The Freedom Bulletin

Last week in the Boston Globe, I read a short but sweet letter about Catherine Greig, loyal companion to James “Whitey” Bulger. Because the Globe decided to charge money to access their website, I cannot link you to it, but I think it’s worth re-posting:

“Let Catherine Greig go. She followed James “Whitey” Bulger, and stayed with him come hell or high water. She didn’t abandon him. Who are we to judge a woman’s heart? She was faithful, so if she’s being prosecuted in order to make an example of her, she is an example – an example of good old-fashioned dedication to the man you love, and a role model for brave women who choose a man and see in him what others don’t and stand by him to the end.”

Jean Pepper, Dover, N.H.

I love this letter, and I agree with the idea behind it. Yes, Bulger has a lot of haters, to say the least, which is understandable given his reputation and the crimes he is accused of committing. And Greig does as well because of her association with Bulger and the assistance she provided him while on the lam. In fact, subsequent letters appeared in the Globe, expressing “dismay” at Greig’s “subservient attitude” and saying that David Kaczynski, the brother of “Unabomber” Theodore Kaczynski who turned him in to the FBI, is a better role model.

It is obvious why people consider it virtuous to turn a suspect in to police, even when the suspect is your brother or your longtime significant other. But as a person who is drawn to underdogs, to unpopular views, and to people that most of society likes to hate on, I also see virtue in what Greig did. Loyalty is one of the highest virtues, and loyalty, to me, means staying true to yourself, true to your principles, your words, and what you believe in, and true to your friends, relatives, romantic partners, and whoever you have chosen to support. Many people define faithfulness in a romantic relationship as – to put it bluntly – having sex with only one person. And far too many women live up to this definition, while constantly nagging their husbands, complaining about them to friends, and throwing them under the bus if they fail to live up to society’s sexist expectations of holidays that they should remember, household tasks they should perform, things they should pay for, and gifts that they should buy. It is this attitude that is not only subservient, but actually disloyal. True loyalty and true faithfulness mean that you love someone for who they are, no matter what society thinks. Just like another couple that I admire, Anne Sinclair and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, this also seems to be true of Greig and Bulger.

In a way, Greig did stand up for what is right. There are plenty of people, including the U.S. Department of Justice, working to punish Bulger for his (alleged) deeds. Greig showed courage by helping and standing up for a man whom she must see some good in, even when the rest of the world feels exactly the opposite. There is nothing subservient about that.

As almost everyone in the world knows, Rush Limbaugh made some controversial comments about Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown law student who testified at a congressional hearing in support of requiring all health insurance plans to cover birth control pills for free.

Limbaugh said:

“What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke [sic], who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex. She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex.”

And later he said,

“So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

After almost all of the world erupted in rage at him, Limbaugh apologized.

Here’s my take: Yes, Rush made some bad word choices. It was somewhat mean to call Fluke a slut, not a perfect analogy to call her a prostitute, pointless to use the word “Feminazi,” and nonsensical to call for sex videos to be posted online. But he made a good point, which has been almost entirely overlooked: that indeed, to pay for someone’s birth control pills is to pay for them to have sex. Birth control pills are not essential, because they are only useful to people who have sex, and one can always make the choice not to have sex.*

The truth is, Limbaugh is right on this issue, and Fluke is wrong. Fluke and other proponents of free birth control are winning the public opinion war by making it seem like they are arguing for basic rights, and their opponents are trying to take these rights away. For example, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) said, ”The right to space and time our children for our own health and the ability to manage our lives — this is a basic right, and they’re going after it.”

In actuality, Fluke and her allies are arguing a very aggressive position, one that violates the freedom of others. These people are outraged at the fact that there is some opposition to forcing all people to purchase health insurance that covers a discretionary product (birth control pills) preferentially to medically necessary products. Fluke does not just demand that she have access to birth control, or that she be able to make her own decisions about her life or her body. She does not even demand that health insurance plans cover birth control just as they would any other health service. Instead, she demands that all health insurance plans be required to cover birth control with no co-pays, co-insurance, deductibles, or cost-sharing measures of any kind; in other words preferentially to chemotherapy, antibiotics, heart surgery, casts for broken bones, and all other health services that actually treat a medical problem.

In other words, she demands that I be required to pay for a health insurance plan that does not work for me and that I cannot afford because it covers discretionary products that I will never use. Unwilling to make any sacrifices in her budget to accommodate her desire to be sexually active, she demands that I make sacrifices in my budget to accommodate her desire to be sexually active. Anyone who falls short of supporting this extreme position, advocating, for example, something as modest as allowing companies to charge a $10 co-pay for birth control pills as would be required for any other medication, is characterized as a misogynist who wants to control women’s bodies and lives. This is ridiculous. I am not trying to control anyone’s body or anyone’s life; I am simply trying to control my own money.

