The People's Filibuster

Last night in Texas we saw such impressive courage and conviction, coming not only from shero of day State Senator Wendy Davis, who exhibited extraordinary stamina and determination, but also her colleagues, particularly State Senator Leticia Van de Putte, who left her father's funeral to be at the capitol. When acting Senate President Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst repeatedly ignored Van de Putte while recognizing other senators, she finally queried, "At what point must a female senator raise her hand, or her voice, to be heard over the male colleagues in the room?"

But the real heroes of the evening were the people of Texas, who finished Senator Davis's filibuster with one of their own, raising such a roar that they interrupted the proceedings on the floor. Republicans tried to alter the clock, and the AP even reported that the bill had passed, but in the end Republicans had to concede that the vote had not taken place before midnight, as required.



From Texas blogger, Presbyterian minister, and activist Jim Rigby, who was there last night:

After the Republicans appeared to have won the day and passed a bill that added a horrible burden on poor rural women seeking reproductive healthcare, as soon as it became clear that the Republicans were going to make up the rules as they went along, including a final dirty trick of letting the bill pass after time had expired, it was clear that the women of Texas had had enough. ...

At the time, I could not make out what people were saying, but the men were chanting a refrain and the women were answering. It turns out the chant began with the men asking, "Whose house is it?" and the women responding in deafening thunder, "Our house!" Through the early years of this movement in Texas I always expected to be one of a handful of men at such a gatherings. My eyes filled with tears as I realized those days are over. The women of Texas have found their beautiful angry voice and the men of Texas have their back. We have all begun to realize that reproductive choice isn't just a woman’s issue. It is a human rights issue as basic as any other.

Today I am cheering for Texas State Senators Wendy Davis and Leticia Van de Putte and all the women of Texas and the men who stand with them. Thank you for not letting them shut you down or shut you up.

# # #
Many thanks to You can't have a Tea Party without some Fruitcakes and Nuts for the shutting-that-whole-thing-down meme!

WI GOP to WI Women: Sit Down and Shut Up

Along with many others, I was shocked by what transpired in the Wisconsin State Senate last Wednesday. The clearly unhinged State Senate President Mike Ellis abruptly cut off debate about a very controversial—and not-especially-popular—ultrasound bill that had been introduced on June 4 and had had only one public hearing less than two days later.

Senator Fred Risser (D-Madison), the longest-serving state legislator in the country, said: “I’ve been in the Legislature over 50 years, through different majorities and different minorities, and I have never experienced the abuse of power by the majority party that I experienced today. The arrogance shown by the Republican Majority today is unprecedented.” Given what Sen. Risser has already witnessed from this legislature, that is really saying something.

I was so appalled—not just by what was being done (which was no surprise), but by how it was being done—that I felt compelled to be at the capitol the next day to witness what would happen to the bill in the State Assembly. Before heading up to gallery, I went to the Solidarity Sing Along at noon in the rotunda to bolster my spirits—it always has that effect.

Toward the end of the sing along, I stopped singing and put tape over my mouth to signify having been silenced in the way this bill was being rammed with lightning speed through the legislature. Just putting the tape over my mouth brought me to tears, because it drove home the indignity of being silenced, of being excluded from discussion of this intensely personal issue.

Capitol Police in the west gallery of the Assembly. Photo by Leslie Amsterdam

When I arrived in the south gallery, I saw more than half a dozen capitol police in the west gallery. A couple were in the south gallery as well. Clearly the intent was to intimidate. Then I saw that the spectators with tape over their mouths in the west gallery were being told to remove it. Apparently taped mouths constitute a “public display or demonstration.”

That's me on the left. Photo by Rebecca Kemble

It was maybe 10 minutes or so before a red-jacketed page (who I strongly suspect likes her job) told those of us in the south gallery that we had to take the tape off our mouths or leave. We were handed a small sheet of paper (about 2-1/2 x 4 inches) with type too small for me to read listing the Assembly Gallery Rules. One of my friends wryly pointed out to the page that reading the rules violates the rules, as reading printed materials is prohibited.

