Paying the Price for Women's Rights

October 11, 2012, 10:00 a.m. -- now with continuing updates on her medical condition Oct. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 31

SPECIAL: Malala is being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. I've signed the petition; if you would like to join me, click here. About 150,000 have signed so far [Nov. 14].

And you might want to visit Malala's Facebook page.

Malala Yousafzai

Another brave young woman is in the news, Malala Yousafzai, living in northwestern Pakistan and advocating on behalf of girls seeking education. Editorial, "Malala Yousafzai’s Courage," New York Times, October 11, 2012, p. A30 ("If Pakistan has a future, it is embodied in Malala Yousafzai. Yet the Taliban so feared this 14-year-old girl that they tried to assassinate her. Her supposed offense? Her want of an education and her public advocation for it."). Here are links to her Web page and Facebook page.

The United Nations declared November 10 "Malala Day." Here is a photo of children celebrating in Karachi that day. For the video of U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon's announcement in support of Malala, click here.

[For medical updates [Oct. 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19] on her condition, see, Mushtaq Yusufzai, "Malala shifted to AFIC Rawalpindi in serious condition," The News (International) [Pakistan], October 12, 2012; "Malala's Condition Satisfactory: ISPR," The News (International) [Pakistan], October 14, 2012 ("The Inter Services Public Relations (ISPR) Sunday [Oct. 14] termed Malala Yousafzai's condition 'satisfactory' and that it was witnessing a steady improvement. [She] was taken off the ventilator for some time and was later placed back on it. The . . . option to send her abroad for further treatment was being considered. . . . ISPR Maj Gen Asim Bajwa said that [she] . . . was now being administered a lower dose of sedatives. 'Movement has been witnessed in Malala's hands and legs which is a positive development,' Maj Gen Bajwa said.").

"Schoolgirl Wounded by Taliban Is Airlifted to Britain," New York Times, October 15, 2012 ("Malala . . . [has left] Rawalpindi, . . . in a military hospital, on an air ambulance sent from the United Arab Emirates. [She will] receive immediate treatment for her skull, which was fractured after a bullet passed through her head, as well as 'long-term rehabilitation including intensive neuro rehabilitation' . . . at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham . . . which has specialized in the treatment of troops wounded in Afghanistan . . .."); "2 questioned at U.K hospital treating Pakistani girl," USA Today, October 16, 2012 ("British police have questioned two people who tried to visit [Malala] . . . raising fears about her safety following pledges by the Taliban to make another attempt on her life. . . . Dr. Anders Cohen, chief of neurosurgery at The Brooklyn Hospital Center in New York [said] '. . . we don't know what part of the brain the bullet went through, whether it crossed the midline and hit any vessels, or whether the bullet passed through the right or left side of the brain.' [B]oth physicians say it is extremely unlikely that a full recovery can be made. They could only hope that the bullet took a 'lucky path' — going through a more 'silent,' or less active — part of the brain. 'You don't have a bullet go through your brain and have a full recovery,' [Dr. Jonathan] Fellus [chief scientific officer at the New Jersey-based International Brain Research Foundation] said.").

"Malala will need reconstructive surgery: hospital director," Dawn Newspaper, Urdu Edition, October 17, 2012 ("Malala Yousufzai is making progress in a British hospital, doctors said on Tuesday, as police turned away visitors claiming to be relatives. . . . [She] was in a stable condition on her first full day . . . [and the Birmingham Queen Elizabeth Hospital medical director David Rosser said she] had had a 'comfortable night.' '“We are very pleased with the progress she’s made so far,' . . .. [E]very bit as strong as we’ve been led to believe. Malala will need reconstructive surgery and we have international experts in that field.' . . . 'Her response to treatment so far indicated that she could make a good recovery from her injuries,' the Queen Elizabeth Hospital said in a statement."). "Malala stable in UK hospital as support floods in," AFP/The Express Tribune/International Herald Tribune, October 18, 2012 ("Doctors said Malala Yousafzai spent a second comfortable night . . .. [S]he 'remained in a stable condition and continued to impress doctors by responding well to her care,' a hospital spokesman said.").

