Texas--Home of the Oppressors Part 2: Women

Alright folks, so here I am again for round two out of six on my dissection and analysis of the new Texas GOP Platform. This blog post is going to highlight how this platform affects women, which for the most part this platform stomps on women's rights.

"Affirmative Action – Inasmuch as the Civil Rights Movement argued against using race as a factor in American life, affirmative action reintroduces race as a powerful force in American life. The Republican Party of Texas believes in equal opportunity for all American citizens without regard to race or gender. To that end, we oppose affirmative action because:

1. We believe it is simply racism disguised as a social value.

2. We believe that policies that lower standards on the basis of race or gender create a disincentive to excellence and thereby encourage mediocrity.

3. We believe that rights belong to people – not groups; therefore, we reject the notion of group-rights and policies that grant preferences based on race or gender. Policies of this type apply a blanket remedy before specific acts of discrimination are proven; thus, such policies compound one injustice with another.

4. Affirmative action falsely casts those who advocate merit as racist.

5. Affirmative action casts doubt on minority achievement making such achievement as seemingly unearned. We believe that true minority advancement will come from a demand for personal responsibility, accountability and competitive excellence. "

There has been a lot of debate on whether or not affirmative action is something that

should really still be instated. I personally feel as though without affirmative action,

women and racial minorities will miss out on valuable opportunities based solely on

their sex or race. Sexism and racism are still alive and well in this country, and

destroying a bill that protects rights is a terrible idea. You can tell this was written by

someone with white male privilege because he doesn't experience the discrimination

people of color and women face on a daily basis.

Since there are five parts, I'm going to comment on each part individually:

1. "...Racism disguised as social value." Who is this being racist towards? The

white man? Well excuse me if not everyone was born with the luxury of white skin

and a penis. If you're really worried about racism, you shouldn't be trying to repeal

the Hate Crimes Law, but if you didn't that would inconvenience your need to

exercise your white male power over your social inferiors without consequence.

What the GOP is really saying is they don't like women and people of color to have

seemingly the same amount of power in the application process as them.

2. Basically what the Texas GOP is assuming is that in order to have compliance

with affirmative action they have to lower standards for women and racial minorities.

Let's think about that for a second. Firstly they are saying that women AND people

of color are less intelligent and qualified as white males. Secondly, they don't take

into account the backgrounds of these persons who are protected by affirmative

action. Those who go to public, inner-city schools (generally racial minorities) are

more likely to have worse supplies, higher class sizes, and lack of adequate

extra-curricular activities. Who's fault is that? Maybe it would be the lack of funding

for inner-city schools? This issue is close to my heart as I taught ESL in inner-city

Detroit for a year. States don't fund inner-city schools (especially with high minority

populations) to the level they need to accomodate the amount of students they

serve. Therefor, it's reasonable to assume these students would potentially be as

qualified, maybe even more qualified than white male students if they had been

given the same opportunities by the government.

3. Basically they're saying that they think groups that represent women and racial

minorities are just assuming injustice,not actually experiencing it in order to gain

power. Man, those women and racial minorities, what a bunch of fibbers. They

can't POSSIBLY experience any discrimination that has been present in this country

since day one. Let them each fight their own battles so they can't gain any power

as a group. They want to squash each person individually. Not. Okay.

4. Maybe that's because those who are judging merit aren't looking at the whole

picture.

5. I think they're the ones casting doubt. If they weren't doubting minority

achievement they wouldn't need to repeal affirmative action, because it wouldn't

make any difference right? Basically they're saying they want minorities to prove

their worth and excellence. Excuse me, but I think they do that everyday they

survive in a racist, sexist society.

"Right To Life – All innocent human life must be respected and safeguarded from fertilization to natural death; therefore, the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We affirm our support for a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution and to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection applies to unborn children. We support the Life at Conception Act. We oppose the use of public revenues and/or facilities for abortion or abortion–related services. We support the elimination of public funding for organizations that advocate or support abortion. We are resolute regarding the reversal of Roe v. Wade. We affirm our support for the appointment and election of judges at all levels of the judiciary who respect traditional family values and the sanctity of innocent human life. We insist that the U.S. Department of Justice needs to prosecute hospitals or abortion clinics for committing induced labor (live birth) abortion. We are opposed to genocide, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. We oppose legislation allowing the withholding of nutrition and hydration to the terminally ill or handicapped. Until our final goal of total Constitutional rights for the unborn child is achieved, we beseech the Texas Legislature in consideration of our state’s rights, to enact laws that restrict and regulate abortion including:

1. parental and informed consent;

2. prohibition of abortion for gender selection;

3. prohibition of abortion due to the results of genetic diagnosis

4. licensing, liability, and malpractice insurance for abortionists and abortion facilities;

5. prohibition of financial kickbacks for abortion referrals;

6. prohibition of partial birth and late term abortions; and

7. enactment of any other laws which will advance the right to life for unborn children."