In summary, Fluke is advocating injustice, unfairness, and outright aggression against every American by advocating that we all be required to pay for something that we do not necessarily want and will not necessarily ever use. Maybe Fluke shouldn’t have been called a slut. But that doesn’t change the fact that on this issue, she is completely, utterly wrong.

Here are a few more random points that, in my opinion, people haven’t been paying enough attention to in the birth control debate:

1. Fluke complained that birth control can cost someone $3,000 over the course of law school, or $1,000 a year. Apparently she mentions this because she thinks it’s a huge burden, but this is not an unmanageable price, especially if you consider that according to some sources, the price is actually as low as $9 per month. Unlike some medications that give people with cancer their only chance at life, birth control is reasonably priced even without insurance.
2. Birth control is not a women’s issue. It really, really annoys me that commentators unanimously, casually, and without thought, refer to this as a “women’s issue.” It is not. Sex and reproduction (and sex without reproduction) have to do with both genders equally. People of both genders have an interest in being able to have sex without making a baby, and men do not want to become parents against their will any more than women do. It is demeaning to women to suggest that somehow they should be more associated with reproduction than men are.
3. Why is there such an outrage about co-pays for birth control pills, but no outrage about co-pays for any other medication? For example, my dad, who takes statins for his cholesterol, wondered why no one is marching on Washington to demand free statins. Unlike birth control pills, statins are actually needed to treat a medical condition.

One of the only sensible articles I have seen about this issue is this one by Cathy Cleaver Ruse of the Family Research Council. I highly recommend it.

* Yes, birth control pills are sometimes used to treat medical conditions, and in these cases, they should be treated the same as any other medically necessary product or service. In this blog post, whenever I refer to birth control pills, I am referring to those used for birth control purposes.

Photo by International Monetary Fund via Flickr

They have got to be kidding.

The people who launched a petition demanding that Dominique Strauss-Kahn be uninvited from giving an economic speech at Cambridge University have now invited the lawyer for the hotel maid who is suing him to give a speech the same day. And, apparently unwilling to turn down any opportunity to harass his victim, he accepted.

At the invitation of the Cambridge University Students’ Union Women’s Campaign, Douglas H. Wigdor will be speaking at 1:00 on Friday, March 9 about “how legal systems can systemically disadvantage both women and immigrants.” Strauss-Kahn is scheduled to speak about the financial crisis at 7:30. But naturally, not before the Women’s Campaign stages a protest against his speech at 5:30.

Wigdor said, ”I was really stunned that such a prestigious institution as the Cambridge Union would let itself be used by Strauss-Kahn’s team to resurrect his image.” Actually, Katie Lam, the president of the Union, has said that she invited Strauss-Kahn because he is a fascinating figure with exceptional knowledge of the economy, and in fact has been inviting him since 2010. What gives Wigdor the right to say what the Union’s motives are, more than the Union members themselves? Clearly, he disagrees with their choice of speaker, but he should at least acknowledge that those who disagree with him might be freely, thoughtfully making the decision to disagree with him, instead of assuming that anyone who disagrees with him is being “used” or manipulated.

I am all for free speech, but there is a difference between speech whose intention is simply to express an opinion and speech whose intention is to harass, intimidate, and bully others from expressing their opinions. Inviting Wigdor or his even more obnoxious law partner, Kenneth Thompson, to give a speech on any day but March 9 would be one thing. But for the speech to be on the same day as Strauss-Kahn’s is designed not merely to present an alternative viewpoint but to harass him.

There is nothing feminist about assuming that all men who are accused of rape are guilty, and there is nothing brave about denying the presumption of innocence. For 700 + people to gang up on a 62-year-old economist who has been abandoned by almost all of his friends, has suffered horribly, and has no political future, is simply mean.

I wish strength and courage to Mr. Strauss-Kahn.

Today Anne Sinclair, the editorial director of the French version of the Huffington Post, and the wife of former presidential hopeful Dominique Strauss-Kahn, released a book about her grandfather, the famous art dealer Paul Rosenberg. In an interview with Le Parisien, she took the opportunity to explain a little bit about her book, as well as making some great comments about feminism and the media.

This is what she said about the work of the press during her husband’s ordeal as he faced sexual assault charges in New York:

It is legitimate to make a big deal of an event of which I don’t minimize the political importance. But I find that the limits of voyeurism and of the inquisition were crossed.

And this is what she said when asked whether she thinks there has been a return of “conservative morality”:

Like in any society in crisis, one witnesses a withdrawal. People have fear of the future, and from there, a more moralistic tendency. Words themselves diverge from their meanings, like that of feminism. Feminism is the fight for women’s freedom. Self-proclaimed feminists transformed it into a machine of questioning to dictate to each person how it is necessary to live.

