Picayune Extra: Sign me up for the 'hell no!' caucus
Supreme Court's reported intention to remove protections for abortion rights throws down a challenge to lazy left
To read this issue in your browser, click on the headline above.
This issue exceeds in size the maximum length for a standard email. To read the entire issue in your browser, click on the headline link above.
Assuming, as I do, that the reporting is accurate in the story broken by Politico at 7:32 p.m. Chicago time Monday — “Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows —’We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,’ Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court” — a huge challenge has been thrown down to the political left.
Those who have stayed on the sidelines or supported fringe candidates because the Democratic party fails one or more purity tests will either rise up at the polls to defeat the crafty cultural conservative movement, or women in many states will lose access to the abortion rights they’ve had for half a century.
Saying “hell no!” to the elimination or erosion of those rights will require them voting for candidates who don’t check all their boxes. Saying “hell no!” It will require an end to the complacency and in-fighting that led to the installation of a Supreme Court that’s far more right-wing than the country itself. Saying “hell no!” will require a powerful outreach to moderate voters to persuade them that, really, they don’t want to turn the U.S. Congress over to the party of zealots who want to force women to remain pregnant against their will.
The anti-abortion crusaders may be relishing this fight, but my guess is that vast numbers of Republicans are worried that the Supreme Court has awakened a sleeping giant — the mass of people who favor abortion rights but for decades have enjoyed the luxury of voting without any real worry that Roe v. Wade and subsequent supporting decisions were seriously threatened. Wasn’t it “settled law” Didn’t Ronald Reagan completely shy from a fight over abortion rights in the 1980s?
Republican candidates could safely huff and puff about wanting to end abortion rights because it thrilled their base and no one else took them seriously. Now, every candidate for state, federal and even local office will have to answer questions about abortion rights, and voters will have to take them seriously.
If the Politico story accurately portends a future in which state governments get to decide when a woman can terminate an unwanted pregnancy, the dramatically restrictive abortion laws in red states will go into effect. Corporations and individuals are going to start thinking twice about relocating where women have lost the right to choose. Maybe some will rush to Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana and so on to show their opposition to abortion.
Do I think that abortion rights will now be up there if not more important than crime, inflation and immigration when voters go to the polls in November?
Hell yes!
But am I sure that the political energy — not just the numbers, but the passion — are with abortion rights supporters?
Hell no!
The not-so-great debate scheduling conflict
Thursday, NBC5 Chicago announced that the station would be hosting the first televised debate among the Republican gubernatorial candidates:
NBC 5 and Telemundo Chicago are partnering with the Chicago Urban League, The Latino Policy Forum and the Union League Club of Chicago to host a televised forum for Republican candidates vying for the party’s nomination to challenge Gov. J.B. Pritzker in the 2022 election.
The one-hour forum will take place on Tuesday, May 24 at 6 p.m., and will be hosted at NBC Tower.
NBC 5 Political Reporter Mary Ann Ahern will moderate the forum, and Telemundo Chicago anchor Anabel Monge will take questions from a live-studio audience for the roundtable-format event.
The following afternoon, WGN-Ch. 9 tweeted a gubernatorial debate announcement:
—though Shia Kapos of Illinois Playbook reported that “WGN may have sent out its request first (on March 14).”
If the stations’ studios were adjacent, the back-to-back scheduling just might work. But WGN-TV is a little more than 7 miles by car from NBC Tower — 20 minutes in light city traffic — so since Richard Irvin, the best funded of the Republican hopefuls, has accepted the NBC 5 invitation, something or someone is going to have to give if we’re to have a meaningful political clash.
May 24 is already late on the calendar. Early voting begins May 19 and primary Election Day is June 28. WLS-Ch. 7 and the Illinois League of Women Voters are reportedly planning a third debate for June 2.
Bailey, a fiery state senator from downstate Xenia, said he’s sticking with the WGN event and dismissed the WMAQ forum as “the undercard.” His campaign sneered that prospective moderator Ahern was one Irvin’s “hand-picked reporters” who was trying “to sabotage a statewide debate (on behalf of) a station with less coverage and softer questions for him.”
