump. The book reasonably tries to make sense of this election. While Trump is no doubt racist and sexist and unique in his crude comments and unabashed narcissism, it seems a bit far to say that Trump is America’s “first white supremacist misogynistic president (p.91).”  It is hard to imagine that Trump’s policies are worse than Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Act and the fact that at least twelve presidents owned slaves. All presidents have been racist to varying degrees, from Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s internment of Japanese Americans to Bill Clinton’s crime bill. While Trump certainly seems exceptional in his sexist language and behaviors, Nixon was accused of domestic violence, Bill Clinton has been accused of multiple sexual assaults,  Grover Clevland sexually assaulted a woman who later had his child and had her committed to an asylum, and Thomas Jefferson had a family with his slave, Sally Hemings. Trump is terrible and must absolutely be challenged for his racist misogyny, but in the long view of American history, Trump fits right in among the slave holders, war makers, overseers of genocide that have been U.S. presidents. To consider him exceptional gives too much credit to the presidents who came before.  All U.S. presidents serve U.S. power and capital. The two party system is a two headed monster. One head is not better than the other, as both are attached to the body of imperialism. Revolution is possible only with the decapitation of both.


The electoral shortcoming aside, the book is powerfully written and a short, accessible, and important text for socialist, feminist, and anti-racist activists.   Eistenstein makes a vibrant and energizing call for building a revolutionary movement that takes on racism, sexism, and capitalism, but also tackles climate change, environmental racism, LGBTQ rights, Islamophobia, and war.  She boldly states that “resistance is not enough. Reform is not enough. Civil rights are not enough. Women’s rights are not enough. In other words: liberalism and liberal feminism do not work for this moment and never did (p. 127).” Despite the mixed messages about Democrats, she even states that voting is not enough.  She calls upon activists to move beyond moderation and employ a variety of tactics such as building connections between movements, workplace actions, internationalizing movements, mass actions, and visible civil disobedience. Building connections between movements or creating a movement of movements is central to her prescription for social change.  One of her more profound connections is towards the end of the book when she quoted Frantz Fanon, who said: “We revolt simply because, for many reasons, we can no longer breathe (p.129).” She connects this to Eric Garner who said “I can’t breathe,” eleven times before he died. The point is well taken. Activists are called upon to fight relentlessly and courageously, with real solidarity, for a world wherein everyone can catch their breath, be it from police violence, polluted air, or the other suffocating miseries of capitalism.


 

Heather Bradford, 2020 VP Socialist Action

socialistaction2


 

The following is an interview that I did with a blog entitled Third Party Second Bananas, about running for Vice President of the United States in the 2020 election as the candidate for Socialist Action.  Jeff Mackler is our presidential candidate.  This is reprinted from the blog and the link can be found here: https://thirdpartysecondbananas.blogspot.com/2019/06/heather-bradford-2020-vp-social-action.html

 

Heather Bradford, 2020 VP Socialist Action

Heather Bradford is the Vice-Presidential running mate with Jeff Mackler on the Socialist Action ticket for 2020.

The following is from the Socialist Action webpage:

“Heather Bradford, a member of Socialist Action’s National Committee, will be the party’s vice presidential candidate. Bradford is the organizer of Socialist Action’s branch in Duluth, Minn., and Superior, Wis., in the Lake Superior region. Bradford works full time as a women’s advocate at a domestic violence shelter and part time at an abortion clinic and as a substitute public school teacher. She is the secretary of AFSCME Local 3558, a delegate to the Duluth Central Labor body, and a union steward.

She is a founder of the Feminist Justice League, a Duluth-based feminist organization formed in response to the anti-abortion “40 Days for Life” group and an active member of H.O.T.D.I.S.H. Militia, an abortion fundraising group. Bradford has been a long-time activist and participant in the LGBT, environmental, and antiwar movements.”

https://socialistaction.org/2019/05/11/socialist-action-launches-2020-presidential-campaign/

Q: How did you arrive at becoming a member of Socialist Action?

When I was in my early 20s and attending college, my major was International Studies. Through my coursework, I quickly learned that much of the world was impoverished and lacked access to such basic things as food, medicine and clean water. I also learned that global suffering was connected to the policies of organizations such as the IMF, World Trade Organization, and World Bank, which played a role in perpetuating colonial relationships based upon economic exploitation. I also recognized that the United States has played a sinister role in destabilizing countries through war, support of dictatorships, economic coercion, and overthrowing democratically elected governments that leaned towards socialism. The more I learned about the state of the world, the more I saw patterns that indicated a systemic problem and the more I began to identify with socialism. At the time, I believed that socialism had gone extinct as a movement. I believed it was something that must have died off decades ago. But, to my surprise, I found that Duluth had its own socialist group! I sought out the only socialist group in my city, which was Socialist Action, and I have been a member since.

Q: And how did you happen to become the Vice-Presidential nominee?

In February, I was contacted by Jeff Mackler, who is the National Secretary of Socialist Action and our presidential candidate. He asked me if I would be interested in being his running mate in the 2020 election. I took some time to think this over and agreed. His recommendation was then discussed and approved by the Political Committee and later, the National Committee, both of which are the governing bodies of Socialist Action between conventions.

Q: Socialist Action has been described as Trotskyist. Could you explain to us how that makes SA different than other political parties on the Left?

That’s a great question with a lengthy answer! One difference between Socialist Action and some other socialist parties is that we do not provide any support to candidates of the Democratic Party. We call on workers to break with the Democratic Party as we believe it is fundamentally and inevitably a party of the ruling class. As such, it will always promote U.S. imperialism and the immiseration of workers around the world. Our staunch refusal to support the Democratic Party (or any capitalist party, such as the Green Party) differentiates us from some other socialist groups. Though, it is important to note that from time to time, we support the candidates of like minded socialist parties and would support the formation of a Labor Party within the U.S. At the same time, we believe in the right to self-determination for oppressed groups. Therefore, we believe in the right of oppressed groups such as women, LGBT, oppressed racial minorities and nationalies to form autonomous movements to fight for their interests. We believe that the liberation of these oppressed groups is an essential component of working towards socialist revolution, which is itself an important component of our core ideology. We are revolutionary socialists whose aim is the overthrow of capitalism. While working towards the goal of revolution, we support reforms that challenge the structures of oppression inherent to capitalism. Revolution must be international, worker led, and socialist in nature (rather than in stages or in one country). Some socialists agree on some of these principles and not on others or interpret them differently. This is a short answer to what is otherwise a long and complex question.

Q: According to the SA membership handbook, belonging to this party has some pretty strict requirements compared to other political organizations. It looks like in order to sign up you really really must be dedicated and invest some serious time. Does that make it difficult to recruit new members?

We consider ourselves a vanguard party, so we want to recruit people who are dedicated to the goal of socialist revolution and able to adhere to the level of political discipline necessary to function as a united and effective group. I often attend over one hundred and fifty political events or meetings a year and compared to my comrades, I feel like a slacker! We try to recruit people who we meet through our engagement in social movements, so those who enter our orbit are usually already politically active. Dedication is not an issue as much as convincing new contacts of our political platform. In my experience, a major barrier to recruitment for new contacts is our position of class independence from capitalist parties. Lesser evilism is a prevalent narrative that seduces socialists towards the Democratic Party during elections.

Q: Throughout American history I observe progressive groups are presented with an infinity of directions since they are political pioneers (abolitionists, suffragists, socialists, etc.) and as such they have intense disagreements over which direction to go and method to use. I mention this because as I was looking at the background of Socialist Action it seems your party is not immune from this historical pattern, receiving more criticism from the Left than from the Right. What do you think it would take to unite the Leftist political parties?

Leftist political parties can and often do work together in mass movements. Socialist Action believes in forming United Fronts, which allows us to converge with other leftists on issues we can agree upon. Because the two party capitalist electoral system is rigged against us, we don’t think that elections are really where socialists are going to be the most effective. We can make the most impact by building independent movements that put pressure on the political system or economy. Movements for immigrant rights, anti-war, women’s rights, LGBT rights, better wages and working conditions, housing, prison reform or abolition, and so on are arenas were leftists can work together. Of course, leftists come together with their unique histories, rivalries, and perspectives, which can hinder cooperation and movement building. Sometimes fighting also stems from the fatigue and demoralization of the long haul fight against capitalism. But, movement work can bring us together. The formation of a Labor Party would also be a vehicle for smaller socialist parties to collaborate. The militant labor struggle required for the creation of such a party would hopefully draw socialists together.

Q: What do you make of a segment of the working class being dazzled by Trump with what some would call an almost cult-like fervor?

Around 43% of American did not vote in 2016, so, there is a large swath of the U.S. population that was not enamored enough by Trump or Clinton to bother voting. According to Gallup, Trump’s approval rating is 40%, which is lower than the average approval rating of 53% for presidents since 1935. Trump certainly appeals to a segment of the population, which represents the failure of the left to effectively organize workers and offer them a meaningful alternative to voting for racism, sexism, and xenophobia. Trump seemed like an outsider and anti-establishment to some voters. I think it is also important to note that racial minorities overwhelmingly did not vote for Trump. The American working class is often imagined as white and male, but racial minorities, women (when including racial minority women), and people with incomes under $50,000 a year did not vote for Trump. The task of socialists is to continue to support the interests and liberation of the most oppressed segments of the working class (women, racial minorities, sexual/gender minorities, etc.), offer real solutions to workers who have been duped by Trump, and fight real and terrifying elements of racism and reaction that have been emboldened by Trump.

Q: The Republican playbook for 2020 appears to be painting the Democrats as “socialist.” I gather from the SA website that even Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are considered as servants of the ruling class rather than the working class?

I think we are entering an age wherein socialism has lost its teeth as an insult. Republicans may have to change the language of their putdowns as socialism becomes increasingly popular. Unfortunately, the Democratic Party has done nothing to earn the honor of being called socialist. Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez muddy the water a bit by invoking the language of socialism, without really clarifying what precisely this means. As you recall, I became a socialist through internationalism. Socialism means standing against imperialism, which is characterized by the international dominance of monopoly and financial capitalism of a few powerful countries. It is the duty of socialists to stand against U.S. power as an expression of imperialism. At the same time, socialism should be international. How could any socialist, which is a movement based upon the power and liberation of workers, tolerate wars or foreign policies which harm other workers? Yet, Bernie Sanders has supported U.S. foreign policy, stated that he wants a strong military, has approved U.S. military spending, and supports U.S. wars, such as in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. Both Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez sent mixed messages about U.S. intervention in Venezuela. Even if they clarified what they meant by socialism into a cohesive ideology that seeks to end capitalism, the Democratic Party is not the vehicle to accomplish socialism. It is a party that supports U.S. power around the world and ultimately harms workers here and abroad by supporting militarism, financial institutions, corporate interests, and the maintenance of private capital. These things should be anathema to socialists.

Q: Socialist Action has been around for awhile but it was only in 2016, as far as I can tell, that a foray was made into Presidential election politics. Why did it take so long?

Our main strategy and theoretical grounding is to magnify our organizational power by participating in social movements and the labor movement. So, elections are not where we see ourselves making the most impact in society. We are a small party, elections are time consuming and expensive, and not where change is made. However, we recognize that elections are a way to meet new people, expose others to our ideas, and point out contradictions and failures in the political system. Perhaps as our party grows or gains new experiences, we can avail ourselves in elections more often, but this will never be the center of our political work.

Q: How do you plan to conduct your 2020 campaign?

We plan to have a speaking tour through several cities in the East Coast, Midwest, and West Coast, which we hope is a way to meet new people and express our views. Jeff Mackler will be speaking on some panels and to the media and I will try to do some media work myself. We also hope to collect a list of endorsers and regularly publish the list in our newspaper, Socialist Action. Our campaign also includes a social media presence on Facebook and hopefully other platforms as well as literature, stickers, buttons, and other materials. We have a campaign team that is actively strategizing how to get our message out.

Q: In 2016 the SA ticket was not actually on any ballots from I can see. Will that change in 2020? Will there be Socialist Action candidates for other offices?

