The Abortion Question Must Be Cleared Up
Are the conservatives crying reverse racism so that the liberals will not notice Sotomayor’s (and Obama’s) failure to confirm if she is pro-choice or not? After reading Reclusive Leftist concerns about the lack of evidence pointing to Sotomayor’s political position on abortion, I have to wonder. The conservatives are very good at smoke screens. After all, they did manage to dupe the American people into a war with a country that had absolutely nothing to do with what happened on September 11, 2001 (Cassandra here did tell many people not to listen though. Cassandra was called a Nazi). Imagine if you are a conservative and you would very much like another anti-choice judge to be on the bench, but you have to save face and keep up appearances, you know, yada yada, “we must protest anything and everything coming from a president who ran on the Democratic ticket.”
It is all a performance on a stage, people!.
Without a doubt, I think Sotoymayor’s religion and lack of a clear stance on abortion is in fact worthy of suspect. Of course there are already people citing Catholic bigotry, — as if Catholic is not synonymous with anti-choice. To argue otherwise is merely to ponder exceptions to the rule.
I have first hand experience with Catholicism and anti-abortion. Under pressure from my mother (and being a very young mother who desperately wanted to please my demanding mother), I sent my oldest daughter to Catholic school for four years. Since she had not been baptized and put through all the dog and pony playacting showmanship the Catholic Church loves to roll around in, she was behind in punching her dance card. Being behind, we had to attend extra special classes to catch her up. They were boring and cold classes that trained one in rituals and responses. Nevertheless, one Saturday class was to take place at an anti-abortion rally an hour north. When I asked, what a rally had to do with classes, I was just stared at with vacant possession. We needed to have the box checked and the only way to get the box checked was to attend the rally. Father reminded me of my duty to my child and her Catholic education. Only claiming work got me excused, so I claimed I had to work. (I guess making money trumps everything, since it was rumored that the Father had ways of knowing if you were truly tithing what the Church expected you to tithe). Although I was not very political at the time, it all seemed wrong. And not soon after that, we quit the Catholic Church all together. (Mainly because I was too poor to continue to pay for private school, but you know, I do assert that I have been lucky in life. Unfortunate situations have saved me from other potentially unfortunate situations).
Interestingly, Racism Review is calling out white feminists for not defending Sotomayor against sexist remarks flung her way. Racism Review wants to know where are the bigwig white feminists such as Gloria Steinem. The Review has constructed an argument that basically concludes that white feminists are racists because they have not spoken out against wanker G.Gordon Liddy going on about Sotoymayor’s menstruating, or if they have spoken out, they have not elevated that injustice over other concerns (I do know one presumably white feminist who has said something about the racism and another who discusses the sexism and racism). Of course, Liddy is a misogynist simpleton, he is G. Gordon Liddy. However, going back to my opening sentiment, I believe his blatant public misogyny is all an act (not saying he is not indeed a misogynist), nevertheless, all an act. There must always be a conveyance of resistance when one is dealing with one’s enemy (or I should say, the image of an enemy, because I am convinced the two sides are in bed together). Liddy and cronies cannot display public accord with Obama.
Nevertheless, racism allegations should not be ignored. Are the white feminists being racist by not firebombing Liddy? Most likely. I think their prioritizing is the main culprit, or perhaps the rationalizing that prioritzing. Having legal access to abortion affects all women and girls. To lose that access is to hurt all women and girls. Women and girls come in all colors, not just white. In the Sotomayor’s case, focusing on anti-racism benefits both men and women and does nothing to determine if Sotomayor is pro-choice or not. Focusing on anti-catholic bigotry at this time benefits both men and women and does nothing to determine if Sotomayor is pro-choice or not. Until most feminists (and I don’t suspect all are white, but since the argument was directed at white feminists specifically) get an assurance about Sotomayor’s stand on abortion, it looks like little else is going to be addressed, I am sorry to say.
The conservatives want pro-choice advocates to run around in twenty different directions. Then when Sotomayor gets in, they look like they protested (thus they get to play the victim, white men love to play the victim, and they get points for “holding their ground against those horrible liberals”) and they get what they wanted (an anti-choice judge) (Unless she makes a clear pro-choice position).
When it comes to Supreme Court nominees, abortion seems to blind many (white) feminists from seeing anything else.