Rep. Melissa Sargent
Photo by Leslie Amsterdam

Meanwhile, on the Assembly floor, discussion began about AB216, which prohibits the state health program from covering abortions and allows religious organizations to deny contraception coverage. Rep. Melissa Sargent (D-Madison) spoke about a woman who had had eight children and then was told that having another child would endanger her life. So for the sake of her family, and in consultation with them and her physician, and after having sought and received dispensation from the Catholic Church, she procured the contraception that would prevent a life-threatening pregnancy. Under AB216 that woman would not have been able to procure what she needed to protect her life. At the end of her testimony, Rep. Sargent revealed that the woman in the story was her grandmother.

I listened (with glee, I confess) when Rep. Janet Bewley (D-Ashland) said, “I do not see vasectomy anywhere in this legislation. I don’t hear anyone talking about denying a man the right to have that procedure covered. ... I’m not sure why we are so focused on women. ... I’m waiting for the day when we can have your anatomy on trial.”

During this and the often moving testimony of other Democratic legislators, many GOP representatives were talking, milling around, or just absent, as though nothing of any significance was happening. A confab of representatives was huddled next to the Speaker's podium. As a first-time visitor, I found it confusing and chaotic. While minority leader Rep. Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) told about a college friend who was raped, Speaker Pro Tem Bill Kramer, whose job it is to see that decorum is maintained, was laughing and joking around with other legislators. When Rep. Katrina Shankland (D-Stevens Point) pointedly asked the Speaker if he was listening, he shrugged, as if to say “What’s the big deal?”

Finally, Rep. Terese Berceau (D-Madison) requested a roll call because, you know, “this is important stuff.” Apparently, it’s not enough for GOP legislators to ram through their anti-woman legislation with lightning speed. They have to do it cavalierly, without even pretending to care how it will affect the women and families of this state. It reminded me of a rape victim being laughed at and dismissed by her rapist. Seriously.

When Rep. Sandy Pasch (D-Shorewood) described the bill’s author as “seriously out of touch with the reality of women,” a small smattering of applause broke out from some of the spectators in the west gallery. This unseemly outburst was quickly stifled by Speaker Kramer with a bigger outburst of his own. Stopping the assembly proceedings so that he could castigate the evildoers, he ordered that an entire row of spectators be removed from the gallery, not just those who had clapped, but everyone in the second row, including Rep. Bewley’s husband.

Sara Andrews being removed from the gallery in handcuffs.
Photo by Leslie Amsterdam

Sara Andrews committed the same unforgivable transgression as Rep. Bewley’s husband. She complied when told to remove the tape, opting then to put her hands over her mouth. She didn’t clap when others did because she knew it was against the rules. But having committed the grave folly of sitting in the second row, she was told she had to leave by the Capitol Police. Feeling she was being unfairly treated, she replied that if they wanted her to leave they would have to arrest her. And they did. I watched in disbelief as she was taken out of the gallery in handcuffs. I started to have that unreal feeling, like I was in a waking nightmare. I think it was at that point that I started shaking.

After two hours of holding my hands over my mouth and crying on and off, I had to leave because I had another commitment. I’m not sure how much more I could have endured in any case. When I left, they hadn’t started talking about AB206, the ultrasound bill. However, since then I have watched videos of what occurred after I left. One of the most moving videos was that of Rep. Sondy Pope (D-Middleton), who described the painful experience of deciding to terminate an unsuccessful pregnancy. She concluded: “Some decisions do not belong to you. You can’t have them. You just can’t. You can’t hurt people this way. ... What you’re doing is cruel, absolutely cruel.”

I’m so proud of the brave fighting women legislators of Wisconsin—Senator Kathleen Vinehout, Representatives Chris Taylor, Melissa Sargent, Sondy Pope, Mandy Wright, to name only a few—and so grateful to them for sharing their painful, personal experiences, especially in front of a legislature that is so obviously unmoved and indifferent. They stood up and spoke on our behalf, for the women and families of Wisconsin, at no small cost to themselves, so that others could see what this bullying legislature and governor are doing to us and the contemptuous way they’re doing it.