Our campaign team is looking into this. It would be great to have ballot status in some states. In Minnesota and Wisconsin, the region where I am from, this requires around 2,000 signatures. We’ll see what we can do!

Q: What do you hope to accomplish in this campaign and how will you measure your success?

Simply having a campaign at all is a success for me, as it is an opportunity to meet people and discuss socialist politics. Anything that increases the scant attention and understanding of revolutionary socialism in society is a step in the right direction.

Q: I know it is early in the 2020 election season, but has your VP nomination impacted your daily life in any way?

I am a busy person. I work at a domestic violence shelter, often averaging over 40 hours a week. I have had over time on every paycheck since January. I also work at an abortion clinic and as a substitute teacher. In April, I was also a costumed Easter Bunny. So, I am 100% a worker and in addition to this, I am 100% engaged in social movement work. I am especially active in the reproductive rights movement. Running for Vice President adds a large item to my already full plate. It involves conference calls, seeking endorsers, increasing my participation in the party at a national level, and pushing myself out of my comfort zone. I can be a shy and reserved person, so I am finding that I have to quickly grow in ways I haven’t before. But, I hope this experience develops my leadership skills and my abilities as a revolutionary. I also hope it is a springboard for running for office in more modest and local, but realistic political races. Winning the U.S. presidential election is in no ways a real possibility, of course, but as socialists we believe a better world is possible and are committed to doing everything in our capacity to bring a better world about. I will never be Vice President, but I hope I can play a small role in working towards a world without such things as war, poverty, homelessness, mass incarceration, homophobia, sexism, racism, early death, exploitative work, and climate crisis. To that end, socialism is our best and only solution.

Q: Thank you Heather for participating in this VP project.

New Anti-Abortion Laws: How Should We Respond?

A modified version of this article appears in Socialist Action news and can be accessed here: https://socialistaction.org/2019/05/27/new-anti-abortion-laws-how-should-we-respond/

New Anti-abortion Laws and the Struggle for Reproductive Rights

New Anti-Abortion Laws: How Should We Respond?

H. Bradford

5/28/19


On May 15th, 2019, the most restrictive abortion law in the United States was signed into law in Alabama by Governor Kay Ivey.  The Alabama Human Life Protection Act, which passed the Alabama Senate 25-6, makes abortion illegal at all stages of pregnancy and makes no exception for rape or incest.  The bill seeks to make abortion illegal in Alabama in all cases but health threat to the mother, fatal fetal anomalies, and ectopic pregnancies. Under the law, abortion providers could face up to 99 years in prison.  This draconian law follows a wave of anti-abortion legislation across the United States which is aimed at overturning Roe v. Wade.   In 2019, Georgia, Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, and Mississippi have passed “heartbeat bills” which outlaw abortion at six to eight weeks and at the time of writing, six week abortion bans are moving forward in the respective legislative bodies of South Carolina, West Virginia, and Louisiana.  Many abortion seekers may not be aware that they are pregnant at six weeks and would have little time to make an appointment or raise the funds to obtain an abortion. In this sense, heartbeat bills functionally outlaw abortion. “Heartbeat” itself is a misnomer as at this stage of development, an embryo has not developed a cardiovascular system.  Rather, a group of cells generates rhythmic electrical pulses which is more technically known as fetal pole cardiac activity. Of course, a tactic of the anti-choice movement has long been to warp fetal development to infanticize embryos and fetuses. Thus far, about 30 abortion laws have been passed in the United States this year.


Attacks on abortion access are nothing new, but the latest abortion restrictions are bolder and represent a concerted effort to use the court system to overturn or at least chip away Roe v. Wade.  Since 1973, over 1,900 abortion restrictions have been passed.  About ⅓ of these have been passed since 2011. These restrictions have included mandatory waiting periods, restrictions on state funding, no requirement for insurance to cover abortion, state mandated counseling, parental consent laws, gestational limits, and hospital requirements.  The barrage of laws against abortion access has been accompanied by the proliferation of crisis pregnancy centers which pose as health clinics and are designed to confuse and outright lie to abortion seekers by providing false information and pro-life propaganda. There are 2,300-3,500 crisis pregnancy centers spread across the United States, but only 1,800 abortion clinics.  In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the right of these fake clinics to provide false information and false advertising when it ruled that California’s Freedom, Accountability, Care and Transparency Act (FACT) violated the first amendment. At the same time, there has been an effort to defund Planned Parenthood by blocking Title X funds that have assisted low income patients obtain contraceptives and other reproductive health services since 1970s.   The decades of attacks on abortion access was heralded by the Hyde Amendment, which was passed in 1976 with bipartisan support and barred the use of federal funds for abortion services. The truth of the matter is that the pro-choice movement has been fighting a losing battle for over forty years.


There have been a number of responses in reaction to the recent restrictions on abortion.   Some activists have called for an economic boycott the state of Alabama and other states with strict abortion restrictions.  A disturbing sentiment that sometimes accompanies the call for a boycott is that the people of Alabama are backwards, uneducated, and even incestuous.  While boycotting can be an effective tactic, it is important to remember that many people in Alabama are not supportive of the new abortion law. In a 2018 survey of likely Alabama voters, Planned Parenthood found that 65% of respondents felt abortion should be legal in cases of rape and incest.  The law does not represent the sentiments of many Alabama voters, even those who are pro-life. Marches against the bill were held in Montgomery, Birmingham, Muscle Shoals, and Huntsville. Rather than boycotting the state of Alabama or denigrating the state as backwards, the efforts of pro-choice organizers should be recognized and the potential for conservative populace of the state to be brought around to the issue acknowledged.  A quarter of the children in Alabama live in poverty, the state has the second highest infant mortality rate in the country, and is the 6th poorest state in the country. It is ranked 50th in education, 46th in healthcare, and 45th in crime and corrections. The people of Alabama need solidarity, not shame. Rather than boycott the state which already lacks in infrastructure and is marked by racism and poverty, it would be more useful to boycott corporations that actively support or donate to the pro-life movement such as My Pillow, Hobby Lobby, Curves, Gold’s Gym, and Electric Mirror.


Another reaction to the recent ban is to wait for the courts to overturn the restrictions.  Activists are reminded that abortion remains legal, all three of Alabama’s abortion clinics plan to stay open, and that these new laws will be tied up in litigation before they can be enacted.  The narrative goes that the Supreme Court is not eager to overturn Roe v. Wade outright and that other restrictive abortion laws have been struck down elsewhere.   For instance, a 2013 heartbeat bill in North Dakota was struck down as unconstitutional.  Six week bans were also struck down in Iowa and Kentucky. There are a number of flaws with this perspective.  Firstly, it is disempowering and a difficult to build a movement around waiting for court decisions. Secondly, this perspective grants legitimacy to the court system.  The presidential nomination of and lifetime tenure of Supreme Court justices and Federal judges is fundamentally undemocratic. The feudal nature of these courts should be questioned and challenged.  This has lent itself to a cultish following of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is viewed as a liberatory figure who must never retire or die, lest abortion rights be overturned once and for all. The centrist justice is celebrated for her support of women’s rights, but her critique of Kaepernick’s taking a knee (which she apologized for), ruling against paying overtime to Amazon workers, support of warrantless searches in Samson v. California, and failure to condemn solitary confinement within the prison system in Davis v. Ayala mar her record.  Finally, it is important to remember that Roe v. Wade was passed on the premise that abortion is a matter of privacy.  The courts have never framed abortion rights as fundamental to ending the oppression of women or gender minorities.  Abortion legality has always had a shaky foundation.


Some activists look to the Democratic Party to protect abortion rights, framing this as a matter of electing more Democrats into office.  Already, potential presidential nominees have issued statements about abortion ranging from Kamala Harris’ remarks in a February 2019 interview that abortion should be a decision between a woman, physician, priest, and spouse or Bernie Sander’s statement that abortion is healthcare and would be covered by his plan for Medicare for All.  Yet, the track record of Democrats on the issue of abortion is part of the reason why we find ourselves with so many restrictions today. Of the 24 candidates vying for the presidency, only 11 mention prioritizing reproductive rights on their websites. It was Bill Clinton who said that abortion should be safe, legal, and rare in 1992, which was echoed by Hillary Clinton who used rare in her 2008 election campaign.  Abortion has become “rare” as access has been curtailed in a legislative death by 1,000 cuts. Joe Biden voted in favor of partial birth abortion bans in 1999 and 2003 and against federal funding for abortion. Like “heartbeat” bans, partial birth abortion is an anti-choice construction as the medical term is intact dilation and extraction. In 2017, Bernie Sanders unapologetically campaigned for Heath Mello, an Omaha Nebraska mayoral candidate and anti-choice Democrat.  Some Democrats, such as Louisiana Gov. John Bel are anti-choice. Bob Casey Jr., Joe Donnelly, and Joe Manchin are pro-life Democrat senators who voted for abortion bans at 20 weeks. While abortion has become increasingly partisan since the late 1980s, voting for Democrats is no guarantee of abortion access. Between 2007 and 2009, Democrats controlled the House and Senate and in 1993-1995 controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency. These eclipses of liberal power have done nothing to roll back anti-abortion laws or overturn the Hyde Amendment.  Democrats have consistently supported the Hyde Amendment. Even Barack Obama stated in a 2009 health reform debate that although he is pro-choice, he did not feel that financing abortions should be part of government funded healthcare. In the Machiavellian shell game between the two parties of capitalism, electability trumps values and it is ultimately the power of social movements and organized workers that sways the opinions of politicians. Recently some Democratic candidates have vowed to repeal the Hyde Amendment or defend abortion rights, but this is a function of the success of social movements rather than a sign of courage or conviction.


Boycotting anti-abortion states, depending upon courts, or voting for Democrats will not secure abortion rights.   The way forward for the abortion rights movement is to take cues from mass movements elsewhere in the world. In October 2016, thousands of women in over 140 cities in Poland protested against legislation that would have punished anyone who terminates a pregnancy with five years in prison and investigate women who had miscarried.  In March of 2017, Polish women protested wearing black, boycotted classes, and went on strike against the proposed new law and the restrictive abortion laws passed in 1993. This mass mobilization shifted abortion discourse in Poland and forced politicians to quickly retreat from new restrictions. In March 2018, thousands of demonstrators marched against a renewed effort to pass more restrictive abortion laws.  Ireland’s movement, Repeal the 8th, likewise mobilized against Ireland’s constitutional ban on abortion. Inspired by Poland’s Black Protests, activists in Ireland marched and went on strike on March 8th, 2017 in cities across Ireland. 66.4% of Irish voters voted to legalize abortion in a referendum held on May 25th, 2018. Abortion is now legal and free in Ireland due to a movement that catalyzed by the death of Savita Halappanavar, who died in 2012 because she was denied an abortion while experiencing a miscarriage.  The vote to legalize abortion was shocking to some, as Ireland had been a bastion of conservatism regarding abortion and like Poland, had strict anti-abortion laws. Social attitudes can change quickly, which should offer some hope to those who dismiss the southern United States as impossibly reactionary. Despite the efforts of the hundreds of thousands of participants in the Ni Una Menos movement that has sought to legalize abortion and end gender based violence, a bill to legalize abortion in Argentina failed by two senate votes in August, 2018. Even in the face of defeat, the protests and strikes continue as well as efforts to build a feminist international.  Recently, activists involved in the movement for abortion rights in Argentina protested on the red carpet at the Cannes Film festival at the premiere of ‘Let it be Law,’ a film about their struggle. A glimpse of the capacity to build such a movement in the United States happened on May 21st with a day of protest actions called Stop the Bans. Thousands mobilized in a day of action that consisted of over 400 protests spread across all 50 states.


