{"id":849026,"date":"2022-10-21T14:55:52","date_gmt":"2022-10-21T14:55:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dissidentvoice.org\/?p=134611"},"modified":"2022-10-21T14:55:52","modified_gmt":"2022-10-21T14:55:52","slug":"us-abortion-rights-who-would-kill-the-gander-that-goosed-a-golden-egg","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2022\/10\/21\/us-abortion-rights-who-would-kill-the-gander-that-goosed-a-golden-egg\/","title":{"rendered":"US Abortion Rights:\u00a0 Who Would Kill the Gander that Goosed a Golden Egg?"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The suffering of US women under the iron heel of abortion is intensifying, especially for women of color.\u00a0 This makes it imperative to closely examine possible paths forward. As a teenager during the 1960s I witnessed two political paths that remain imprinted on my mind.<\/p>\n

LBJ and 14 (b) <\/strong><\/p>\n

Even before classes began in 1963, I had organized the first high school Young Democrats chapter in Texas.\u00a0 By 1964 Houston Young Democrats were attending rallies for presidential candidate Lyndon B. Johnson, carrying signs reading \u201cAll the Way with LBJ \u2013 Repeal 14 (b).\u201d<\/p>\n

During the height of union activity several decades earlier, congress had passed the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA<\/a>, 1935) which guaranteed private sector workers the right to form unions.\u00a0 During the beginning of the Cold War and strike waves of 1945 and 1946, congressional Republicans (with the aide of multiple Democrats) passed the Labor Management Relations Act (1947).\u00a0 It placed limitations on union activity, most importantly Section 14 (b).\u00a0 The odious 14 (b) allowed states to pass \u201cRight to Work\u201d laws which prohibited unions from requiring dues as a condition of employment.\u00a0 Workers could benefit from union activity without paying dues, thereby seriously undermining unions.<\/p>\n

\u201cRepeal 14 (b)\u201d became the rallying cry.\u00a0 Unions told members \u201cVote for Democrats.\u201d\u00a0 Despite LBJ\u2019s winning the presidency and having Democratic Party (DP) control of the senate and house, 14 (b) was not repealed.\u00a0 Nor was it repealed during several subsequent administrations having a DP president and majority in both houses of congress.<\/p>\n

Unlike gatherings of 1964, today 14 (b) is so ancient that if you ask high school students what they think about it, you will get blank stares.\u00a0 DP power brokers have successfully dumped repeal of 14 (b) into the dustbin of history.<\/p>\n

A Most Reactionary President<\/strong><\/p>\n

Four years and a presidential election later Republican Richard Nixon was swept into office and was re-elected in 1972.\u00a0 Carrying 49 of 50 states, Nixon\u2019s re-election was one of the largest landslides in US history and showed overwhelming support for war against the Vietnamese people.\u00a0 Despite endorsement of his right wing agenda, more progressive actions occurred during Nixon\u2019s reign (1969-1974) than during any presidency since (including those of Dems): end to the Viet Nam War, start of the Food Stamp program, decriminalization of abortion, recognition of China, creation of Environmental Protection Agency, passage of Freedom of Information Act, formal dismantling of FBI\u2019s COINTEL program, creation of Earned Income Tax Credits, formal ban on biological weapons, and passage of the Clean Water Act.<\/p>\n

When I recount this to my good DP friends, the response is something like \u201cYou can\u2019t credit that to Tricky Dick \u2013 he was forced to give in to the tremendous upheavals of his time.\u201d<\/p>\n

Bingo!\u00a0 That is exactly the point.\u00a0 Nixon had to act as he did due to enormous social pressure.\u00a0 During a 10 year period, a generation of progressives had been exposed to two fundamental truths:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Electing a DP president with DP control of the senate and house can be accompanied by a failure to attain vitally important goals that people want, need and were promised; and,<\/li>\n
  2. Mass movements with large scale disruptions can win progressive victories during the lordship of a vile president who despises each of those goals.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Logic of the Goose<\/strong><\/p>\n

    If the Dems win a majority of both houses of congress in November, 2022, a powerful force will make it highly unlikely that they will decriminalize abortion.\u00a0 This will be true whether the decriminalization would come from passing the Women\u2019s Health Protection Act (the easiest route, but vulnerable to a supreme court trashing), expansion of the number of supreme court justices (almost forgotten about), or a constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right (apparently unimaginable to the DP).<\/p>\n

    However, doing any of these would mean that abortion would cease to be a major issue in the 2024 election and make the re-election of Joe Biden virtually impossible.\u00a0 Winning in 2024 is vastly more important to the Dems than a setback in 2022.<\/p>\n

    As the Washington Post<\/em><\/a> noted, the DP has finally found an issue that might help them at the ballot box.\u00a0 But securing abortion rights in 2022 would remove it from the 2024 agenda.\u00a0 Abortion rights are the Dems\u2019 golden egg and they are not about to hatchet Mother Goose.<\/p>\n

    The task of DP politicians is NOT to bring better lives to people \u2013 it is to get elected.\u00a0 If promises to improve peoples\u2019 lives were kept, then the ability to make the promise evaporates.\u00a0 The true role of DP is to promise without delivering, while somehow getting people to believe the promise.<\/p>\n

    Each election cycle Dems scrounge around for a golden egg so they can chant their eternal refrain \u201cVote to get goosed or the Republicans will win!\u201d\u00a0 Dems yearn to have their cake and eat it too.\u00a0 They must dangle abortion rights in front of voters\u2019 eyes \u2013\u00a0 not actually win abortion rights.<\/p>\n

    Historical Reality of the Goose <\/strong><\/p>\n

    As every psychologist should know, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.\u00a0 So, in addition to the Logic of the Goose, the history of the Dems regarding abortion helps chart their course.<\/p>\n

    During the last 50 years the Democrats could have written Roe vs Wade<\/em> into law during the administrations of Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton or Barack Obama; but never did so.\u00a0 As a US Senator, Joe Biden helped Clarence Thomas get on the US Supreme Court via his attacks on Anita Hill<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    When Hillary Clinton<\/a> ran for president, she chose anti-choice senator Tim Kaine as a running mate and said she was \u201cambivalent\u201d about abortion.\u00a0 Obama botched opportunities to replace Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the supreme court<\/a>.<\/p>\n

    This is what Margaret Kimberley<\/a> of Black Agenda Report<\/em> wrote about him: \u201cDuring his 2008 presidential campaign Obama promised to pass and sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would have enshrined abortion rights into law, and remove it from the purview of the courts.\u00a0 But he did no such thing. On April 29, 2009 he gave a press conference on his 100th day in office and said, \u2018The Freedom of Choice Act is not my highest legislative priority.\u2019\u00a0 Obama had majorities in both houses of Congress and a veto-proof majority in the Senate.\u00a0 Not only was this legislation not his highest priority, it wasn\u2019t a priority at all. He never attempted to get it passed.\u201d<\/p>\n

    While the US waited for the supreme court diktat overturning Roe v. Wade<\/em>, Molly Shah<\/a> expressed irritation that \u201cthere is currently no cohesive national campaign from either the Democratic party or large reproductive rights organizations to fight back.\u201d \u00a0DP house leaders, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi<\/a>, supported re-election of anti-choice Texas rep Henry Cuellar over an abortion rights challenger.<\/p>\n

    Cruel and Unusual Punishment<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Stories of the plight of American women began showing up within weeks of the court decision:<\/p>\n