Ahern, who is a famously relentless interrogator, tweeted a response:
This silly situation demands a quick resolution. Gubernatorial debates at dinnertime don’t draw Super Bowl ratings. Most people read, listen or watch the highlights later on. The stations should combine moderating duties — dump the tendentious audience questions, already! — and flip a coin on which time and venue to use.
One hour is not enough if all six candidates — including Max Solomon and Paul Schrimpf — will be sharing the stage. For a one-hour debate, producers should set a support threshold of, say, 8% in opinion polls for inclusion in order to give more time to the candidates with a real chance of success in the battle for the right to face incumbent Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker in November.
Put the first hour on TV and stream the second hour online if pre-empting hopefuls isn’t an option.
Notes and comments from readers —lightly edited —- along with my responses
Some of these messages are in reference to items in last Thursday’s Picayune Sentinel.
Tom L. —What Florida’s Parental Rights in Education law does is prevent kids in Kindergarten through third grade from being taught things that no children of those grades should ever be taught. They are not developed enough to understand and should not be taught anything in school regarding gender or sexual identity. Teaching any kids in public school anything about sex, gender identity and the like before the age of 12 is child abuse.
Geez. You’d think from all the pearl-clutching and moral indignation on display that K-3 teachers in Florida have been instructing their charges in the mechanics and particulars of sodomy and the vivid details of gender confirming surgery.
In its preamble, the new law says it’s aim is “prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity,” and the text of the law decrees “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students,” but of course students have been inculcated forever on conventional sexual orientation and traditional gender identity.
Moms and Dads. Boys and girls with traditional gender names engaging in stereotypically gender appropriate behavior. They’re in most of the books, many songs. Teachers discuss them freely. And most social conservatives are more than fine with those sorts of depictions and discussions of sexual orientation and gender identity.
The worry seems to be that teachers might mention their same-sex spouses or that students might ask why Heather has two mommies, and that the teacher will then explain, without references to bedroom mechanics, that sometimes men marry men and women marry women. Because even though such unions are legal, they find them immoral.
What this dispute is ultimately about is the normalization of gay marriage and the acknowledgment that gender identity is not necessarily simple. Objections seem rooted in revulsion/dismay over the idea that a small percentage of people have transitioned or will transition to identifying as another gender.
Some people still find interracial or interfaith marriages wrong or immoral. Does it amount to “instruction” in interfaith unions to explain to kindergarteners why some families celebrate both Hanukkah and Christmas? Is it a form of indoctrination to show interracial couples in a picture book?
No. But…
It’s undeniable that the Florida law, vague and ominous and transparent though it may be, is in some ways a response to such things as the “Celebrating LGBTQ+” curriculum at Evanston–Skokie School District 65. The lesson plans for LGBTQ Equity month (just concluded) heavily promote a very progressive view of gender and sexuality:
“Even though we are all given a sex assigned at birth, you are not given your gender. Only you can know your gender and how you feel inside”
“A lot of people believe babies are given the gender that they are when they are born, but we now know gender is a spectrum. When couples find out they are pregnant they have something called a “gender reveal party.“ But really it should be called a “sex assigned at birth” party.”
“Students will … learn more about … bills that aim to prevent transgender students from playing sports, and consider what they can do about it. … They will consider how harmful language impacts the inclusivity of a team and community and will reflect on the roles of adults and peers in creating more inclusive environments. Students and educators will have a choice whether to create an affirming locker room poster, or ‘You Can Play’ video.”
I’m all in for equal rights and full respect for LGBTQ+ people, but I can see why some parents would think this sort of instruction crosses a line into advocacy on debatable matters of public policy. I can also see why some voices on the right have seized on the Evanston-Skokie example as illustrative of material that goes beyond asking young children to reconsider rigid gender stereotypes and asks them to examine their own gender identity.