The feminist movement must build upon the successful mobilization for the Stop the Bans day of action and continue to show up in mass to put pressure on politicians to support abortion rights.  Based upon recent feminist organizing that culminated in the International Women’s Strike, a framework for building a global feminist movement was put forth by Cinzia Arruzza, Tithi Bhattacharya, and Nancy Fraser in“Feminism for the 99%: A Manifesto.”  Key ideas from the manifesto include tactics such as mass action and strikes against the conditions of paid and unpaid labor.  The feminist movement must abandon liberal feminist vision of equality under the law and instead fight capitalism head on, including fights against imperialism, mass incarceration, environmental destruction, and austerity.   Social Reproduction theory grounds the tasks of building a global anti-capitalist feminist movement. Understanding social reproduction theory (SRT) is vital to combating anti-abortion laws in the context of capitalism. SRT posits that capitalism does not reproduce the labor power required to perpetuate itself.  In other words, capitalism produces goods and services, but doesn’t in itself produce workers and due to profit motive (wherein profit is derived from surplus value of labor), capitalism does little to provide for the upkeep of workers. Thus, women are tasked with supporting the continuation of capitalism through biological reproduction, the care of non-laborers such as children, elderly, or people with illnesses, and unpaid household labor such as cooking and cleaning.  When women can control their biological reproduction through birth control or abortion, they are denying capitalism the reproduction of a future labor force. Lack of bodily autonomy enforces the traditional family and gender roles, thereby further enforcing social reproduction. At the same time, the drive for profit always works to erode or deny social provisioning such as paid maternity leave, free daycare, socialized health care, or other social benefits which the United States lacks, but encourages or supports reproduction.  This creates a contradiction wherein birth is mandated but not supported. It is little wonder that the war against abortion access has intensified in the last decade, following the world economic crisis that erupted in 2008. Abortion became legal in the United States in the same era as our waning hegemony and the accompanying age of neoliberalism that promotes austerity and the movement of industrial production to the low wage “developing” world. Women’s bodies are punished into ameliorating the crisis of capitalism.


The United States was founded upon the subjugation and destruction of bodies through slavery and genocide.  Reproduction is controlled in the name of national interests, which is itself a guise for the overarching interest of amassing wealth for an elite few.   At times, this has meant the forced sterilization of Native Americans, Puerto Ricans, Blacks, low income women, and women with disabilities. In the interest of population control, birth control was first tested on women with mental illness without their consent and later Puerto Rican women.  Today, the rhetoric of walls and criminal immigrants is used to control some populations while the limits on abortion access are used to control another. A part of this continuum of control is violence and oppression of trans and non-binary people, whose existence challenges the gender binary and traditional family structures that have so long been the cornerstone of social reproduction.  Trans and non-binary people are denied reproductive rights along with women, as not all abortion seekers are women. The struggle for abortion access, as part of the larger movement for a feminism for the 99% must also be a struggle against racism, transphobia, ableism, and for the liberation of all bodies long subjugated by capitalism.


 

Why I Fundraise for Abortion Access

Why I Fundraise for Abortion Access

Why I Fundraise for Abortion Access

H. Bradford

4/9/19


It’s that time of year again.  This is the third year that I have spent February, March, and April trying to fundraise for abortion access.  I am not that good at fundraising, but I try.  I try to organize a team, promote the fundraiser, get some donations, and help with the organizing of the event through H.O.T.D.I.S.H Militia.   My contribution to the event is not as much as the contributions of others, but it is important to me.  For the past few years, H.O.T.D.I.S.H Militia, a local abortion fundraising group has attempted to raise $10,000 through a national fundraiser called “Bowl-a-thon” which is organized through the National Network of Abortion Fund’s (NNAF).   We have successfully met our fundraising goal each of the last three years that I have participated.  There are many reasons why I participate in this event, which I will outline so that readers have a better understanding of how the fund is used and why it is necessary.

This image was created by Betsy Hunt for H.O.T.D.I.S.H 2019


Abortion is Expensive:


Expensive is relative, as all medical expenses tend to be costly to those who cannot afford them.  But, considering that 40% of Americans cannot cover an unexpected $400 expense, abortion or ANY unexpected medical cost is expensive (Bahney, 2018).  At our local clinic, the basic cost of an abortion is $700, which goes up in price depending upon how far along the pregnancy is and if the patient requires a Rhogam injection.   The $700 cost is pretty similar to the cost at the other four Minnesota clinics listed on NNAF’s website.  This $700 cost is expensive for someone who was not intending to become pregnant, who only has a short time to raise the funds (less than 14.5 weeks at our local clinic),  who will see the cost increase the longer it takes to raise the funds, who must take the day off of work (since abortions are only provided locally on weekdays), must pay for transportation and perhaps day care or a baby sitter, and other costs.   75% of abortion patients in Minnesota were economically disadvantaged (State Facts About Abortion Minnesota, 2018).  I have recently had some unexpected medical expenses and it is extraordinarily stressful!  In my case, these are expenses that I can pay over time.  Unfortunately, at our local clinic, the payment is due in full at the time of the procedure.  There is no method to pay in installments.  $700 is therefore an enormous barrier for patients seeking an abortion.  H.O.T.D.I.S.H. provides supplemental funding to patients who might otherwise be unable to afford the full amount.


Insurance Often Doesn’t Cover Abortion:


In my observation, most patients with employer provider insurance must pay for the in full as the procedure is not covered by the insurance (some parts may be, such as an ultrasound, but patients are still responsible for the cost at the time of their appointment).  Many patients who seek abortion have not yet met their deductible or their out of pocket maximum.  Thus, it seems uncommon that insurance picks up the tab for the costs.  The H.O.T.D.I.S.H fund helps working people with insurance cover this unexpected expense.  It seems pretty unjust that abortion is segregated from regular health care, so that even those with insurance find that they must pay.  This punishes women and serves to stigmatize abortion as something frivolous or unnecessary.   In Minnesota, Medical Assistance covers the cost of abortion, but many patients do not have active M.A. because they have moved, did not submit paperwork, forgot to renew it, or any number of reasons.  Those who do must pay an $8 co-pay, but even this can be a barrier to someone experiencing domestic violence, homelessness, unemployment, or extreme poverty.  H.O.T.D.I.S.H funds are sometimes used to cover the co-pay or any additional expenses that Medical Assistance (Medicaid) might not cover.  It is also important to note that because of the Hyde Amendment, not all states fund abortion through Medicaid.  The Hyde Amendment prevents the use of federal funds to cover the cost of abortion.  States can elect to use their own funds to cover abortion, but only seventeen states have chosen to do this.  Minnesota is one of them, but patients from out of state may find that their Medical Assistance does not cover the cost.   For instance, Wisconsin only extends coverage in the cases of rape, incest, or life endangerment (Hyde, n.d.).  Finally, while Medical Assistance (Medicaid) covers abortion in Minnesota, Medicare does not cover elective abortion.  Therefore, individuals with disabilities who receive insurance through Medicare are unable to access abortion through that program.  As a caveat, I want to make clear that I am not well versed in the world of insurance, but in my observation at the clinic, insurance is rarely a guarantee of coverage.  H.O.T.D.I.S.H funds are regularly used to supplement employment health insurance coverage, MA copays, and to support Wisconsin residents on Badgercare.   Because 30% of Black women and 24% of Hispanic women receive Medicaid, as compared to 14% of white women, the national restrictions on Medicaid coverage of abortion disproportionately impacts women of color (Hyde, n.d).  The abortion restrictions through Medicare is ableist.  All of this is symptomatic of our need to repeal the Hyde Amendment, fight for universal and free health care for all, and demand that abortion be treated as ordinary health care.


Abortion Intersects with Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault:


I work extremely part time checking in patients at our local clinic.  My short shift at the clinic is usually preceded by a night shift at a domestic violence shelter.  While I must maintain confidentiality at both places because of HIPAA and VAWA, I will say that I sometimes recognize patients from my other full time employment at the shelter.  I am usually familiar with at least one name from the patient list.  To me, it is extremely sad and angering that society portrays abortion seekers as selfish, irresponsible women.  This ignores the violence, control, and coercion that women experience in their relationships and how pregnancy is a tool of patriarchal dominance.  Pregnancy is a tool of patriarchal dominance in violent relationships, but also in everyday ordinary relationships wherein women must negotiate consent, birth control, their sexual desires or lack thereof as unequal partners on account of sexism, racism, economic subordination, heterosexism, ableism, and other forms of oppression that compound together within patriarchy and capitalism.   Providing abortion funding may help a patient escape from an abuser, begin to rebuild their life after sexual assault, and use their limited funds to leave a shelter for a housing opportunity rather than use that money to pay for an abortion.   It disgusts me that patients are met with a gauntlet of protesters who shame and abuse them for their choice with little concern or pause for the trauma that some patients have endured.   It also disgusts me that we live in a society where women can be forced to be pregnant simply because they cannot afford to terminate a pregnancy.   Funding abortion helps survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault.


  Abortion Access is Always Under Attack:


Abortion is always under attack.   Each year, there are always new regulations and new schemes to limit abortion access.  In Minnesota, patients must receive mandatory information from a doctor 24 hours prior to their appointment.  If the patient does not receive this phone call, they are unable to have the procedure.  Minors must bring what seems like a mountain of paperwork documenting their identity, their parents’ identity, and acknowledgement of both biological parents that the minor is having an abortion.   In the absence of both biological parents acknowledging the abortion, the minor must appear before a judge, who will determine if they can have the abortion.   These current restrictions are fairly tame compared to the aggressive movement to further restrict abortion across the country.   This year, fetal heartbeat bans or six week abortion bans have been enacted, passed, or are in the process of passing in Kentucky, Mississippi, Georgia, Missouri, Ohio and Tennessee.  This year, governors in Arkansas and Utah also approved bans on abortion at 18 weeks.  The Minnesota Senate Health and Human Services Committee is currently reviewing a 20 week abortion ban in the interest of fetal pain, even though less than 2% of abortions performed in the state occur after 20 weeks and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists posts that it is not until at least 24 weeks of gestation that a fetus possesses the brain structures necessary process pain signals (Ferguson, 2019).  In the face of challenges to abortion access, many activists often frame it as a matter of how many Democrats are in power or that these bans will be overturned by the court system.  The fact of the matter is that the pro-choice movement has been losing the battle for abortion for over forty years.  This battle cannot take place in the arena of electoral politics, which has failed to prevent the avalanche of over 1,000 restrictions on abortion since 1973.  This has to occur by strengthening independent social movements capable of fundamentally transforming and challenging state power and while radically altering mass consciousness and discourse regarding the oppression of women.   Fundraising can be a supplemental stop gap measure in such a movement.  Fundraising should be used while putting demands upon the state and drawing attention to the systemic failures.  At the minimum, fundraising is a hands-on activity that could be used to connect pro-choicers to one another and the community.   At best, it needs to contribute to a fierce, strategic, and unwavering social movement that takes to the streets in protest and strike.  Power must be reclaimed by the masses, rather than consigned to courts and politicians.

This image was taken from NNAF for Bowl-a-thon purposes


Abortion isn’t Abnormal:


Abortion is always treated as a taboo.  It can’t be mentioned or is too controversial to bring up in polite conversation.  Yet, 1 in 4 women have had an abortion before the age of 45.  It isn’t abnormal.  It is ancient.  It is common.  By fundraising, abortion becomes more normal.  At least once a week, I remind people that I am fundraising for abortion on Facebook.   The actual fundraiser is fun.  We go bowling.  The bowling alley chooses to host an abortion fundraiser.  Bowling alleys are not typically considered enclaves of the feminist movement.  Last year, almost 100 people participated at the bowl-a-thon event.  This year, there are over a dozen teams and we expect a similar turn out.  The bowl-a-thon is a public way to be pro-choice and normal.  We are having fun fundraising.  The event has prizes and a party like atmosphere.  This isn’t about death, morals, taboos, secrets, and all of the dark ways that abortion is discussed in society.  This is about raising money and trying to have some fun while doing it.  Of course, it is also about all of the serious things that I outlined above.  But, part of this struggle has to be about making abortion less scary to talk about.  Asking strangers to donate- then having fun while doing it- dispels the the stigma around it.