There are so many things wrong with this section. First, they want to give unborn babies rights, rights that they don't even give queer persons. I think before we decide to start giving fetus's rights, we best take care of the people walking the earth already. What is really dangerous about this, is that there's a good chance they'll follow suit with Wyoming and basically charge women with homicide if they have a miscarriage or abortion. This is particularly awful, because that leaves no room for a woman to explain the natural function of her body... i.e. miscarriages... they happen.

In addition, they want to incriminate hospitals who perform abortions. If we start taking down our hospitals, people will be at a loss when they need medical attention. Furthermore they're advocating for pulling funding to any organization that provides information about abortions.. i.e. free women's clinics and Planned Parenthood. If you pull funding because of one service they provide, lower class women and teenagers will be subject to further disease, health problems, and lack of reproductive rights such as birth control.

Now, I do approve of some of their stances of abortions that shouldn't be allowed, such as gender selection. That aside, not providing insurance to places that perform abortions are ridiculous. These are certified health professionals who deserve the right to protect themselves and the work they do.

"Choose Life - We ask the Legislature to provide Texans opportunity to purchase "Choose Life" license plates."

Not only do they want to take away women's productive freedoms, they want to provide advertisement for the cause. So not only are they trying to dismantle rights via the legal process, they also want to profit from selling anti-women governmental identification. Cool Texas, Real Cool.

"Morning After Pill – We oppose sale and use of the dangerous “Morning After Pill.” "

I agree, the Morning After Pill should not be used in as much frequency as it is, especially by college age women. However, I full-heartedly support their opportunity to have the pill available to them. Rape and sexual assault happen all to frequently for this pill not to exist. Now don't get me wrong, I definitely believe in those circumstances they should go to the hospital and seek help from the authorities, but for many women, that's strictly not an option for a variety of reasons. That being said, this pill needs to be on the market.

"Abortion Clinics – We propose legislation that holds abortion clinics to the same health regulations as other medical facilities and that subjects clinics to the same malpractice liabilities. We oppose any public funding for Planned Parenthood or other organizations/facilities that provide, advocate or promote abortions. "

This goes hand in hand with the statement two sections up. What I find ironic is that they want abortion clinics to be held liable, opening them up for malpractice suits. While I agree this definitely should be the case, if someone botches your abortion and you deserve the right to fight for yourself and if this is a reoccurring event the doctor should be fired. However if you're going to open them up to malpractice suits you HAVE to allow them to have malpractice insurance. If you want to hold them to the same health regulations as medical facilities you have to equip them with the same protection.

"Abortion Requirements for Hospitals – We propose legislation that entitles hospitals to refuse to perform abortions because government has no moral authority to require such an abortion. "

While I agree no one should have to perform an abortion if they are not comfortable with it, this law is ridiculous. If you work in a field to where you're put into the position to provide abortions, you should be prepared for it. I resent the idea of having anti-feminist gynecologists. In addition, if someone isn't comfortable performing the abortion, it is their responsibility to find someone who is. Everyone deserves a high commitment to patient care.

"Unborn Victims of Violence – We believe a person who injures or kills an unborn child should be subject to criminal and civil litigation, whether the child dies in the womb or is born alive."

Let's take a second to think about the implications of this. Like I said earlier,

they are opening the door for women to be criminally charged for natural

miscarriages or still births. I want to know how they intend on proving whether

it was outside sources that killed the fetus or if it was the woman herself. Either

way it's putting unwarranted blame on the woman if her body rejects the fetus.

In addition, women and families who for whatever reason (and there are many out

there) that they cannot have the child need to have abortion made available to them.

It's called being responsible. Think about it.

As a side note, I also resent the idea that having an abortion isn't taking responsibility

for your actions. When all reality it IS taking responsibility. It's not like an abortion

is a good time and doesn't leave a person with both physical and emotional pain.

Think about a low-income family who already is struggling to feed their three children.

If she gets pregnant again, she won't be able to properly provide for the child. Sure,

adoption is always an option, but pre-natal medical bills and care are expensive. Not

everyone is fortunate enough to have someone agree to pay all their bills

and adopt their baby.

I also get mega peeved when these campaigns are being led by these upper class

white men. When they get pregnant, then they can start talking about what we should

or shouldn't be doing with our wombs. Until then, they should just bugger off and find

something better to do than to oppress women.

An amazing woman once told me "She who controls uteruses controls women." And

it's very true. When someone starts telling women what they are allowed to do with

their bodies they are taking away their freedom, controlling them like a cowboy

controls cattle.

All statements found from this platform are in full context and can be found here.

Peace, Love, and the Right to the Womb,

Rae