Add to that not only the circumvention of all but the most minimal public input, but also the quashing of even the mildest form of public protest imaginable. Our silent objection to being silenced—putting tape over our mouths—was forbidden. Our role has been relegated to that of passive, voiceless recipient. Is it any wonder that many of us feel that GOP legislators are abusing the women and families of this state, not only by forcing those seeking a legal abortion to get an unnecessary and invasive medical procedure, but also by excluding us from the legislative process, even when it concerns us so very personally and directly? Even the state's medical professionals have not had any input. While our voices are silenced, this is the loud and clear message of the Wisconsin GOP to the women of the state: Sit down and shut up!

# # #
Many thanks to Leslie Amsterdam and Rebecca Kemble for their excellent photos!

Nondebatable!

The Wisconsin State Senate today passed a bill requiring that Wisconsin women seeking an abortion undergo a medically unnecessary ultrasound procedure, after which the physician must give an account of the number of “unborn children” present, the characteristics, dimensions, and location in the womb. Because, of course, women are too ignorant to know “what they’re carrying in their womb and what they’re doing” unless it's rammed down their throats. Senator Mary Lazich (R) has proclaimed that “it’s time for women to know the facts.” Because how could we possibly “know the facts” about what’s happening in our own bodies without her and her Republican colleagues forcing them on us?

Senator Kathleen Vinehout (D) pointed out that not a single one of the constituents in her district asked for this bill or expressed support for it. She related the concerns of a couple of her constituents, one of whom pointed out that only 16 percent of rapes are reported, that one in six women in the U.S. will at some point in their life experience rape, and that that comes to more than 400,000 Wisconsin women.

Senator Lazich dismissed Sen. Vinehout’s “theatrics” (before proceeding with her own) by pointing out that the bill exempts rape and incest. Does it also exempt unreported rapes? Because those are the rapes Sen. Vinehout was referring to. In case you forgot, that’s 84 percent of rapes.

Here’s how it went down:
 

For those who don’t have the stomach to watch the video (and believe me, I don’t blame you one bit—watching it over and over again to get all the juicy quotes was truly nauseating), let me describe to you the “very cold, cold procedure and what happened, and the cold environment” in which democracy was dealt yet another death blow in Wisconsin.

Your voice and the voices of many of your legislative representatives were dismissed and discounted. After Senator Lazich’s animated testimony, Democratic senators tried to continue, but they were silenced. Senate President Mike Ellis came completely unhinged and shouted while slamming down his gavel so hard that it broke: “You’re out of order! Sit down! You’re not recognized! The question before the house is nondebatable. Call the roll!”

So that’s how democracy dies in Wisconsin. At least it was with some drama and the perfect symbolism of a broken gavel. And once this bill passes, we will have to live with it “day after day after day after day” for the rest of our lives. The women of Wisconsin will have to “live with this trauma” of having our voices silenced, of having our knowledge and judgment questioned, of having unnecessary medical procedures forced upon us by a legislature that refuses to hear our voices or even consider our concerns. “And it’s time for that to end.”

It’s time for those whom Senator Lazich and Senator Ellis purport to represent to know the facts about how their senators are carrying on in the state capitol in their name and what they’re doing when they reelect these legislative bullies over and over again. “If you have a loved one that’s thinking about” voting Republican, “for crying out loud, you want them to have full information. ... You want them to know what’s going on” in that legislative body and “what they’re doing and that they’re not going to be able to change that for the rest of their life. They make that decision. It’s over. It’s over in a few minutes, and then later on they can live with the fact that" with that one decision in the voting booth, they supported the death of democracy in Wisconsin.

Fired Up! Reclaim Women's Equality Day

Update: Rally at 4:30pm Monday, not at 1pm, as previously announced.