Image may contain: 13 people, people smiling, people standing

 


Conclusion:


This year we have already met our goal of raising $10,000.  That sounds like a lot of money!  It is, but really, it doesn’t stretch that far.  Over a year, we can provide about $833 of support a month with those funds.  Remember, a single abortion procedure costs $700.  Thus, despite our best efforts and all of the people involved, we can really only pay for a little over 14 abortions a year!  Of course, the money is not used to pay for an entire abortion.  It is doled out more sparingly, typically with $100-$200 grants given to a couple of patients each month.  That really isn’t much at all!  It makes a difference to those patients, but $500 is still a large amount of money to come up with.  The amount we raise is small compared to the actual need.  Perhaps in the future, we will increase our fundraising capacity and be able to do more.  Better yet, it would be great if we could somehow change our society in such as way that we don’t have to fundraise at all.  Abortion would be available on demand, for free.  It would be wonderful if patients didn’t have to drive several hours to the nearest clinic or that everyone had guaranteed sick/personal leave so that missing work wasn’t an economic stressor.  Unfortunately, we have society as it exists now.  In this moment, the fundraising is both critical and inadequate.   There are still a few days left to donate to this year’s Bowl-a-thon.  The donation makes a difference locally, and hopefully I have illustrated a few reasons why!

To donate:

https://bowl.nnaf.org/fundraiser/1903989

https://bowl.nnaf.org/team/214270

Sources:

Bahney, A. (2018, May 22). 40% of Americans can’t cover a $400 emergency expense. Retrieved from https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/22/pf/emergency-expenses-household-finances/index.html

Ferguson, D. (2019, March 29). 20-week abortion ban bill advances in MN Senate. Retrieved from https://www.twincities.com/2019/03/29/20-week-abortion-ban-bill-advances-in-mn-senate/

Hyde Amendment. (n.d.). Retrieved April 9, 2019, from https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/issues/abortion/hyde-amendment

State Facts About Abortion Minnesota (Rep.). (2018). Guttmacher Institute.

Ten Reasons Why Travel Won’t Make You Better

Top 10 Reasons

Ten Reasons Why Travel Won’t Make You Better

H. Bradford

6/18/18

With the death of Anthony Bourdain, there have been many well meaning articles which encourage people to travel so that they can become better people.  This is a common theme in travel writing- the transformative power of travel. However, I am uncomfortable with this framing- especially the claim that travel makes you better.  Sometimes this claim is qualified by saying that it will make a person more adventurous, more comfortable with strangers, smarter, more flexible, more self aware, etc. I think this is a dangerous narrative, and that believing that travel makes a person better can actually make a person worse.  At the very least, it is a hollow, self-congratulatory platitude for those who have had the privilege of traveling. So, to buck the trend of “travel makes you better” here is a top ten list of how travel doesn’t make you better.


1.Better is Comparative

What is better?  Better is a comparative adjective.  Thus, to argue that travel makes someone “better” means that there is an unnamed subject that the traveler is better than.   Perhaps travel makes a person better than the person they were before they traveled. The comparison is between the past and present self.  More darkly, the comparison could be between the traveler and those who have not traveled. This is problematic because travel is a privilege, which will be addressed later.  While it may seem benign to suppose that travel makes an individual better than they were before they traveled, this argument concedes that the worth of a human being has something to do with how much they have traveled.  Am I a better person because I have traveled? No, the quality of my humanity is no better. I may be more knowledgeable about certain subjects, have some fond memories, or feel proud of confronting my fears but my overall “betterness” is non-existent.  I am no better than the human I was before I traveled and no better than any human who has not traveled.  Really, this vague notion of “better” is inherently hierarchical, as it divides humans (even as individuals) into better and lesser. The danger of this is that, once again, travel is a privilege that not everyone has access to.  It also assumes that travel is intrinsically good.

Image may contain: one or more people, tree, sky, plant, table, shoes and outdoor

Bulawayo, Zimbabwe


 

2. Better is Subjective

Most people who argue that travel makes you better are probably not intending to divide the world between better and lesser people.  The sloppy comparison is not meant to be harmful. It is just an example of the taken for granted expressions of common speech. When travel blogs argue that travel makes you “better” it is meant to express that travel improves a set of specific characteristics of an individual traveler.  For instance, a travel blog might argue that travel makes a person better at problem solving or better at talking to strangers. Arguably, travel can make someone better at some things. For example, a person who travels frequently may be better at navigating public transportation systems or packing a suitcase (of course, these very specific applications of “better” are not typical of the “travel makes you better arguments” ).  It seems reasonable that a person who packs suitcases often may gain skills in fitting objects into a small space and deciding what not to pack as a matter of experience. Compared to someone who does not pack suitcases, this seems true. However, “better” must still be operationalized. How does one measure the quality of betterness at packing suitcases? The volume of objects that are fit inside? The amount of time it takes to pack said objects?  If these were deemed the measures of “betterness,” travel is not the only act that creates the improvement of these skills, but rather the act of frequent packing that is associated with travel. A person could develop this skill as a hobby, as a competitive sport (the made up sport of timed packing contests), frequent moving, because of work travel, or maybe even playing Tetris. The big idea is that most uses of the word “better” are subjective. “Better” is not an objective measure (as in the packing example, where it is based upon time and volume) but rather personal opinions, emotions, norms, or less measurable qualities.  A person who travels may indeed be “better” at talking to strangers by some objective measures, but this is unlikely to be universally true or true only on account of the travel experience. Finally, the improvement of this skill is only subjectively important. Image may contain: sky, tree, mountain, nature and outdoor

Travel probably has made me “better” at packing and camping… but only marginally.


3.Better is Fleeting

Years ago, I spent a semester in South Korea, I studied Korean history and language.  When I returned to the United States, I maintained my interest in the country for a short time by taking a another Korean history class and reading books.  For a time, it could be said that I was “better” at Korean language and “better” at history (as compared to my pre-travel self and the average American who had not studied these things).  But with time, this knowledge has faded. While I am still more knowledgeable about topics related to Korea than I would have been had I never studied or traveled there, there are still plenty of things I never learned, will never know, and have long forgotten.  The disciplined study of of another language or a country’s history, art, popular culture, music, etc. is a lifelong pursuit that cannot be accomplished simply with a visit, no matter the length. Even becoming an expert in a subject area related to a specific country or area is an ongoing struggle to stay abreast of the latest research.  Without ongoing effort to learn more, question what is known, build upon existing knowledge, and make connections to other areas of knowledge…”better” is subject to entropy. Thus, while travel may make someone “better” in the sense they are more knowledgeable, this kind of better declines with time unless effort is made to maintain or improve upon the original set of knowledge.

Image may contain: outdoor

So many forgotten experiences…so much lost knowledge…


Some travel blogs argue that travel makes someone better, not in the area of knowledge, but in personality traits such as flexibility, problem solving, interpersonal skills, etc.  I imagine that these areas are more variable in their decline. A person who learned to problem solve while traveling may have gained a lifelong skill, or, perhaps in other contexts, that same person could become rigid.  On the other hand, some of these traits might grow better with time, irrespective of travel. I imagine that the average person who must work and interact with people would over time improve their interpersonal skills simply as a matter of surviving in a society wherein some level of interpersonal skills are required for maintaining a job, maintaining friendships, and navigating social interactions to meet basic needs like food and shelter.  In any event, whatever “better” is, ultimately it is illusive, temporary, and contextual.


 

4. Better Rarely Matters

Suppose travel does make a person better in some ways.  I think that my geography skills are probably better than they might be had I never traveled (though my studious roommates who do not internationally travel are much better at geography than I am AND my comrade who has a P.h.d in GIS is infinitely better at geography than I am).  So what? Why does it matter? Why does it matter that I might be better than average at geography or alternatively worse than others at it? My worth as a human being is not dependent upon my geography skills. Knowing geography is useful in some contexts (such as teaching geography, current event literacy, or trivia), but the masses of the world do not live or die by my knowledge of geography.  The masses of the world live and die in poverty, by preventable disease, by the wars inflicted by my own country, and the legacies of colonization exasperated by the inequalities of global capitalism. My knowledge of geography is important only inasmuch as it can be used to understand and dismantle systems of power. Can travel offer insights that can work towards this end? Of course. It can connect people to others, be a tool of solidarity and collaboration, can mobilize others towards common causes, or be a source of education on injustices.  This matters, but only because I value the advancement of social struggle. Travel that makes a person a “better” activist in terms of their effectiveness in advancing struggle certainly has value. Travel that connects and fuels social movements has value. But, almost all of my travel is for pleasure, education, and self-fulfillment. Whatever I gain in the interest of these things, even if I personally become “better”- means little to the rest of the world…which traveling should teach is often entrenched in poverty. What does it matter if I become better at talking to strangers, packing a suitcase, navigating public transportation, or gain the sense I am a more whole person?  What does it matter if I become more knowledgeable about a country’s history or culture? What does better matter unless it is a means to an end? The end of self betterment is not globally liberating. The end of fond memories or confronting fear will not ensure a more just world. Becoming a “better” person simply doesn’t matter. We all die. So the goal of becoming a better person for its own sake is a dead end. Becoming a “better” person…in the interest of becoming a more useful and effective member of movements for social change expands the self beyond an individual life or needs. Of course, this is also draining, disappointing, and doesn’t make for great Instagram photos.  I am not selfless and tireless enough to only travel in the interest of building social change. So, what does my “better” matter, if not for those things? What does anyone’s “better” matter, if not for those things? And, since travel is not required to become better at the things that truly matter (as much as anything matters in the indifferent universe), does travel matter?

Image may contain: 7 people, including Ariel Bonkoski, Heather Bradford, Jenny Hoffman and Amber Banks, people smiling, people sitting, table and indoor

Some of my knowledge from travel is useful when I play trivia with friends


5.Travel is a Privilege:

 

A major problem with the notion that travel makes you better is that not everyone can travel.   80% of the world lives on less than $10 a day. For most of the world, international travel is not an option because it is simply too expensive.  This means that travel is mostly a source of “betterment” to people from wealthier countries (i.e. often those with colonial histories which enabled earlier economic development at the expense of exploited colonies).  Within wealthier countries where more people may have the leisure time and resources to travel, race, class, gender, sexuality, age, ability, and other sources of social inequality limits who is able to travel and who is not.  I have certainly seen many Australians traveling in Europe, but I would be hard pressed to find an aboriginal Australian among them. This isn’t to argue that aboriginal Australians never travel, but since 19% of the population lived in poverty (in 2014), it would be harder for many of them to afford travel.  16% of Americans live in poverty, but 27% of African Americans live in poverty and 26% of Hispanics. Larger segments of racial minority populations simply cannot to travel on account of poverty, not to mention other barriers such as incarceration or safety issues. 12% of Americans have disabilities. While having a disability does not mean that a person cannot travel, depending on the disability, it could create barriers or restrictions to travel.  Travel safety is also an issue. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, trans, queer, etc. travelers may be restricted in where they can visit to do fear of repression, hate crimes, incarceration, etc. Travel is far easier if you have money, are cisgender male, straight, white, healthy, young, and child free. Of course, there are plenty of people who are not these things and who travel. Still, 63% of Americans have never been outside the country. It is easy to think that Americans are ignorant, xenophobic bumpkins.  In a survey (conducted by a luggage company), 76% of respondents said they wanted to travel but it wasn’t financially possible and 25% said they lacked the time. Only 10% responded that they had no interest. The bottom line is that most people in the world cannot afford to travel or have social barriers to travel. It seems unfair to rate some people as “better” for doing something that is out of the reach of so many more.

https://nypost.com/2018/01/11/a-shocking-number-of-americans-never-leave-home/

Image may contain: 1 person, sky and outdoor

A street in Bridgetown, Barbados

 


 

 6.  Not Wanting to Travel is Okay

One of the myths behind travel is that it will open up the world, transforming the traveler into someone who is no longer closed minded, ignorant, prejudiced, provincial, etc.  This implies that people who do not travel are closed minded, ignorant, prejudiced, and so on. Now, I certainly want people to look at the world beyond borders. I want people to think against our foreign policy and national interests.  I agree that society would be better if there was less racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, ableism, and all the other “isms.” But, a person does not have to travel to be an open minded internationalist who wants to end social inequalities.  Travel is not the only means nor the best means to become open minded and globally aware. There are plenty of travelers who travel with their prejudices and ignorance. There are plenty of travelers who change very little after their experience. Travel is not the magic key to betterment.