I agree with her. The media unquestioningly describes as “feminists” all the people who assumed that Strauss-Kahn was guilty and demanded that Sinclair divorce him. But to judge a person as guilty merely because they are a man accused of a sex crime is the opposite of feminism, as is telling other women what they must value in a husband. Just because people call themselves feminists doesn’t mean they are.

Source: Le Parisien

Photo by International Monetary Fund via Flickr

Former chief of the International Monetary Fund and former French Finance Minister Dominique Strauss-Kahn is scheduled to give a speech about the financial crisis on March 9th at Cambridge University. Not surprisingly but still wrongly, self-proclaimed “feminists” are protesting his visit because, in addition to his many legitimate and very impressive accomplishments, he was also accused of attempted rape two times, but beat both cases because there was not sufficient evidence that he had done anything wrong.

There are still many, many people who treat Strauss-Kahn as if he is guilty and who are now criticizing the Cambridge Union Society for inviting him. The Cambridge University Students’ Union Women’s Campaign, for example, launched a petition calling for DSK to be uninvited. In their letter, they write that DSK’s speech would show an “abhorrent disregard” for the rights of sexual assault survivors, which, throughout the letter, they seem to assume are all women. The way I see it, this attitude is not feminist but quite the contrary. By assuming that sexual assault is always committed by men against women, you are not treating both genders equally but treating women as inherently weak and vulnerable and men as inherently aggressive. And by assuming, whenever a woman accuses a man of a sex crime, that he is guilty, you are choosing to believe one person and disbelieve another based on their gender. Not too feminist in my opinion.

The Women’s Campaign also misinterprets the Union’s motives for inviting DSK, accusing them of having “a callous desire to exploit gender crime allegations in the service of controversy.” Later they demand that the Union cancel DSK’s speech in order to demonstrate that ”sexual violence is not ‘racy’ material with which to pull in the crowds.” It’s awfully far-fetched to assume that inviting one of the world’s best economists to give a speech about the economy is an attempt to be “racy.” In fact, the Union has been inviting DSK to speak for a while, and understandably he only now has the free time to accept the invitation.

They also write that DSK ”has been able, because of institutional sexism in the legal system, to evade court,” having “benefitted from a concerted media character assassination” of one of his accusers. This makes me wonder, what newspapers have these people been reading?? Apparently they missed the dozens of New York Daily News articles that branded DSK as “Le Perv,” as well as the growing number that refer to him as the “rutting chimpanzee.” They also missed the glee with which nearly every publication (that I have seen, at least) plastered DSK’s perp-walk pictures on their front pages, crowing about how great a country America is for arresting him right away and refusing him bail, wringing their hands about why powerful men behave so badly, criticizing the culture of France, insulting DSK for being French, condemning his sex life, and generally portraying his accuser, Nafissatou Diallo, as a saint. For anyone who likes statistics, according to my calculations, out of 19 times the case made the New York Post’s front page, 9 were anti-DSK and only 7 were even remotely pro-DSK. It was only when Diallo’s numerous lies emerged that the media coverage changed somewhat in DSK’s favor, but certainly not to the degree needed to make up for the brutal treatment that they subjected him to and continue to subject him to today. Yes, there has been some media coverage that is critical of Diallo, but the victim of a “concerted media character assassination” is undoubtedly Dominique Strauss-Kahn.

And they describe DSK as a “rich, white, powerful man” who has been ”given a platform mostly denied to survivors of sexual violence.” Really? They seem to have forgotten that Diallo gave very high-profile interviews to Newsweek and ABC, and almost certainly turned down offers from other, equally prestigious media outlets. Plus, there is the fact that although DSK used to be powerful, he has now, because of the allegations against him, lost not only his job as chief of the IMF, but also his reputation, his friends, his privacy, his bodily integrity, and seemingly any hope of a political future. It is dubious to describe any individual who has had to face off against a government determined to put him or her in jail as “powerful,” and in this case truly betrays an abhorrent disregard for what DSK has suffered.

In addition to the Women’s Campaign letter, an anonymous ex-president of the Union Society said, “Offering the opportunity to speak to someone who has admitted committing criminal sexual aggression and has evaded the courts for two further charges of rape is seriously damaging.” First, it is simply false that DSK admitted to criminal sexual aggression, as I explained before. Second, it is objectionable to speak of someone “evading the courts” when there was not evidence to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is not a flaw but a fundamental part of the American legal system. Why does this person not mention anything about Diallo “evading” charges of perjury after she lied to a grand jury?