I don't know about you but I've had enough. I've had enough of the venomous anti-woman agenda of the Republican party, the leadership of which is more concerned about proving to the right-wing extremists controlling their party that they're really as anti-abortion as it's possible to be. It's ridiculous to call them "pro-life" because they oppose abortion even to save a woman's life. I don't know what that is, but it sure as hell isn't "pro-life." It comes closer to pro-death.

The Republican anti-woman agenda includes denying women equal pay for equal work, aggressively going after Planned Parenthood and other women's health care providers, outlawing abortion, and limiting access to contraceptives. Now all are agape at Todd Akin's supposed slip, in which he says exactly what he means, reiterating the right-wing fantasy that in cases of "legitimate" rape a woman has the magical power to "shut the whole thing down" and prevent pregnancy. The obvious implication is that if you get pregnant from rape, it isn't a "legitimate" rape. Whatever the hell that is.

Since then, Akin and every Republican running for office across the land have fallen all over themselves trying to back away from Akin's callous remarks and what they reveal: the party's deep-seated contempt for women. That's what this is really all about. Women, who apparently lie about rape and are prone to hysteria, cannot be trusted to make decisions about their own bodies.



This message is brought to you by the toxic rape culture in which we live. The message is precisely the same as that of every rapist: "You don't get to decide what happens to your own body. I do."

Rep. Akin, you are seriously mistaken. You and Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan and all the other sad little members of the Republican misogynists' club. Enough of you! Over ninety years ago the women of this country rose up and fought like hell for the right to vote and the right to hold public office. In the spirit of their fight and what they achieved, we are rising up too, for the sake of our daughters and sons, for the sake of our planet, for the sake of our democracy.

In 1971, the U.S. Congress designated August 26 of each year as "Women's Equality Day." Eager as we are to acknowledge all that our foremothers accomplished, we also recognize that we have a lot more work to do to gain women full equality and the respect they deserve.

On Monday, August 27, at 1pm 4:30pm, all of you women and the men who support you, join us on the west side of the Wisconsin State capitol in Madison for "Reclaim Women's Equality Day." After we gather, we'll encircle the capitol in a live demonstration of our commitment to continue the work of our foremothers in ensuring women's equality.

You members of the misogynist party, we're putting you on notice. We're fired up, and we're not gonna take it anymore!



Update! Update! Update!
The time of the Reclaim Women's Equality Day rally has been changed to 4:30pm on Monday. Please help spread the word!

Wisconsin Recall: Vinehout's the Real Deal

I spent most of Wednesday afternoon reading up on Kathleen Vinehout, in part because she’s the Democratic gubernatorial challenger I find most compelling, in part because a blogger I very much respect has come out solidly in her favor, and in part because that evening I would have the opportunity to ask her any questions that arose in the course of my reading.

I find Vinehout compelling because I believe she’s the candidate who has demonstrated the most support for the Wisconsin movement and has most strongly stood up to the Fitzwalkers. And she has a lot of respect and enthusiasm for what she calls the renaissance of democracy that is transforming the political landscape of the state. She has broad appeal because of her strong connections with rural and small-town Wisconsin. No one can call her a Madison or a Milwaukee Democrat.

Vinehout's credibility is enhanced by her having been one of the Fighting Fourteen who left the state last year to slow Walker’s railroading of the Wisconsin people. If the senators hadn't responded so quickly, the Wisconsin movement might not have been able to gain the momentum that it did. Their leaving was pivotal in galvanizing the people to stand up and make themselves heard. The senators' bold action bolstered us, because we knew we had strong advocates in the legislature.

Vinehout spoke at the Fighting Bob Fest in Baraboo in 2009, and I remember that she was stirring and articulate and really got my progressive blood pumping. So I went to hear her speak at Wednesday night’s Drinking Liberally meeting at the Brink Lounge in Madison knowing I was going to hear a dynamic and persuasive speaker, and she did not disappoint. She exuded energy and optimism and was friendly and approachable.