Most of my friends do not travel.  Yet, all of my friends are aware of the world and committed to social justice.  Some of my friends do not travel due to income, lack of vacation time, health, criminal background, and other barriers.  I have one friend who adamantly says he does not want to travel. Is there anything wrong with this? Why would there be?  Not everyone wants to travel, just as not everyone wants to plant a garden, watch birds, go for long hikes, collect stamps, go to sporting events, attend concerts, scuba dive, or any number of other activities.  Not wanting to travel doesn’t make someone “bad” or stupid, or closed minded, or inferior. It is simply a matter of preference. A person can prefer not to travel, but still have a deep interest in learning about the world and still have a strong commitment to changing social injustices.  Just as a person can travel and be entirely indifferent to social injustice and blind to privilege. There are many ways to learn about the world. Formal education, self-education, employment, community engagement, volunteering, activism, hobbies, etc. can connect individuals to people who are different from themselves and broaden the mind to social justice issues.


7. Travel Can Be Unethical

There are many unethical aspects to travel.  Firstly, travel requires transportation- which generally means using more fossil fuels than one would use if they just stayed home.  Travel can also be a source of waste. For instance, the airline industry produces 5.2 million tons of waste each year in the form of such things as empty bottles, uneaten meals, packaging, etc.  https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/airlines-cabin-waste/index.html


Many countries lack waste management systems, so even if a person wants to recycle or compost, there is a lack of infrastructure to support this, much less the more basic service of garbage collection.  I have certainly littered when in other countries simply because proper trash disposal was nowhere to be found. Increased travel to natural areas can impact plant and animal populations and increased travel anywhere creates more demand for tourist supporting infrastructure such as roads, hotels, stores, and restaurants (which can result in loss of human neighborhoods or natural habitats depending upon where these are built). Travel does not make a person “better” in terms of their environmental impact. Image may contain: mountain, sky, outdoor, water and nature

An underground landfill fire in Grenada- indicating a waste management problem


Travel changes economies.  With the decline of industry in my own region, the economy has shifted more towards tourism.  The impact of this has been the expansion of lower paying, non-union, service industry jobs with higher turnover and greater sensitivity to economic downturn.  Of course, workers can always fight back for higher wages, better conditions, and unions- which has been happening in the service economy, but this takes time and organization.  On a global scale, catering to the tastes of tourists can mean a homogenization or Disneyfication of culture, shift in labor from subsistence to tourist economies or from production to service economies, marketization of culture and environments, privatization of resources, and dependency on tourism (which is a variable source of income), increased reliance on imports (as the economy shifts from producing things to services or to meet the needs of tourists) etc.


At the same time, economies change and tourism fills the gap of industries which once were (but are no longer profitable).  It is very hard for island countries to maintain a global, “competitive advantage” due to trade laws, transportation costs, lack of land, lack of money for capital investment, etc.  For instance, it would be very hard for many Pacific Island countries to be major exporters of produce, since the islands are far from each other, often small, and far away from global markets.  Because of colonization and globalization, subsistence ways of life have been disrupted. Tourism is a way to generate some income and create some jobs. Tourism isn’t necessarily evil and may have the positive impact of injecting money into these economies.  However, the plight of these countries is a complicated mix of colonization, current trade practices, climate change, and tourism. A well meaning tourist can attempt to patronize local businesses or engage in ecotourism, but the global economy is set-up to prohibit the development of some countries and continue the dependency of poorer countries on wealthier ones.  Travel is an aspect of this dependency and the consumption practices of a single traveler, no matter how well meaning, cannot alter the nature of global capitalism. Thus, travel does not make a person “better” in terms of their role in the global economy.


8. Travel is Made Possible by Imperialism

From a socialist perspective, imperialism is a stage of capitalism wherein due to declining profits, developed economies look to perpetuate capitalism and avoid crisis by expanding trade into global markets, integrating more workers into their economies, and by destroying economic competitors.  This is the motor behind globalization. As a U.S. citizen, I have found that ease of travel often correlates with degree of integration within the global economy and acceptance of the United States foreign policy. For instance, travel to North Korea is currently banned for most Americans (by our own government), Cuba was historically a place U.S. citizens were banned from traveling to due to our trade embargo, and American travel to Iran was briefly banned last year after the U.S. travel ban.  Ease of travel is a function of U.S. imperialism (but also imperialism in general). For instance, in countries like Belarus and Turkmenistan, I was unable to use my ATM card. This seems like a minor inconvenience, but generally, this also means that these countries are not well integrated into the global banking system. On the other hand, some countries literally use U.S. dollars. All U.S. “territories” (i.e. modern colonies) use US dollars, including Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.  Zimbabwe also uses U.S. dollars. For countries which don’t, I never have any issue converting my money, since it is widely accepted as a matter of our position in the global economy. The same cannot be said for someone carrying Albanian lek, who would be hard pressed to convert their money due to its obscurity and relative lack of value. In most countries I have traveled to, I have been able to find English speakers. Again, this is a matter of both American and British imperialism- which has spread the English language around the world and made it a language of economic and political importance.  Likewise, Spanish and French are also used due to the history of colonialism and imperialism. Infrastructure which today supports tourists, such as ports, airports, and roads, were often built by colonial powers in the interest of extracting resources from these countries or to support military interests (an extension of imperialism). For example, Kinshasa airport was first built by the Belgians, Cairo International airport was first used as an airfield by the U.S. during World War II, Ahmed Ben Bella airport in Algeria was first used by the French in WWII as an airfield, etc. This isn’t to argue that countries do not build their infrastructure on their own, independent of imperialism, but that imperialism has shaped the globe, making it far easier for me to travel than someone from a country that was never a world power.  Can I really argue that travel makes me “better” when my ability to travel has been lubricated by imperialism?

Image may contain: one or more people, people standing, sky and outdoor

(In North Korea in 2010)


9. Travel Has No Intrinsic Value

The nature of value is complicated, since the word value is used in a variety of ways.  In a Marxist sense, something has use value if it has “usefulness” or utility and exchange value if it can be expressed in price or traded as a commodity.  Travel is a set of experiences, but not a singular entity or commodity. It may be many commodities which are consumed in the process of travel. In this sense, to my best understanding, travel does not have use value or exchange value, though aspects of travel may possess these things.  Travel can be broken down into meals, hotel stays, flights, bus tickets, tours, and so on, which have exchange value. But, this is a very mechanistic view of what value means.


When most people talk about the value of travel, they are referring not to the economic value, but the value of memories and experiences.   Of course, on an individual level, these things have value. The problem is that some people idealize this value above other experiences. Is the value of travel greater than the value of other things?  It is tempting for some travelers to revel in the freedom of travel and to frame it as superior to such things as working 9-5, having children, settling down, staying in one place, forming routines, being tied down by responsibilities, and so on.  Does travel have more value than working? Well, travel is often a lot more fun than working. But, is the value of fun greater than the value of work? What is the value of work (not in the Marxist sense) but the everyday, more generic sense? I work at a domestic violence shelter, as a substitute teacher, and at a women’s health clinic.  Reproductive health is a heck of a lot more important than having fun! Access to abortion and other reproductive health care is fundamental to the equality of women (or anyone with the capacity of becoming pregnant). If everyone who worked in this field suddenly decided to take prolonged vacations, resulting in the shutdown of reproductive health services (this is an unrealistic scenario)  society would be worse off. My own work in this area is minimal and part time, so it is important not to overstate my own contribution to this area. The main point is that travel is often framed as better than work, but work has a lot of value. My full time job is at a domestic violence shelter- it is hard to imagine that travel, which is done for fun and selfish reasons, is of a higher importance or value.  Travel is important to me, but the social value of sheltering survivors/victims of domestic violence is greater than the value of travel. Leisure travel does not address a social problem or meet a social need. Image may contain: text


I don’t wish to overstate the importance of work, since work can be draining, stressful, exploitative, a source of struggle, and necessity for survival.  Because work is alienating and exploitative, escape from work through travel is idealized. But, escape from work does not improve labor conditions or improve the lot of working people.  It does not alter the conditions of work. Still, people SHOULD work less. There should be more vacation time and more time to pursue anything which broadens the human experience, including travel, hobbies, community engagement, relationship building, education, etc.  Yes, travel is one of the things that can enrich the human experience. But, so can having children, building meaningful relationships, connecting with a community, planting gardens, going for hikes, or any number of experiences. Work also has the potential to enrich the human experience, but to do so, it must be liberated from capitalist exploitation.


 

10. Travel Can Make You Worse

Finally, there is no rule that travel will make you better (whatever that is).  Travel can make a person worse. By worse, I mean, it can give a person a sense of inflated importance.  It can make someone believe that they are more knowledgeable or have lived a superior lifestyle. Like the character in Rocky and Bullwinkle, who prattled on about his marvelous adventurous, it can make a person a egotistical, elitist, and out of touch.  Look at me! I’ve been there! I’ve done that! I know all about that! I know the best place to stay! I know the best deals! Of course, I fall victim to this as well, since I often write about travel- pretending that I have some important knowledge or insight to pass on.  Well, I am doing that right now- passing on the insight that travel does not make you better! Image result for commander mcbragg


Travel can make you “worse” in other ways.  Travel can be tiring, stressful, socially exhausting, confusing, make people sick, costly, dangerous, frustrating, disappointing, etc.  The toll of the challenges of travel can bring out the worst characteristics in some travelers. I myself have become withdrawn, anxious, depressed, fatigued, frustrated, judgemental, etc. while traveling.  I can hardly say I am my best self when faced with challenges and new situations. I have certainly observed other travelers melt down or engage in maladaptive behaviors to combat or mute the stress of travel.  Excessive eating, drinking, and spending are some ways that others might cope with the hardships of travel. Drinking too much is especially common. While there might be some awesome, cool, well-adapted, roll-with-the punches travelers out there, there are probably many more than have yelled at hotel staff or looked at difference with disgust.


In a material sense, travel can make you worse.  When I spend money on travel, it means that I am not spending money on other things.  I am going to be far worse off in my retirement years because I spent money on travel rather than saving for old age.  I am not building my savings for a rainy day or unforeseen catastrophe. Travel is not the most prudent thing to spend money on.  However, I value the experiences so I continue to spend money on them.


Travel can make a person’s health worse.  I have been fortunate that I have never become majorly ill from travel, but travel does expose people to diseases that they might not otherwise encounter.  I have almost zero risk of contracting malaria or yellow fever if I just stay home…


 

Conclusion:

 

This may seem rather negative, but I really feel that travel does not make you “better” just as formal education does not make you “better”, having a professional career does not make you “better,” or any number of other things makes a person better.  I enjoy travel, but it does not make me better. In some ways, it makes me worse than others. I would love to travel more than I do. I encourage others to travel. I admire those who travel. However, I don’t know that it is the path to betterment or that such a pursuit is even a worthy goal.  What is betterment outside of comparison, hierarchy, or elitism? In what ways does “better” concede to an economy that makes money by making us believe that we need to be more than what we are? Of course, at some basic level I want to improve upon myself, grow, change, and experience new things.  But does accomplishing this make me better than others or better than my past self? At the core of these sorts of questions is the bigger question of what is meaningful in a world where everything dies or changes, where life is short and harsh for many, and never fully realized by the vast majority of us.  Through the prism of pain and dying, the “best” among us are those who work the hardest to make the suffering in the world less and work to build a world wherein more people can explore their full humanity. Travel can sometimes support this goal, but for me, it tends to be a diversion.

No automatic alt text available.