John F. Burns and Christine Hauser, "Pakistani Schoolgirl Shot by Taliban Is Showing Progress," New York Times, October 19, 2012 ("[Malala] has recovered to the extent that she is now able to stand with assistance and communicate in writing . . . Dr. David Rosser, the medical director of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, said . . . 'she is doing very well. In fact, she was standing with some help for the first time this morning when I went in to see her.'”) Alan Cowell, "Pakistani Activist, 15, Recovering at ‘Encouraging Speed,’ Father Says," New York Times, October 27, 2012, p. A9 ("Ms. Yousafzai’s father [Ziauddin Yousafzai] and mother, Toorpekai Yousafzai, arrived in Birmingham on Thursday [Oct. 22], accompanied by her two younger brothers, Atal Khan, 8, and Khushal Khan, 12. [T]he family was reunited . . . for the first time since Ms. Yousafzai was flown to Britain, 'there were tears in our eyes out of happiness,' her father told reporters. 'We all cried a little bit.' He added: 'It’s a miracle for us. She was in a very bad condition.' A week ago, a bulletin from the Queen Elizabeth Hospital [reported] 'She’s not out of the woods yet, but we are hopeful she will make a good recovery' . . ..")]

Dawn is a newspaper in Pakistan that I have found over the last few years to be one of the best sources of information not only about Pakistan, but also about Afghanistan. The overwhelming majority of Pakistanis deplore the Taliban's effort to assassinate Malala. But some among its religious right have recently made an effort to compare that attempt to the American use of drones that end up killing innocent civilians. Dawn has risen to the occasion with an editorial today [Oct. 16] headlined "Skewed Narrative," Dawn Newspaper, Urdu Edition, October 16, 2012. Here is an excerpt: "Let's get one thing straight about the attack on Malala Yousufzai. It is not comparable to drone strikes . . . [or] other incidents the religious right might use to try to divert attention from the particular evil of this one. . . . [T]his incident was: a deliberate attack on a specific teenage girl in retaliation for her activism for girls’ education . . .. Drone strikes may be unacceptable in their current form and end up killing innocent children, but doing so is not their intent. . . . And yet moves are afoot to position these events as comparisons in an attempt to dampen the widespread recognition of the Malala incident for what it was — the targeting of an innocent girl by an outfit that does not believe in the most basic of human rights and is prepared to attack even children to promote its regressive ideas."

I used the word "another" in the opening paragraph not only because there are today, as there have been throughout the years, a great many young women and girls -- as well as men and boys, but primarily women -- who have often paid a heavy price, up to and including death, fighting for what are often even minimal rights for women.

But I also say "another" because of what I wrote earlier about a brave young woman who played a major role in the "Arab spring" in Egypt, Asmaa Mahfouz. "Asmaa Mahfouz: Democracy's Heroine," October 27, 2011. And see, "The Natural Superiority of Women; And Why Men Fail," September 11, 2012.

There's good news and bad news regarding the role of religion in women's rights -- one of the major civil rights challenges during my lifetime. The liberal, reformist, and moderate elements of many of the world's major religions view women's struggle as possessed of moral, ethical, and religious rights as well. Sadly, however, often in violation of their own sacred texts, many religions' more extreme elements -- including those in this country -- seek to find support for their suppression of women's rights from within their religion.

So it was in northwest Pakistan this week.

The balance of my blog entry this morning is simply a reproduction of yesterday's [Oct. 10] entry on a blog maintained by "Rosh," a UCL (University College London?) student: Lashings of Gingerale -- because she so well states my own thoughts there's little to be gained by my composing an equivalent.

Malala Yousafzai started her blog about being a girl trying to get an education in the Swat Valley when she was 11 years old. On Tuesday [Oct. 9] at the age of 14 she was shot in the head by the Taliban because she "promoted secularism."

She is currently in hospital, alive and recovering after surgery. This girl is the bravest girl I know because she stood up for education for girls. And do you know what makes this story even more disgusting? That she has to do this at all in 2012.

My thoughts and prayers are with her and her family.

# # #

The Republicans Are Akin

August 27, 2012, 11:05 a.m.