On the other hand, everything that Katie Lam, the president of the Union Society, has said during this controversy has been completely reasonable. ”The purpose of the Union is to provide a neutral platform for free speech,” she explained. “Anyone can speak here, and we use no selection criteria when inviting speakers other than that they are interesting people whom the membership would want to hear speak and would like a chance to question and challenge.” She also pointed out that Strauss-Kahn is “exceptionally well-qualified” to speak about the economy and is also simply a fascinating person.

Kudos to Lam and her organization for their brave, intelligent decision to allow DSK to speak despite his vocal detractors. The so-called feminists, on the other hand, have been anything but brave and intelligent in this matter. It is sad that over 600 people think they are helping women’s rights by depriving a man who has lost nearly everything, and who is tentatively attempting to make a comeback on the lecture circuit, of an opportunity to give an economic speech. In my opinion, the creators and signers of the petition are nothing more than bullies. That might sound like a strange word to use for college students who are protesting against a 62-year-old former banker, but the essence of bullying is the ganging up of a group of like-thinking people against an unpopular individual. This is exactly what is being done to DSK.

I am glad that Virginia governor Bob McDonnell decided not to support a bill that would require all women to undergo ultrasounds in order to get an abortion, which would de facto require them to have a probe inserted into their private parts. (A typical ultrasound, involving a wand on your belly, would not work early in a pregnancy.) McDonnell said, “No person should be directed to undergo an invasive procedure by the state, without their consent, as a precondition to another medical procedure.” I agree with him completely. But it seems that he withdrew his support for the law not because he personally opposes it but because his advisors told him that it could violate the Fourth Amendment.

This raises an interesting point, and I agree that this requirement violates the Fourth Amendment. An ultrasound is, in a way, a search of a person’s body, and in this case an extremely invasive one, which people would be forced to undergo as a condition of exercising their right to abortion. I agree with a Boston Globe editorial stating that this law “would physically violate women,” as well as with people who have called it “state-sponsored rape” and who have said it would “force doctors to rape their patients”

Many people have the principled stance of opposing abortion and wanting to outlaw it, and although I do not agree with them, I respect their opinion. But to require an ultrasound at all, and especially to call this requirement a “women’s right to-know-bill,” is paternalistic and degrading. No bill is needed to ensure that people have the right to know the status of their fetus before having an abortion; I am sure that in this culture of excessive medical tests and procedures, most doctors would agree to do an ultrasound if asked. Requiring people to know something is far different from allowing them to know, and it is insulting to people’s rationality to assume that they cannot know what fetuses look like and that they have a heartbeat without personally seeing and hearing this. As Virginia democratic chair Brian Moran said, even if a law does not require a physically invasive ultrasound, it still ”forces an unnecessary medical procedure on Virginia women whether their doctors think they need it or not.” (As a side note, although I agree with his general point, I would add that it shouldn’t even be up to doctors what medical procedures someone needs; it should be up to the individual.)

To require a physically invasive procedure adds to what is already a bad idea. In addition to the fact that people who support liberty should be vehemently opposed to anyone being required to undergo a medical procedure, one would think that social conservatives, who are supposed to support modesty and the dignity of all people, would, if anything, want to discourage people from having their private parts examined and probed.

During debate on the bill, Virginia state senator Janet Howell proposed an amendment stating, ”Prior to prescribing medication for erectile dysfunction, a physician shall perform a digital rectal examination and a cardiac stress test.” I guess she was trying to prove a point, but I have to object any attempt to pass such an amendment, even if meant as satire. Requiring people, as a condition of anything, to undergo an invasive procedure involving the most private parts of the body, is horrible regardless of gender.

It is wrong whenever any government, organization, or person interferes with a person’s right to make their own decisions about their lives or their bodies. But it is especially horrific when a violation of someone’s liberty also involves taking away their innocence, integrity, or dignity. That is exactly what the transvaginal ultrasound requirement would do. It is also what the TSA does through its virtual strip searches and pat-downs, which Governor McDonnell (correctly) called ”probably over the line with regard to people’s concerns about privacy and their civil liberties.” It is what law enforcement does by forcing defendants to undergo strip searches and even more invasive searches when they have not been proven guilty of any wrongdoing. And it is also what doctors do when they require patients to undergo similarly invasive exams as a condition of any medication or treatment.

I am glad that so many people were outraged by the invasive ultrasound requirement. There should be just as much outrage at all violations of people’s liberty and dignity.

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) wrote a letter urging Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to allow women to serve in all roles of the U.S. military, including infantry, armor, special operations, and other combat units. The Pentagon recently adopted new rules which expand women’s opportunities to include jobs such as tank and artillery mechanics and rocket launcher crew members, but the most dangerous jobs are still off-limits.

“I believe women should be able to serve in front line positions if they desire,” Brown wrote. “We should not waste time endlessly studying this issue and getting bogged down in bureaucratic red tape.”

Thank you, Sen. Brown, for supporting gender equality.