End the Lies: Activists Confront Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Duluth

End the Lies: Activists Confront Crisis Pregnancy Centers in Duluth

H. Bradford

3/24/18


On Thursday, March 22nd, activists gathered at the Women’s Care Center in Duluth, MN to draw attention to Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs).  The event was organized by the University of Minnesota-Duluth’s Student Advocates for Choice as part of NARAL’s national End the Lies campaign.  The student organized event in Duluth was also attended by members of several local feminist groups, including H.O.T.D.I.S.H. Militia, Feminist Action Collective, and Feminist Justice League.  On March 21st and 22nd, similar events were held across the country as part of an effort to expose CPCs. These fake clinics use tactics such as deceptive advertisements, websites, and misinformation to deny abortion and other reproductive health services.  The March 22nd protests coincide with NIFLA v. Becerra, a Supreme Court Case which is set to decide whether or not a California law which requires crisis pregnancy centers to post information about abortion and contraceptive services offered by the state and whether or not staff are licensed by the state is constitutional.  NIFLA or National Institute of Family Life Advocates has sued the state of California for their right to mislead women as a matter of free speech.


The Women’s Care Center in Duluth was chosen as the site of protest because it is located across the street from the Women’s Health Center, one of six abortion clinics in Minnesota (State Facts About Abortion: Minnesota, 2018).  In addition to performing abortions, the Women’s Health Center offers STI testing, cancer screening, a variety of contraceptives, annual gynecological exams, menopause care, and other reproductive health services. The Women’s Health Center has provided abortion and other reproductive health care since 1981 to Duluth, as well as large swaths of northern and central Minnesota and Wisconsin as the nearest abortion provider.  In contrast, the similarly named Women’s Care Center was launched in 2012 across the street from the Women’s Health Center (Rupar, 2012). While the Women’s Care Center offers free pregnancy tests, parenting classes, and baby items, it can only be described as an anti-abortion center due to its strategic location, similar name, vague website, and pro-life affiliation. Furthermore, the Women’s Care Center is the annual launching point of the 40 Days of Life Campaign, an annual 40 day anti-choice protest outside of the Women’s Health Center.  Although protesters are commonplace outside the Women’s Health Center on clinic days, the 40 Days of Life means that each fall there are larger numbers of protesters outside of the building and that they are there for longer hours.

Image may contain: one or more people and outdoor

Unfortunately, Duluth is hardly an exception when it comes to crisis pregnancy centers.  As of 2012, there were over 90 crisis pregnancy centers in the state of Minnesota. These fake clinics receive over $2.4 million of state money through the Positive Alternatives Act.  The Naral-Pro Choice Minnesota Foundation found that 73% of the CPCs that they investigated provided false medical claims about the association between abortion and breast cancer, 87% lied about the connection between abortion and severe mental health problems, and 67% provided misleading information about the connection between abortion and infertility.  None of the CPCs investigated referred women to birth control and 67% provided misleading information about the health risks of birth control (State-Funded Deception: Minnesota’s Crisis Pregnancy Centers, 2012). This is just a small sample of the ways in which CPCs use deception and lies to promote an anti-abortion agenda.

Image may contain: 4 people, including Betsy Hunt, people smiling, people standing, shoes and outdoor


Nationally, CPCs have operated since 1969, when Robert Pearson founded the first center in Hawaii.  Pearson created the template which has been used for decades by CPCs across the country. His manual explicitly called upon CPCs to falsely portray themselves as abortion providers to lure abortion seekers away from actual providers.  His manual instructed “councilors” to never counsel for contraceptives. In a 1994 speech, he said that a women seeking abortion has no right to information that will help her from killing her baby. Make no mistake, CPCs were founded on a concerted effort to deceive.  These fake clinics have flourished in recent decades as they have found support from Focus on the Family and Care Net. They have also obtained state funding through federal “abstinence only” programs, “choose life” license plates, and through tax credits and direct funding allocations (Stacey, n.d.). Image may contain: 3 people, including Jenny Hoffman, people smiling, outdoor


With 2,300 to 3,500 Crisis Pregnancy Centers across the country and fewer than 800 abortion clinics, it is vital for activists to fight the tide of shrinking abortion access.  To this end, feminists should demand an end to state funding to crisis pregnancy centers and work to educate the public about their deceptive tactics with the demand of increased state oversight.  Abortion itself should be destigmatized, state funded, and added to the canon of regular healthcare. It should be safe, legal, and accessible. At the same time, choice cannot exist so long as we live in a society defined by poverty, racism, sexism, ableism, heterosexism, transphobia, and the myriad of oppressions that divide and immersate us.  Choice cannot exist so long as women are paid unequal wages, bear the burden of unpaid labor, and endure the high cost of childcare. Child care should be provided free of charge at facilities that are open all hours and all days. Some Crisis Pregnancy Centers provide clothes and diapers for babies. Lying, anti-abortion organizations should not be left to fill the gaps of our deficient, war mongering state which gives tax breaks to the rich while denying a living wage to the poor.  Housing, healthcare, child care, parental leave, living wages must also be a part of the larger campaign to finally realize the true meaning of choice and thwart the anti-abortion forces once and for all.

Image may contain: Jenny Hoffman, Lyle Matthew Koesterman and Heather Bradford, people smiling

 

 

Sources:

 

Rupar, A. (2012, July 2). Duluth’s only abortion clinic braces for anti-abortion center to open across street. Retrieved March 24, 2018, from http://www.citypages.com/news/duluths-only-abortion-clinic-braces-for-anti-abortion-center-to-open-across-street-6546494

 

Dawn Stacey. (N.D.). The Pregnancy Center Movement: History of Crisis Pregnancy Centers. Crisis Pregnancy Center Watch.  Retrieved MArch 24, 2018 from http://www.motherjones.com/files/cpchistory2.pdf

 

State Facts About Abortion: Minnesota. (2018, January 05). Retrieved March 24, 2018, from https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/state-facts-about-abortion-minnesota
State-Funded Deception: Minnesota’s Crisis Pregnancy Centers (pp. 1-26, Rep.). (2012). St. Paul, MN: NARAL Pro-Choice Minnesota Foundation.

Another Birthday Month

Another Birthday Month

H. Bradford

2/28/18

Well, February is ending.  This means that my favorite month is almost over!  I feel a little sad, as usually I meet February with such enthusiasm.  I often have a long “to do” list of birthday activities.  This month, I have found myself feeling sluggish, with less zeal for living.  There were some days that I felt downright depressed.  However, I still did my best to make the most of the month and celebrate my birthday in smaller ways.   This is fine.  Sometimes a celebration can look more like hibernation and the best gift is solitude and sleep.  With that said, it was a pretty low key birthday month.  Here are some of the highlights….


 

Sax Zim Birding Days:

On February 3rd, I braved the slippery roads and headed to the Sax Zim Bog to do some birding.  I was even able to convince Adam to come along with me.  Although the day was probably a bit long for him, I had a fun time.  We drove around and visited several bird feeders.  I even saw two new species of birds: snow buntings and Bohemian Waxwings.  I almost missed the Bohemian Waxwings, but happened to turn my binoculars to a tree.  I assume at first that they were Cedar Waxwings.  The two birds look pretty similar.  However, I grabbed my bird guide and was pleasantly surprised to see that the birds had a rusty coloration under their tails.  This meant that they were Bohemian Waxwings.  There are only three species of waxwings in the world (the other is the Japanese Waxwing).  There is always something magical about identifying a new species of bird for the first time.  There are many birds that I will confuse or forget, but I think I will always remember the plump and rusty Bohemian Waxwing.   As for snowbuntings, I have seen these birds before- but not since I began birding a few years ago.  So, they were a target species this year.   I have driven around looking for them throughout the winter, but finally spotted a huge flock of them.  They were too quick and white to photograph (as they blended into the field pretty well).

Image may contain: bird and sky

The birds were pretty far away so the photo quality is not awesome.


On February 5th, I returned to the bog alone and added two more birds that day.  I was fortunate enough to find that a flock of Sharp-tailed grouse were active in the early morning.  Later in the day, I moved on to Virginia, where I found a lone Canvasback duck.  Both were new to the list.  I also believe that I saw a Boreal owl as I was driving through Cotton, but I did not have time to stop as I was on a main highway.  Thus, I was unable to add that bird to my list.

Image may contain: bird and outdoor


Since those dates, I have done some birding elsewhere, but have been unable to find any new species of birds.  I have been trying to spot a long tailed duck and a spruce grouse- haunting HWY 2 and Agate Bay in Two Harbors.  My field trips have yielded nothing, but with some days off in the near future- perhaps I will find them.  Of course, birding isn’t about adding new birds to a list.  This is “listing.”  There is joy in seeing familiar birds and becoming better at identifying what is already known.  But, as a person who likes lists and obtains a sense of accomplishment from setting goals- adding to the list motivates me to go out more often.   This weekend, I will make my final winter visit to the bog when I go snowshoeing there with my mother.  This is how we celebrated my birthday last year (even though this runs into March…escaping the neat borders of my birthday month).

 


Bird Feeders:

One of the outcomes of visiting the Sax Zim Bog on February 3rd with Adam was that we were both impressed with how people living in the bog area set up public bird feeders.  These individuals welcome people to view birds on their property.  Feeders such as Mary Lou’s and Loretta’s attract both birds, but also large groups of strangers.  It is inspiring to see people open up their yards to strangers.  They also invest a lot of their time and money into maintaining these feeders which benefit both birds and people.  I wish that more communities broke down the barriers between private and common spaces.   This is something that the Solidarity House tries to do by offering a free garden, free books, as well as a variety of free goods on our porch.   After we returned from the bog, we decided to set up more bird feeders in our front yard.  I purchased two feeders and Adam purchased one.  I also bought some more suet.

Our efforts have regularly attracted birds to the yard.  Although we do not have a huge diversity of species in our small yard, we regularly have several cardinals visit the feeders.  I have also seen black capped chickadees, a white throated sparrow, white breasted nuthatches, a downy woodpecker, and dark eyed juncos in the yard.  I enjoy looking out the window and watching these birds.   While this isn’t an elaborate way to spend my birthday month, I will say that I have enjoyed my quiet moments at the window.   Holly, my roommate Elizabeth’s cat, also enjoys these moments.

Image may contain: bird


 

Owl Tattoo:

Another bird related highlight of the month was getting a new tattoo.  I reached my 300th bird in February, so I decided to get a new tattoo.  I determined that the new tattoo would be a snowy owl, as this was the first bird that I saw in 2018 and the last one I saw in 2017.  It has been an irruption year for snowy owls, so there have been more than usual in my area.  I had not seen one before this year, so seeing them several times this winter has been special.  I felt that the snowy owl was a good choice since it represents this year (due to more being around) and winter in general.  I also thought that the white contrasted well with the black of my raven tattoo.  Although the birds have different shapes, I wanted two birds that at least had a sort of imperfect symmetry with one another.

Image may contain: one or more people and closeup


Painting:

Another activity that I have engaged in this month is painting.  I have no training in painting or in art in general, but I have always liked creating art from time to time.  This month, I wanted to create a piece of art for an upcoming feminist art show called WTF!   So, I created a painting about how capitalism depends upon the bodies of women to function.  It is a little graphic, but it is meant to convey the idea that the reproductive power of women is used to create the next generation of workers.  Of course, the unpaid care work done by women also ensures the continuation of the working class.  The art show will begin on March 8th and it is my first time participating in a public art show!   The same day that I painted that piece, I also painted the windows of the Solidarity House to look like a forest.  I had promised Adam that I would do this a long time ago, but forgot all about it until recently.  We had several ovenbirds crash against the window and die last fall.  By painting the windows with a scene, we thought we might break up the empty space and prevent bird fatalities next year.   Additionally, I am trying to create a second painting for another feminist art show at UW-Superior.  The piece will also have a labor and feminism theme.  Finally, Jenny wants me to create a painting for an auction that Critter Harbor is hosting.  Critter Harbor is an organization that traps and neuters feral cats.  These cats are returned to the outdoors, but are provided with food and water.  Some may be rehabilitated and adopted.  I think this is all exciting, since it pushes me out of my comfort zone.  I know I am not a great artist.  I know I have a lot of room to improve.  However, I think that I should not be limited by self-doubt or imperfection.  If I want to paint, I should paint- skill or no skill.

