Jessie Daniel Ames Lecture

I recently attended the Jessie Daniel Ames lecture, which was given by Silvia Henriquez, the executive director for the National Institute for Reproductive Health. The lecture was entitled, “Advancing a National Movement for Reproductive Justice,” a title that did not at first make me want to attend. In hindsight, I am very happy that I did attend, as the speech was very informative and well-executed to show exactly how reproductive rights are being affected by the national discourse surrounding illegal immigration. In addition, I am glad that I have waited until now to write this post, as our national government is currently facing the prospect of a shutdown due to the House of Representative’s inability to come to an agreement on the new budget and one of the main issues surrounding this is the Republican-proposed defunding of Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood provides free gynecological/obstetrician services and abortions, in addition to their counseling and family planning services. The topic of abortion is why the Republican Party wishes to defund Planned Parenthood as they say taxpayers should not be funding these procedures. Henriquez’ words ring extremely true now and I can’t help feeling that attacking the ideological issue of abortion is a simply a ruse to defund a program that provides medical services to individuals without health insurance, a large portion of whom are minorities, including Latinas.

Henriquez referenced the anti-immigration bill that Arizona passed and the rhetoric that emerged from that bill. She made the claim that the anti-immigration rhetoric of the bill became, essentially, anti-Latino rhetoric. She also referenced bills currently in the works in many southwestern states that seek to abolish the granting of U.S. citizenship to babies born to mothers living in the United States illegally, the so-called “anchor baby” bills. Not only would this be a violation of the U.S. Constitution, but also a major blow to the reproductive rights of all women in the United States. These bills are clearly aimed at Latino individuals, who having the highest birthrates of any demographic group in the country.

These bills are happening on a state level obviously, but supporting these bills while also supporting the defunding of Planned Parenthood seems counterintuitive to me. If Planned Parenthood is defunded, not only would many women without health insurance not be able to obtain proper medical attention during their pregnancies, but they would also lose the place that can provide them with free birth control as to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Henriquez was right when she stated these bills have turned blatantly anti-Latino, and I would go so far as to label anyone who supports these bills as racists.

If Planned Parenthood is defunded, the message our country would be sending is that we don’t care about babies. We would leave thousands and thousands of women without proper pre-natal care and depriving their unborn children the care that is offered to every pregnant woman with health insurance. In essence, because of the abortion issue, we would not only be endangering the life of the unborn children, but also the lives of the pregnant mothers-to-be. I am ashamed at this moment to think that there are people in this country who would use an ideological, personal belief as a basis for deciding the fates of countless underprivileged individuals. Though I found the prospect horrible upon first hearing it at the lecture, now that it is a tangible reality, I am sick at my stomach. Whoever reads this, please take the time to contact your congressman and demand that he support the reproductive rights of American women. I’m not sure how much good it would do if the Republican-proposed budget is already passed upon your reading of this post, but I do know that it can never hurt to stand up for something you believe in.

Brady

UPDATE: Budget passed before midnight, Planned Parenthood funding intact :)

Brown Symposium

Hello all! Let me start off by stating my elation that this year's Brown Symposium was immensely more entertaining than last year's. I hope that this pattern continues in the future so that individuals such as myself can actually find something about which to write a blog.

That said, it still wasn't how I'd choose to spend my time if I had a choice in the matter. The topic this year was Salons and the culture that surrounds them. I watched two salons, the first and the final and felt that both times, the speakers got held up on small facets of the topics and didn't fully embrace the conversational style.

In the first salon, the conversants discussed the intersection of religion, art and science. The moderator showed an depiction of a genetically altered mouse that is used in cancer research, but showed it with a slightly human form and a crown of thorns adorning its head. It was depicted in a strange standing/sitting position in a box (?) surrounded by viewing holes with many human viewers looking in on the scene. I thought that the image didn't really serve to establish a good starting off point in the conversation, or at least it wasn't one which tickled my fancy. Despite all my criticism, there were aspects about the salon I did enjoy. Jonah Lehrer was witty and informative in his response about where our morality comes from. If only I could say the same for all the conversants, some of whom seemed merely to enjoy hearing themselves speak.

By the time the second salon rolled around on Friday, I'd had lots of time to talk to others about the salons and realized that my issues with the salon were not unique. Many others talked about the forced nature of the salons in comparison with a conversation. I thought there was too much of a desire to maintain good relations with everyone, which resulting in no one expressing anything that would step on the toes of others in the salon. The second salon was about arts, ethics and public policy, and was just as interesting as it sounds (not). This conversation seemed especially forced, and I later learned that some of the conversants had been given an order in which to speak. My biggest problem with this salon was that it got hung up on discussing funding for the arts, which I feel is important but doesn't nearly encompass the broad scope of topics from which the conversants could have chosen.

Again, let me state that I feel this year was an immense improvement over last year's symposium, and I appreciate the exploration of salons and what they can offer a learned society. I just don't feel that what I saw was an adequate representation of the power of conversation and how it can actually help one realize how they truly feel about a particular issue or topic. I must not be the only one who has engaged in a conversation thinking one thing only to emerge on the other side holding completely different opinions. I didn't see anything of this nature occur. Also, I had a problem with the introductions for each person as they seem to have been unnecessarily lengthy (I can express my precise sentiment in our next meeting).

All in all, this Brown Symposium was not as good as my first two, but wildly better than my third (last year's). It gives me hope that the next couple of years will be even better, especially with Dr. G's year approaching!

Au revoir,

Brady

Activists Speak!

I thoroughly enjoyed myself at this year's Activists Speak event, and not just because of the free sandwiches, though I'll admit they did help. I feel that this year's topic was a very timely one considering the many news reports involving instances of bullying perpetrated against young gay people in our schools and towns, with some of the bullying ending with the students taking their own lives. There is an obvious problem with the way that bullying is viewed by school officials and parents of the students involved as well. Though new efforts to combat bullying have been initiated in many school districts, they are basically just addressing the problem as opposed to the cause.

This event addressed the cause. I, along with the rest of my cohort, attended two sessions on the issues of homophobia and men and violence. The first session explored the many different PC terms that have gained widespread usage in connection to the issue of homophobia as well as soliciting personal experience with homophobia from some of the audience members. I came away from this session feeling that too much time was given to explaining terms such as heteronormativity, as opposed to focusing on specific actions one could take in order to combat homophobia in their everyday life.

The second session focused more on encouraging the raising of boys in a way that doesn't cause them to associate violence and aggressiveness with masculinity. Not only this, but teaching them that expressing their emotions is healthy and necessary to their emotional well-being. I felt that this session did a better job of providing solutions to situations that one might encounter. We were even provided with a list of steps that men could take to end acts of gender violence.

All in all, I felt that this event was a major success, especially when I compare it to my past experiences with the event, when it was held in a much smaller room with a small attendance. I'm incredibly proud of the work that the Office of Civic Engagement is doing at our school and in the surrounding community. Events like this one shine a spotlight on the causes of the recent bullying epidemic as opposed to just talking about what a shame it is that we have this problem. By providing events that propose solutions and by having the kind of conversations that talks like this encourage, we are getting closer to addressing the problem than ever before. It is my hope that gender violence is an issue that will garner more attention at the city, state, national and global levels, and that curriculums will be initiated in schools worldwide to help educate the children on gender equality and the dangers of things like homophobia. Hopefully, my children will live in a world where this issue is a non-issue, or at least one in which it is not at the forefront of the national psyche.