Last week, Governor Pat McCrory (R-North Carolina) signed a draconian anti-abortion bill effectively closing most of the state's women's health clinics. Although abortions were targeted in the bill, because of the manner in which the measure was crafted, many North Carolina women will be denied basic health-sustaining services well beyond the realm of abortion. (Incidentally, during his campaign, he specifically promised that he would not sign off on any such legislation).
In the wake of his action, a concerned group of women conducted a 12-hour vigil outside the Governor's Mansion in Raleigh. The Good Governor responded with what he evidently perceived as a good-will offering: a plate of chocolate-chip cookies which he personally presented to one of the demonstrators. Without missing a beat, the group returned the untouched cookies with a note on the plate reading, "We want women's health care, not cookies."
Was there some sort of subliminal message intended, such as an implication that women should be home baking cookies? And having babies? Or was it simply an attempt by the guv to make himself feel good? Several years ago, I recall watching a profile of Ronald Reagan; if my memory serves me, it was a public television documentary.
Throughout his presidency, Mr. Reagan was condemned for promoting mean-spirited economic policies; in effect punishing the poor for having the temerity to be poor. His reaction? He gave an economically-troubled woman $5,000 out of his own pocket, evidently because he was moved by her story. The documentary demonstrated just how affected Mr. Reagan was by this woman's plight --- on a personal level, one on one.
Yet many folks like Governor McCrory and President Reagan can't seem to make the logical leap. Whether in the realm of sexual relations or economic matters, they preach "personal responsibility". Yet when faced with personal appeals, they'll interact on a personal level. But the unseen millions affected by the same challenging issues seem to be out of sight and out of mind.
Many of McCrory's and Reagan's kindred spirits seem to believe that charities and private largesse can address the nation's ills; and that folks should stop having sex until they're ready to tie the knot and start making babies. Don't get me wrong, charities do yeoman work. But they've never had the resources to address more than a fraction of the nation's needs, especially in times of economic distress. And sexual abstention? In 2013? Get real!
In virtually every industrialized society, government social programs play a significant role. On this side of the pond, Social Security and Medicare have proven to be a godsend. Every mainstream poll validates the popularity of these programs, despite the rants of the government-hating sour-grapes. And furthermore, the vast majority of Americans do not endorse governmental probes of women's vaginas --- or the denial of basic health services.
A personal note to Governor McCrory: Sharing is virtuous, but please keep your cookies to yourself!
Dan, the sad fact is that many men actually hate women; they're jealous of their importance to continuing/nurturing the human race, as well as giving or denying sexual pleasure--to THEM. A good number of these so twisted find a safe haven among the tea party fanatics, some of whom are still running for office as we speak.
ReplyDeleteBut I do think teenagers should wait until they are on their own before becoming sexually active. Why should Mom and Dad have to fork over cash after rash, but consequential, behavior? I think we all have to "pay to play", a different meaning to the politically-connected phrase. More on this later....