No automatic alt text available.


 

Trivia:

Every other Thursday for the past year, I have done trivia at Pizza Luce with a group of friends.  We usually do okay, but not often well enough to place.  On February 15th, we gathered for trivia again.  I wasn’t going to attend since I was dead tired from working for nine days in a row and nearly 95 hours.   It had been a hard day, I was extremely sleep deprived (I had slept about 3 hrs between a 10 hr shift and a shorter 4.5 hr shift and about 3 hrs before the 10 hr shift the day prior).  Somehow I pulled myself together enough to show up for trivia with my friends.  Well, we actually won first place at trivia- out of 24 teams.  I am glad to be friends with a bunch of smarty pants!

Image may contain: 6 people, including Heather Bradford and Chris A Mrozinski, people smiling, people sitting and indoor


Sleeping:

I am going to be honest and say that I have had a very strong drive to sleep this month- though this drive has not always resulted in actual sleep.   The drive to sleep has increased since the middle of the month.  On my actual birthday, I skipped an activist meeting so that I could get a little extra sleep before my 10 hour shift.  I don’t think I actually got any extra sleep, but it was nice to just stay in bed.  This week, there have been days were I have done little more than sleep, eat, and work.   Like usual, I am working an 8 day stretch of 10 hour shifts, followed by a bonus 9th day with a shorter shift.  I have typically had a high tolerance for work and moderate lack of sleep, but lately- not so much.   I slept 14 hours on one of my days off last week.   I have been taking power naps during my 30 min work break.   But, winter has been long.  February has been cold and we had three snowstorms in the past week alone.   Since I do have some very busy days, I think I am okay with allowing myself to indulge in sleep.


 

Activism:

Like every month, there is always a schedule of activist events.  This month, I have stepped back a little.  Nevertheless, some activist highlights of the month include a union steward training and getting elected to the E-board of my union local.  Another highlight was a small, but meaningful discussion on feminism and non-binary gender.  On February 10th, I participated in a Valentine’s Themed Letters to Prisoners event.  It was a fun event where several local activists sent Valentine Cards to prisoners.  Socialist Action organized a modest rally for Immigrant Rights.  This was followed by our monthly Socialism and Slice discussion group.  The discussion group has grown so large that we will have to seek out another venue.  I am also excited to help out with HOTDISH Militia’s Bowl-a-thon.   Yeah, I will say that this month I was much less engaged in political activism.  Usually, I have far more meetings and events to attend.  But, one my New Year’s Resolutions was to step back a little.

Image may contain: one or more people and people sitting


Overeating:

I ate too much this month.  The downside of my birthday month is that I justify going out to eat with the line….Well, it’s my birthday month!  I ate a lot of Mexican food.  I treated myself to sushi and green tea tempura ice cream.  I had Indian food.  I really don’t want to think about how much I treated myself in the form of food.  It is little wonder that I have ended the month a little chubbier.  Now, as a feminist I should be fat positive.  I should allow myself to take up space, fully enjoy life, and not sweat my size.  That isn’t the case.  While I don’t obsess about it and have come to terms with the fact that I won’t be a thin as I was in my 20s, I am not a huge fan of the scale going in an upward direction.  On the other hand, I sure did enjoy all that Mexican food.   I guess March can be a month of moderation…


 

Zumba and a Sauna:

I wasn’t as physically active as I would have liked to have been this past month.  But, I at least took time to attend a zumba class and take a sauna.  Zumba is really a fun way to engage in fitness.  As for taking a sauna, I think it feels so primal and rejuvenating.


Hiking:

One of my New Year’s Resolutions is to make sure that I hike, bike, run, kayak, etc. 365 miles this year.  I don’t think it will be that hard of a task, but it is not something I have ever actively tracked before.  Right now, I am behind on my miles.  But, February was both cold and snowy.  I ended up with fewer miles in February than in frigid January.  As of today, I have hiked about 47 miles in February and January combined.  Usually, these are pretty mild three mile jaunts.  Because I was falling behind this month, I was going to try to do five miles- in a snow storm last week.  This did not pan out.  It was cold.  Snow whipped my face.  The wind was wicked.  I made it about two miles total.   This snow storm was followed by two other snowstorms later in the week.  While I should have 59 miles by the end of the month to keep on track, I will likely end the month 10 miles behind.

Image may contain: snow, sky, outdoor and nature


 

Birthday Party:

I had a low key birthday party on February 17th.  Years ago, in my late 20s, I would host giant, extravagant birthday parties with pinatas and trivia.   For the most part, I have smaller, less involved parties in recent years- if anything at all.  I already do a lot of planning and preparation for Marxmas, so I have lost the energy to host two large parties so close to one another.   But, honestly it was nice to hang out with a few people without a whole lot to do.  Jenny hosted an Arbonne Party for her birthday in January.  I actually did the same this year- since I wanted the free protein powder (which costs $60 a bag in their catalog).  Yep, so I had a product presentation themed party.  This was an unusual choice, but it wasn’t bad.  We had some snacks, soaked are feet, and listened to a presentation about products that I don’t NEED but somehow felt compelled to buy because well…it’s my birthday.   I think that “it’s my birthday” can be a bit of a dangerous mantra- since it has encouraged me to be excessive all month….

Image may contain: people sitting, table, food and indoor


Airfare:

I worked on my actual birthday, but one thing that I did on my birthday for myself (aside from sleeping) was book my flight to Romania.   I will be visiting Romania in late August, spending some time in Romania, Moldova, Macedonia (with a day trip to Kosovo), and then ending in Iceland before heading home.  I am trying to hit a few European countries that I have not yet visited- but I think that all of them will be interesting.  I will be gone for about three weeks.  I am excited for an adventure in the lands of Ceausescu, Vlad the Impaler, break away semi-autonomous states, the social construction of Alexander the Great, and geothermal wonders.


 

Black Panther:

Another highlight of the month was seeing Black Panther with Dan.  I love Marvel movies, even if they are predictable and cautious.  Black Panther was unique in that it was set in Africa with few white characters.  It had great costumes, engaging characters, and a story line that wrestled with racism and colonization.  Now, I would like to write a longer review.  I will say that I wasn’t satisfied with the political conclusion that the best bet is to work within system to uplift the oppressed through charitable institutions.  I felt that the character Killmonger had some great lines and was far more politically relateable than a princely and privileged isolationist (or was until the conclusion of the film).  Killmonger wanted to arm the oppressed- even though his vision of revolution also involved an expansion of Wakanda as an empire.  That is the annoying thing about Magneto/Killmonger type characters is that revolutionary philosophies of liberation are often coupled with authoritarianism/supremacy in comic book movies.  There are many visions of how to overthrow systems of oppression and radically alter society- yet so few are represented.  It creates a villainous strawman out of radical politics.  Oh, and another very annoying aspect of the movie was the fact that the CIA character was a good guy!  Come on!   The Wakandan characters are very aware of colonization and slavery, but somehow the United States- and the the CIA no less, ends up playing a heroic role.  Never mind the assassination of Patrice Lamumba, support of the coup against Kwame Nkrumah, support of Mbutu Sese Seko, assisting in the arrest of Nelson Mandela, fighting MPLA in Angola, supporting the overthrow of Gadaffi in Libya, etc.  But this was a Marvel movie and these tend to fetishize secretive organizations (i.e S.H.I.E.L.D) and align the good guys with America.  Still, I did enjoy the movie and I don’t want to take away the joy that Africans and African Americans have experienced by seeing positive representations of Africa and Black people.  Also, I did enjoy the movie and feel it is one of the better films in the Marvel universe.


Conclusion:

Well, there you go, that was my birthday month.  There were some positive things, such as fun times with loved ones, birding, painting, visions of travel, time spent outdoors, trivia, and activism.  There were some not as positive aspects of the month, such as over-eating and sleeping too much/too little.  Looking back, I think I made the most of my month without exhausting myself trying to zealously seize each day.  Yes, there is a limited amount of time in a lifespan.  Birthdays are a good reminder of that.  But, I guess if from time to time, I want to just spend a whole day in bed or eat Mexican food three days in a row- that’s okay too.   It would be cool if I ran 4 miles on my birthday or did one celebratory thing each day of the month- but that would be exhausting.  Despite some lows, I think the month had a good balance of fun, friends, work, and hiding from the world.

Pandemonium Year in Review

Pandemonium Year in Review

H. Bradford

1/25/18

Pandemonium was founded in October, 2016 as a group that discusses issues related to members of the Bi+ community.  The group also tries to build a sense of identity and community among the members.   Once a month since its founding, Pandemonium has met for “Bi with Pie.”  Bi with Pie is a monthly discussion group which tackles issues related to bi+ identities as well as other LGBTQ topics.  This is an overview of some of the discussions the group has hosted over the last year as well as some suggested goals for 2018.


 

 

January Discussion: Bisexuality and homophobia

In January, we discussed some of the ways in which bisexuals can avoid homophobia and transphobia, but also the realities of biphobia and bi-erasure.   For instance, bisexuals should not assert that everyone is actual bi or bi is the natural state of human sexuality, since this negates and erases the experiences of other sexual identities.

February Discussion:  Bi Identities-

This discussion provided a brief overview of some of the different identities which fall within the bi+ community.   Because we have some new members since this initial discussion, it might be useful to have this discussion again. Image result for bi  umbrella

March Discussion:  Trans in Prison/Letters to Prisoners

In March, Lucas lead a discussion about the oppression of trans individuals in the prison system.  Problems faced by trans prisoners include misgendering, dead naming, placement with male prisoners if female or female prisoners if male, lack of access to hormones, lack of access or expensive access to hygiene or beauty products, etc.  This discussion was followed by an opportunity to write letters to LGBTQ prisoners. Image may contain: one or more people, phone and ring


April Discussion:  Bi Poetry

At the April meeting, Lucas shared some of his own poetry as well as the poetry of several famous bisexual poets.  The poems were discussed for themes related to bisexuality.


 

May Discussion:  Frida Kahlo and Bisexuality

In May, I did a presentation on Frida Kahlo’s bisexuality, as well as her political beliefs.  I discussed the theme of bi-erasure in some media depictions of her. Image may contain: 1 person, text


July Discussion:  Intersectionality and LGBT Organizing

There was no Bi with Pie meeting during the month of June.  However, we met again in July and had a discussion on the topic of intersectionality.   The discussion introduced the topic of intersectionality the way in which LGBT activists have both succeeded and failed to be intersectional.


 

August: Planning Meeting

In August, we met to plan Bi Visibility Day in September.


September:  Poster Making Event:

We did not have a discussion topic in September.  Instead, we gathered together to make posters for Bi Visibility Day.

No automatic alt text available.

Pride:

We had a very small and unprofessional table at Pride.  While our table had a very “do-it-yourself” look, we promoted Bi with Pie, Bi Visibility Day, and sent letters to LGBT prisoners as a solidarity greeting from Pride.   At least two dozen people signed the cards to these prisoners.


 

Bi Visibility Day:

Pandemonium sponsored a very modest Bi Visibility Day picket.  The goal of the event was to draw attention to the existence of bisexuals or the bi+ community  i.e. increase our visibility.  This was the first time we have organized an event like this and it should definitely be on our agenda for 2018.  Bi-visibility day is September 23 rd. Image may contain: 1 person, standing and outdoor Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling, people standing and outdoor Image may contain: outdoor


October: Domestic Violence and the LGBTQ Community

Jenny led a great discussion on how intimate partner violence/domestic violence impacts the LGBTQ community.  She showed us an LGBTQ power and control wheel and discussed gaps in services and research.   Since October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month it was a timely talk.


 

December: Bisexuality and Vampires

Our final discussion of 2017  was on the topic of vampires and bisexuality.  The discussion was lively and I only made it through half of the research that I had prepared.  We discussed various representations of bisexuality in vampire media.