And Platforms Are Like a Box of Chocolates
["My momma always said, "Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get." -- "Forrest Gump," (1994).]

Both parties' platforms, and candidates, are stews of many ingredients -- comfort with, commitment to, and membership drawn from the over- and under-privileged; ideology, including sense of noblesse oblige, support of unions and social programs, proportions of individualism and communitarianism; the demands of special interest advocates and contributors; factions within the party; and historical positions.

There are many differences between the parties on the issues. Most will be saved for future blog entries.

But when it comes to women's issues there is good news and bad news. The good news is the progress -- having just celebrated the anniversary of women's constitutional right to vote (first proposed 1848, finally granted in the Nineteenth Amendment, August 26, 1920), Title IX (40th anniversary), women bringing home more Olympic medals than the men (thank you Dr. Christine Grant!), and even the Augusta Country Club finally admitting at least two women to membership.

The bad news? The Republicans didn't get the memo.

There are two ways in which the Republicans are Akin at their Republican National Convention in Tampa this week.

(1) They are achin'. One of their own, Todd Akin, a Member of Congress who sits on the House Science Committee and is now running for a U.S. Senate seat, has revealed that his lack of compassion for pregnant rape victims ("he argued against allowing abortions in cases of rape") is exceeded only by his ignorance of their biological science. ("He claimed a woman's body can typically fend off pregnancy during a 'legitimate rape' . . ..")

Candidates fear Akin's identification as a Republican may make it more difficult for Mitt Romney, and other Republicans, to win in November. "Romney calls on Rep. Akin to drop Senate bid over 'rape' comments," Fox News, August 21, 2012 ("Mitt Romney joined several other Republicans Tuesday in calling on Missouri Rep. Todd Akin to give up his bid for Senate over his controversial comments on rape, as the Republican congressman continued to hold his ground and vowed to stay in the race.").

(2) They are Akin. It turns out that Akin is no errant Republican minority of one wandering in the wilderness when it comes to banning all abortions with no exceptions. The reason Akin is a walking Republican disaster is precisely because his "no exception" views are not unique to him. Although previously unknown to many voters, Akin's no-exception stance is the position of a great many Republicans. It has long been a part of the national, and many state, Republican platforms. Although Romney has tried to distance himself, it is the view of the vice presidential candidate hand picked and thoroughly vetted by Romney, Congressman Paul Ryan, plus a goodly number of Ryan's House colleagues.

(For example, the Republican's 2008 Platform says, "we assert . . . and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children" -- with no mention of exceptions for rape, incest or the life of the mother. 2008 Republican Party Platform, p. 52.)

And this year?

This year, the Republican platform will include abortion language adopted last week that reaffirms the party's objection to legalized abortion, with no mention of exceptions for cases of rape or incest. . . .

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said last week . . . "[T]hese guys are proud pro-life candidates and we're a proud pro-life party."

William Douglas, "Romney and GOP lay out agenda," Miami Herald/McClatchy Newspapers, August 27, 2012 [Gazette, "Romney, GOP Lay Out Agenda," August 27, 2012, p., 1].

Of course, it's possible to make too much of party platform planks. As the sub-head, above, puts it, "Platforms Are Like a Box of Chocolates" -- and to continue Forrest Gump's line, "you never know what you're gonna get."

Parties aren't too insistent on candidates endorsing and following up on platforms. Elected officials who intend to follow them may find that a change in conditions -- war, the economy, the weather, public opinion -- can necessitate a change in direction, and policy. Presidents discover the power of the House and Senate to frustrate their best intentions -- just ask President Obama.

However, the Republican Party's opposition to a range of women's rights, including abortion (sometimes with, sometimes without, exceptions) is much more than a platform plank. It has been embedded in proposed (and enacted) legislation. It has been the stuff of Republican officials' campaign and other speeches. It is something that enjoys widespread support among those who hold office as Republicans.

Consider, for example, this assessment of Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan's positions on women's issues:

For years, he has been a reliable vote against workplace equity for women, opposing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which makes it easier for women to file wage-discrimination lawsuits, and two similar measures.