She began with the story of how the fourteen senators were able to leave the state. Senate minority leader Mark Miller called the senate clerk at 11pm on Feb. 16 to verify the number of votes needed for a quorum on a budget bill. After confirming that twenty senators were needed, the clerk told Miller that on the following day a state trooper would be assigned to each one of the Democratic state senators, presumably to make sure they didn’t attempt to leave the building before the vote. Talk about heavy handed! Miller called Vinehout and the other senators first thing the next morning, thus enabling them to get away before Papa Fitzgerald's state troopers had them hemmed in.

Vinehout affirmed her support for public education and public school teachers, her determination to see collective bargaining reinstated for public employees, and her belief in the critical importance of affordable health care for all. When asked why we should support her candidacy, she cited the breadth of her experience as a public health nurse, college professor, and organic dairy farmer as well as her six years as a state senator.

She emphasized that "we must be the change we want to see in the world," that "we are the ones we've been waiting for," and that it's up to us to fix this horrible mess we're in. She said that if you don't like politics as usual, vote for the unusual candidate. And if you don't like money in politics, vote for the candidate with the least money.

Questions have been raised about Vinehout’s bona fides in relation to safeguarding women’s reproductive freedom, and my reading suggested that perhaps those questions will be the ones that will dog her most during this short, intense primary season.

One woman asked Vinehout Wednesday night why she is against abortion. Vinehout confirmed, though, that she believes abortion should be “safe, legal and rare” and that her legislative record confirms that belief. When asked later what she meant by "rare," she said that providing good health care for all women, access to birth control, and good sex education would have the effect of making abortion rare. I asked about her amendment to a 2008 bill (that didn't pass) that would have permitted a pharmacist, on the basis of conscience, to refuse to fill a prescription for contraceptives “if the pharmacist ensures that the patient will have access to the contraceptive elsewhere.” I asked why a pharmacist’s conscience should trump my ability to procure my contraceptives without costing extra money (for transportation), delay, and inconvenience.

She responded that the Wisconsin constitution has a stronger conscience clause than the U.S. Constitution has, and she wanted to ensure that the bill did not violate the state constitution, which as a senator she is sworn to uphold. She also said that a year later a bill was passed that requires pharmacies to dispense contraceptives without delay, while allowing an individual pharmacist to decline to dispense contraceptives for reasons of conscience provided that another pharmacist at that location can fill the prescription immediately.



A few minutes after she was done with the question-and-answer portion of her presentation, Vinehout came over to our table to talk to me and another woman. I asked her then, "but what about that amendment?" Even though it ultimately didn't become law, the wording still concerned me. She conceded that the amendment was problematic and that in fact she had borrowed the language from Illinois legislation that had been supported by Planned Parenthood of Illinois. (I haven't verified this.) She added that she was involved in writing the legislation that did pass the following year and that she prefers its language. So the 2008 amendment was probably not her finest legislative moment, but I was satisfied that it didn't indicate a desire to restrict women's reproductive freedom or a lack of support for women's right to control their own reproductive choices.

So I was—and am—satisfied with Vinehout's answers to my questions. I believe that as governor she will be a strong advocate for women's reproductive health and freedom and, most important, will be responsive to the will of the people. I arrived Wednesday night leaning in Vinehout's favor, and I left feeling real enthusiasm for her candidacy. She's not riding in on a white horse to save us, which is a good thing. She'd be the first to assert that it's we the people who will save our state. But I think she can help us do that, and I believe she's the real deal.

Reading Up on Vinehout

Here’s some of what I read yesterday in my effort to learn more about Kathleen Vinehout, who is one of four primary candidates challenging Scott Walker:

Biography from Vinehout’s website.

Giles Goat Boy, "Wisconsin Recall: For Me, It's K.V.," April 3, 2012.

vacilando, "I went to see Kathleen Vinehout Candidate for WI Gov," April 4, 2012.

Judith Davidoff, "Vinehout’s progressive stripes questioned over birth control bill." The Daily Page, February 9, 2012. I was especially struck by the first comment (from Andy Olsen), and asked Vinehout directly last night about the wording of that amendment and what “elsewhere” meant.

Ruth Conniff, "Sen. Vinehout would be a strong contender for governor in the Wisconsin recall election." The Daily Page, February 9, 2012.