Moving Forward-2018 Goals:

Looking back at 2017, I think that Pandemonium hosted some really great discussions on a wide variety of topics.  I also think it was great that we attended Pride and organized a Bi Visibility Day Event.  We attracted some new members, such as G, C, and D, though the group remains fairly small.  Our best attended discussions were the topics of Frida, vampires, and bisexual poetry.   I am sure the group could be larger and more active, but I will admit that as an organizer, I put this group on the back burner.  I do not invest as much of my energy into this group as I do other activist projects that I am involved in.   I  am comfortable with the amount of time I devote to it, as I think it is okay to have a small and low key group.   To avoid burning out, I would like to scale the meetings back a bit, or perhaps mix up discussion based meetings with social activities as we enter the new year.   Also, because I often go to Pizza Luce for other events, I would like to explore alternative meeting venues and meeting ideas.  Here are some suggestions for 2018.


-Have less frequent meetings- perhaps bi-monthly. -Continue to have meetings with an educational discussion focus combined with some social events -Rethink Bi with Pie.  Could we do Bi with Bites- and meet elsewhere for appetizers?  Or Bi with Baklava and meet at Coney Island for Baklava.  Maybe Bi and Beaners?  I would like to move away from buying a pizza for the group for my own budgeting… -Try to promote Prism’s Events and better collaborate with Prism -Do a meet and greet with CSS Queer-Straight Alliance to promote our group. -Try to do something for Pansexual Awareness Day on December 8th! -Consider if we wish to do any LGBT prisoner work this year.  If we do, we must re-visit if Lucas is welcome to participate in the group since he is the main contact and organizer with local criminal justice work.  He has not participated in the group due to concerns about his criminal history -Consider other avenues of bi+ activism -Promote the BECAUSE conference in October -February- no regular meeting, but encourage members to attend feminism beyond the binary -March: Host a discussion on bisexuality and women’s history/feminism for March/Women’s History Month OR revisit last year’s presentation on various bi-sexual identities. -April: Host a discussion or panel on bisexuality and autism for our April meeting- Autism Awareness Day -May:  Topic TBA -June:   Perhaps a fun social event- like a bi bonfire on Wisconsin Point? -July:  Host a birthday party or birthday celebration for Frida Kahlo.  We can revisit the presentation I did last year on Frida’s sexuality or invite someone else to present. -August: Topic TBA -September:  Organize Bisexual Awareness Day/ Consider a Pride Table (though I will be out of town)


-October:  Host a panel or discussion on domestic violence and the LGBTQ community again.   Perhaps work with Prism to co-sponsor this event.  We could reach out to the Education Coordinator at Safe Haven to see if she would be willing to present this or facilitate the discussion.   This is a great way to plug into Domestic Violence Awareness Month.


-November:  Topic TBD


-December:  Consider not having a meeting due to the busy holiday season.

Pansexual Awareness Day- December 8th


 

A Conversation with a Pro-Lifer

A Conversation with a Pro-Lifer

H. Bradford

1/23/18

Today I attended Party in the Plaza, a celebration of choice.  This event is also a counter protest of the Jericho March, an annual anti-choice march held on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade.  It was a cold, windy January day outside of the Building for Women.  It was also Monday at noon, which diminished our numbers.  About an hour into the pro-choice protest, an anti-choice fellow who I will call Jim- approached me for a debate.  I don’t often debate the other side.  It is absolutely of no value, since we are so opposite in world views.  But, Jim was kind of annoying.  He had already harassed three people in the group.  He basically told “S” that she was going to go to hell.  Even as she danced and tried to ignore him, he shamed her for having fun and making light of the serious nature of abortion.  He also engaged in conversation with two people who very clearly said they did not wish to debate and did not consent to debating.  He actually ignored the word “consent”!  I was quietly appalled that he talked over them, ignored their wishes, and coaxed them into talking- even when they made it very clear they had no interest or desire to engage.  The blatant male entitlement was astonishing.   Eventually, he moved over to me.  I engaged, but I thought it might be a way to sharpen my debate skills and uncover some of my rhetorical weaknesses.  Here is a summary of how it went:

Image may contain: 2 people, people smiling, people walking and outdoor


Jim:  I just want to ask you why you are here.  When you see this innocent life, aren’t you bothered? (Jim is holding a sign of a mangled fetus that looks to be late term- perhaps eight or nine months). H.  Innocence is a social construct.  I am here because I support adult women.  I am here because I care about the life that already exists in society.  The poor, people of color, women, those who are bred to die in our imperialist wars, the mass incarcerated…


Jim: Good, I also care about those things.  But what about the unborn?  The little ones who no one speaks for?

H. You are here for them.

Jim:  You know, a fetus has a heartbeat at six weeks. (Not sure if this is the number of weeks he stated).

H.  Cows and frogs have heartbeats. Does a heartbeat offer special rights?

J. Those are animals.

H. Humans are animals.

J. Humans are mammals but they are not animals.

H. ?

J. Humans are different because they are made in God’s image.

H. I don’t believe in God.  Do you have an argument which does not invoke God?

J. Even if you don’t believe in God, God believes in you.  God puts morality in our hearts, which is how we know right and wrong.  (Provides examples of morality which I am not sure are culturally universal, but I don’t argue.)


H. The ability to say abortion is wrong requires specific knowledge of how reproduction works.  In Biblical times, people were pretty clueless of how reproduction works, which has continued until modern times.  Until the 1800s, people still believed that women contributed nothing to the pregnancy and that all genetic material came from men.  Fallopian tubes were not discovered until the 1600s.  Ova not until the microscope.  (S. chimes in that scientists believed in homuculus- or tiny humans in semen.)  This is why the Catholic church believed in delayed ensoulment in the 1600s and really didn’t come out against abortion until the 1800s (when the science of reproduction was understood).  <Side note, I don’t like to use religious arguments because you can’t out-Christian a Christian…but, whatever>.


J. No, God knew how reproduction worked and even if the specifics were not known to man, God knew that it was immoral.  (Uses the story of Onan masturbating as an example).


H. I don’t think that is a good example of God knowing how reproduction works.


J.  Have you heard of the Holocaust (I nod my head)?  Abortion is like the holocaust since it specifically targets a group of people, marking them for death.  I am sure that you have heard of the Nazis and what they did to the Jews.


H. Yes, the Holocaust was terrible, which is why we must fight fascism.  We must be vigilant against far right movements and aware that they often align themselves with religious institutions. (He was trying to compare abortion to genocide and ageism, which I didn’t specifically address).


J. There have been six million innocent lives lost to abortion.

H. To tell you the truth, I don’t care if it is a billion.  I believe that abortion is a fundamental right of women and essential for their full participation in society.  I don’t believe that anyone should be forced to be pregnant.  I personally never want to be pregnant and can’t imagine gestating a child just to appeal to someone’s morality based upon a several thousand year old religion.


J. You are passionate about the rights of women, but what about unborn women? H. A fetus is dependent upon women for life.  The rights of women supersede any rights of the unborn.


J. What about the sanctity of life?

H. Many things are alive, but do not have rights.  We do not offer rights to the grass.  I mean, I would like it if people had gardens instead of lawns, but I am not going to legislate that people can’t mow (I was purposefully being a bit sacrilegious comparing fetuses to grass).


J. Let me ask you this.  Have you ever held a baby?  Do you have any nephews or nieces?

H. Yes, I have held a baby.

J. And how did you feel looking into that baby’s cute little face?

H. I felt that babies cry and poop a lot.  Babies have a lot of needs.  (While many pro-choice people love babies and have children, I am really unmoved by babies).

J. Didn’t you feel that they were so innocent and pure?

H. No, not really.

J. How about murder, are you against murder?


H. (I pause to think and garble something about self defense, but really don’t want to share my philosophy on the morality or immorality of violence in the context of capitalism).

J. If someone murdered your friends, you  would be upset- right?

 

H. Yes, I would be upset.


J. What about abortion, which is murder?

H. I really believe that abortion is fundamental to the rights of women and our ability to be full and equal members of society.  I believe that our equality and participation in society trumps the interests of fetuses.  I don’t want to be a parent or forced to be pregnant.


J. You shouldn’t be a parent. S. chimed in that it wasn’t a nice thing to say.

H. No, I really shouldn’t.  No one should have a child if they don’t want to have one.

J. I agree.


H. At the end of the day, there is nothing you will say that will change my mind.  And, there is nothing I will say that will change yours.  We have very different world views.  There are other people on my side (pro-choice), some of them are religious.  But, I am an atheist.  I think it is better to focus on common issues.  For instance, there have been pro-life people in the anti-war movement.  There are pro-life people who work against the death penalty.  I have worked perfectly well with them on these other issues. (I also wanted to add that I am a Marxist, but didn’t want to open that can of worms).


J. No one is actually an atheist, since this requires faith.


H. (This is actually true and leads to a complicated argument).  Yes, that is actually correct.  The existence of God can not be absolutely discounted.  In the same way, we can never prove that there are no purple pandas on the sun.  However, the likelihood of purple pandas on the sun is so low that for all practical purposes I am a purple panda atheist.


J. You are actually agnostic.

H. When I say that I am an atheist, it means that I don’t believe there is evidence that would lead me to believe in God as defined by human societies.  (What is God?  How would a God be operationalized? How would a God be measured? But anyway…thanks for telling me what I am…)


J. Where does life come from?  Life is so complex that evolutionary science can’t explain…

H.  Evolutionary scientists don’t try to answer where life began.  Their main concern is how life changes over time.  There may never be complete answers to how life began or the complexities of the universe, but that doesn’t mean that God exists.  (As a trend, throughout history when something is unknown God is used to fill in the blank.  What causes rainbows?  God.  What causes the sun to rise?  God.  What causes the rain? God.  but with scientific knowledge, the pool of unknowns begins to shrink and God fills in the blank less.  So now, we are left with fewer questions such as- where did life come from?)


J. No, you are wrong!  Evolutionary scientists care where life began and had a conference wherein several top scientists concluded that God must exist.  (There were some specifics about this conference, but I don’t remember these details.  I felt that this was mansplaining, since evolutionary scientists don’t specifically study the origin of life.  Some geologists, paleontologists, chemists, astronomers, etc. may work on this question, but it is not specifically a question of evolutionary biology). The truth is that God made all of us and you are part of his perfect creation.


H. I do know that there have been five extinction events and that over 95% of the life on earth that ever lived has gone extinct.  (Correction, 99.9% of all life has gone extinct).  I think humans are here for a short time and we should just do our best to live well and treat each other well, since one day we will be like the trilobites.

J.  I don’t know what made you this way, but I was once a rebel too.  I am going to pray for you tonight.


Conclusion:

I don’t think I was on my A-game with the argument.  In the end, I was tired.  Debating is tiring!  I don’t like to debate, since I don’t want the other side to feel that I am the voice of the pro-choice movement.  The pro-choice movement is diverse.  Many of those involved are religious.  Many are mothers who love babies and children.  I feel that I don’t represent the movement well since I am a stubborn atheist with unconventional morality.  I do feel somewhat insulted when religious people ask me what made me this way?  I was never angry at God.  I never rebelled against God.  My faith simply changed.  It passed briefly into a deep spirituality of scientific pantheism until it naturally became atheism.  Spirituality was the training wheels to my atheism.  Becoming a Marxist also aided that process.  While I am not angry that God, I am angry with the pro-life movement.  I am angry that they shame people who seek abortions.  I am angry that they seek to control sexuality.  I am mad that they seem to care more about “innocent” babies than grown women or that they pit “innocence” against the sin and guilt of women whom they fault for their poor choices.  I am unapologetically pro-choice.  In fact, I am pro-abortion because I feel that it is health care.  I don’t place moral value on a dental visit or cancer treatment.  Abortion is one facet of reproductive health.  There is too much shame, silence, and stigma for me to back down from that position.  This is a fight that I will continue in the years to come.  I hope one day we advance as a society so that abortion is not looked at as a moral issue.  I hope one day it is not a controversy, but a widely available service that long ago was accepted as vital to gender autonomy and equality.

Image may contain: 1 person, smiling, outdoor

Photo from last year’s event

Post Navigation