The Furious Spinner

I have heard progressives and other left-leaning people say they cannot in good conscience “hold their noses” and vote for the lesser of two evils in this next presidential election. They say they will either abstain from voting or vote for Ralph Nader. I respect and understand these points of view. However, I think we--as citizens of this planet--need to frankly assess the consequences of our actions. Isn’t voting for Ralph Nader or abstaining from voting essentially voting for George W. Bush? Can we survive five more years of Bush?

This conundrum reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend recently. My friend claimed she would not lie under any circumstances. She said there was never a good reason to lie. I asked, "What if you were living in Nazi Germany and the Nazis came for you and your family and all you had to do was tell a lie to save yourselves, wouldn't you lie then?" She said "No, I wouldn’t lie even then."

I was flabbergasted by her response. I wondered how she could allow herself and her children to die (even hypothetically) because she decided the worst thing she could do was lie. I see the situation we are facing in this country as similar. Is voting for John Kerry the worst thing we can do?

On the Senate floor today, Senators are debating the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act.” If passed, it would make it a federal crime to kill or injure a fetus--at any stage of development--during the commission of a federal crime. Senator Feinstein argued that this bill is part of the anti-abortionists’ strategy to setup legal “beachheads” for the rights of fetuses--the ultimate end being the overturning of Roe v. Wade. This is the second round for this bill; Senator DeWine tried to get it passed during the Clinton era and failed.

This bill is part of the war going on in our country. It is a stealth war which may be won without a shot fired. While the media and the public are focused on the war in Iraq--for good reasons--and the problems with the economy, the right-wing fundamentalists who are running our government are systematically waging a culture war. One of the primary focuses of their attacks are the rights of women.

John Ashcroft is asking for and getting hospital records of women who have received abortions. Although judges in California and Chicago have said “no way” to the AG, a Manhattan judge recently ordered a New York hospital to turn over their abortion records to the Justice Department.

In 2003, Congress passed and Bush signed the so-called "Partial Birth" Abortion Ban which had no exception to protect a woman’s health. It is the first federal ban on an abortion since Roe v. Wade.

This war is not only happening at the federal level. According to the National Organization for Women, “A virtual tidal wave of anti-abortion and anti-contraception legislation sweeping across the 50 states has resulted in 380 state laws since 1995 that restrict access to reproductive health services. Many more restrictive bills are being considered now that most state houses and senates are controlled by anti-reproductive rights majorities.”

The Bush administration has taken this war worldwide. The United States was the only member of a United Nations Commission on the Status of Women to reject a resolution that would have helped protect women and children against hostage taking, rape, and sexual slavery. Why the rejection? The Bush administration refuses to support or fund any organization or clinic which allows sex education. The administration could not get the words “reproductive health” and “condoms” struck from the resolution so they rejected it.

Women are the majority in this country. We need to wake up and understand what this administration is trying to take away from us: the right to have control over our own bodies. If we get out and vote en masse, we can decide which way this election goes.

For many progressives, John Kerry is not liberal enough. However, if you look at Kerry’s record on women’s issues, Kerry has voted progressively. Perhaps if enough of us press Kerry and the Democratic mainstream, we can keep him from wandering any more toward the center; we can get him to embrace the liberal ideas we hold so dearly.

So I ask the question again: Is voting for John Kerry the worst thing we can do, or is it the best thing we can do? Kerry may be the lesser of two bad choices; however, choosing him may save the world. It may not, but that's the chance I'm going to take. I don't see how we can come back from five more years of George Bush. I suppose, if I think of my friend, voting for Kerry is a lie I am willing to tell.
0 comments

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

All photographs and written material copyright © 2003-2008 by Kim Antieau unless otherwise indicated. May not be used without permission.