NARAL Pro-Choice Wisconsin’s press release, March 12, 2008: "Sen. Vinehout Breaks Campaign Promise to Women: Vinehout Leads Effort to Allow Pharmacists to Deny Women Birth Control."

Vinehout writes a weekly column and has them available on her website dating back to December 2007. I skimmed some of these and found them engaging and enlightening. The one I got the biggest kick out of is titled "Smaller government equals one-man-rule?" which is dated Feb. 16, 2011, the day before Vinehout and the 13 other Democratic state senators left the state to allow time for the people’s voice to be heard in response to Walker’s draconian "budget repair bill."

Thanks to Karen V. for directing me to some of the above links.

Roe vs. Wade vs. the Iowa Reality Show

As we turn our collective attention to the reality show in Iowa, it’s hard to miss that a woman’s right to choose is under attack. Many members of the rabid right like to live in a fact-free zone and are so unhinged from reality that they wouldn’t recognize it if it sat down across from them at the dinner table. Nevertheless, we must do our best to focus on reality while we face the onslaught coming from the right-wing presidential wannabes.

I have a confession to make. Back when I was young and naive, I was a pro-life evangelical. I felt that the unborn were precious (still believe that) and worthy of protection (still believe that too). Christian evangelicals often dislike complexity and tend to see things in simplistic black-and-white terms. Certainly the same could have been said of me. (Someday I’ll tell you about my metamorphosis from evangelical to Episcopalian. But not today.)

During that time I happened on an issue of Sojourners magazine that examined the question of abortion in depth from several carefully thought-out and well-expressed perspectives. I read the whole issue, front to back. Some of it I read more than once. As a result, all the black and white morphed into many shades of gray. I’ve been mulling over what I read there ever since.

What hit home for me was that legislation is not the best way to reduce the number of abortions. Legislation banning abortion serves only to put the back-alley hacks back in business, thereby causing more needless deaths, not preventing them. This can hardly be considered a desirable outcome, but it’s one that many who want to make abortion illegal refuse to acknowledge. If your goal is really to protect the unborn, rather than just beating your chest and trying to make yourself appealing to anti-abortion die-hards, then it’s well to consider how best to do that.

Reducing the annual number of abortions is certainly an admirable goal. However, there are different ways to reach that goal—some of which will help women and some of which will not.

Simply put, there are two key ways to reduce abortion—by making it less necessary or by making it less available. In our view, only the former approach is humane, effective, and just. [Center for American Progress]

Abortion is not new. It has been part of the human story from the beginning. It’s not going away, regardless of how much its foes stomp their feet. Throughout human history women have found ways to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

None of the options available when a woman is faced with an unwanted pregnancy are especially easy or pleasant. Regardless of the reason for the pregnancy—lapse of judgment, rape, or failed birth control—the decisions that must be made are difficult and rightly belong to the pregnant woman and the people she chooses to trust.

How is it that those most adamantly opposed to abortion seem never to spare a thought for women faced with unwanted pregnancies? In their efforts to outdo each other in their pro-life fervor, abortion opponents even cast shame and suspicion on women who miscarry, and women who are raped cannot expect an ounce of compassion from those who value the unborn more than they value rape victims.

The question is, who decides? Who decides what should be done when a woman finds herself unexpectedly pregnant, for whatever reason?

Surprisingly enough, a bunch of judgmental middle-aged legislators, most of them men, are not the best ones to make extremely personal decisions for women at such crucial junctures. The decision of what to do about a woman’s pregnancy shouldn’t be made by strangers. It should be made by the woman herself. And no one else.

The goal of reducing the number of abortions is a much better one than making abortion illegal. Make good reproductive health care and sex education available to everyone, and then trust women to make the very personal choices they’re confronted with responsibly and with much-needed support and assistance.

I know that’s not what we’ll hear from the reality show in Iowa. All the more reason to counter the reality show with reality. Nothing less than the very lives of our mothers, sisters, and daughters is at stake.