The full outpouring of hard-right enthusiasm is based, to a large degree, on Mr. Ryan’s sweeping opposition to abortion rights. He has long wanted to ban access to abortion even in the case of rape, the ideology espoused in this year’s Republican platform. (Mr. Romney favors a rape exception.) Mr. Ryan also co-sponsored, along with Representative Todd Akin of Missouri, a bill that would have narrowed the definition of rape to reduce the number of poor women who can get an abortion through Medicaid.

Besides that, he has co-sponsored more than three dozen anti-abortion bills, including measures that would require women to get an ultrasound first, bar abortions after 20 weeks in the District of Columbia and end federal spending for family planning programs. Though he urged Mr. Akin to end his Senate race last week over an offensive remark about “legitimate rape,” Mr. Ryan has actually co-sponsored more of these measures than Mr. Akin.

“I’m as pro-life as a person gets,” he said in 2010.

He also co-sponsored a bill last year to allow employers to decline coverage of birth control if it violated their moral or religious convictions, and his budget would end all government financing for Planned Parenthood while slashing spending on prenatal care and infant nutrition.

Editorial, "Paul Ryan’s Social Extremism," New York Times, August 27, 2012, p. A18.

Here is a comparable assessment: "A much more far-reaching bill [than Republicans' bills banning abortion] co-sponsored by Ryan, the 2011 Sanctity of Human Life Act, states that the 'life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent' and empowers states to 'protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions' that meet this definition of personhood. Not only would this give states the ability to treat any kind of abortion as murder, experts have said it could also ban in vitro fertilization procedures and some forms of birth control like the 'morning after' pill." Benjy Sarlin, "A Brief Guide To Paul Ryan’s Abortion Record," TPM, August 23, 2012.

I have written relatively favorable evaluations of both Governor Romney and Congressman Ryan in prior blog entries -- in which I do not discuss their positions on the issues. "Why Mitt Romney? Better Than 'Least Worst' Republican," March 22, 2012; "Is Ryan Ready . . . To Be President?", August 14, 2012.

That distinction is perhaps the most important take-away from this blog entry. As I commented along with the praise of Romney,

"no matter how wonderful a presidential candidate of either party might be, he or she brings with them a cast of thousands to which at least some deference must be paid. (Although, as President Obama has shown the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party that got him the nomination and much of the election, it need not be all that much deference.) I'm not thrilled with the national and Iowa leadership of either party. But I think the Democratic Party's gang of party members, major contributors, political consultants, staffers, lobbyists, elected officials, influence peddlers, and hangers-on would be at least marginally better than those who would surround and pressure any Republican president.

Without parsing possible distinctions, let's concede that all four -- Obama, Biden, Romney and Ryan -- are each, as individuals, sufficiently intelligent, skilled and able to perform in the office for which they are running.

That is why it is a bit misdirected to consider this presidential election a choice between two (or four) white guys. It is, rather, a choice between two large wagon loads of baggage, and the folks who are pulling one wagon rather than another. Frankly, if both the House and Senate were controlled by progressive Democrats, I think Romney's record as Massachusetts governor provides some evidence that (with the possible exception of tax cuts for the wealthy) he would govern, as president, somewhere to the left of where Obama has been able to go. (I am not so sure the same thing can be said of Ryan.) [E.g., support for assertion about Romney, added subsequently: Binyamin Appelbaum, "Business and Political Experiences Pull Romney 2 Ways on Economy," New York Times, August 28, 2012, p. A1 ("Mitt Romney declared during his unsuccessful campaign for the Senate in 1994 that the federal minimum wage should rise with inflation . . .. Mr. Romney has now maintained that position for almost two decades, [as something] good for workers, good for employers and good for the broader economy. . . . [H]is steady support for an idea vigorously opposed by conservatives and business groups underscores the complexity of predicting how he might manage the national economy.").]

That is why the parties' platforms, prior legislative proposals, and the deeply-held ideological convictions of the candidates need to be our focus.

Here's where the Republicans -- as a Party (not all individual Republicans) -- are on issues involving women in general and abortion in particular. The differences between the parties, and candidates, is stark. The choice is pretty clear. The choice is ours to make.

# # #