The pendulum swing back to “Parental Rights in Education” laws is regrettable but inevitable
Sue S.— I'm surprised and disappointed that you recommended PDFdrive.com to your readers. Most of the content that the site links to likely violates copyright law . I seriously think you should retract that recommendation.
Arnie B. — A lot of books available through PDF are still copyrighted and in print. There is a disclaimer regarding sources for the downloadable material on PDF Drive, but this disclaimer shows that the people behind PDF Drive are knowingly skirting copyright laws.
It’s no secret that authors do a lot of hard work that doesn’t always get reflected back in profits. Not everyone can be Robert Caro or Stephen King. Given the obvious copyright violations, I hope you rescind your recommendation of the site. It’s just another ripoff web database along the lines of The Pirate Bay.
I removed this link from the online version of last Thursday’s Land of Linkin’ section as soon as these and several other notes arrived. My cursory look at the site showed really old fiction titles probably out of copyright and/or really obscure titles that I supposed authors were pleased to have anyone at all reading. What I should have linked to was Project Gutenberg, a site that is far more scrupulous about protecting copyright.
Here’s a question for the room, though: Why don’t we consider lending libraries and used book stores to be copyright violators? The creator of the book/DVD/CD/ebook/audio book gets nothing in the transaction between the library (purchaser) and subsequent user. With the elimination of overdue fines in some library systems, a patron can basically “own” the Robert Caro or Stephen King book, for example. And of course a used book store pays no royalties
The downloadable .pdf is simply a version of the same issue/problem.
Not that I’m challenging the value of libraries or used book stores. But freeloading readers have been with us for a very, very long time.
Another problem some correspondents mentioned was that .pdf files can be infected with malware — see “eBook worms: PDF files that you download from free ebook websites can contain viruses. Let’s learn how to spot and avoid PDF malware.” Project Gutenberg has other, safer options.
Buying books at the store and supporting authors is another fine option to consider.
Marc M. —I had a different experience with the concept of “Stacy's Dad,” regarding your riff on the pop song “Stacy’s Mom” in last week’s “Today’s tune” feature. My 7th grade crush was my math teacher, a beautiful twenty-something. I was scrawny, 5 feet tall, and knew that a woman like her was unattainable. Then one day her husband stopped by the classroom to drop something off. He looked and sounded like Wally Cox. He was an inspiration and a beacon of hope.
Either my lack of imagination or my lack of self-confidence as an adolescent prevented me from having a crush on a much older woman in my youth. The best I could do was yearn for certain girls one grade ahead of me in school whom I imagined had it goin’ on.
As for the meek-looking character actor Wally Cox, he was a U.S. Army vet who died nearly 50 years ago at age 48, having been married three times. I have long been amazed at the yodeling talent he exhibited in this recording of “Tavern in the Town,”and perhaps if you’d been able to have your voice break in perfect pitch you would have won the heart of that math teacher.
Harris M. — One of the issues facing owners of plug-in hybrid cars is "icing," when internal combustion engine vehicles park in electric charging spots. This happened to me the other day at the charging station at the Jewel on Clark Street in the Andersonville neighborhood. A gasoline-powered car was parked in one of the two stations (the other station was being used by an EV). I had to park my Prius Prime near the charger in an area marked as not for parking (though not blocking any vehicles and not in a disabled spot) in order to charge my car. I went inside and told the manager, who said it would be OK.
The signs at these EV charging spots say only that they are just for electric charging. Unlike disabled parking spots, they do not mention any threat of a fine or getting towed.
The City Council should make this an offense subject to ticketing and towing. This is going to become a bigger and bigger problem as the number of EV charging stations/parking spots grows over the next few years, with the influx of federal infrastructure money to support EV charging.
It really would help if the signs made it clear it's a ticketable, towable offense, because now vehicle owners see no disincentive to park in these charging spots. And these encounters can get ugly and could even lead to violence.
I put a small note on the other vehicle's windshield saying, "Please do not park in the EV charging spot."
Here's the response on a note on my windshield: "Please don't leave notes on people (sic) cars. I can park where ever (sic) the fuck I want!! Have a great day."
If we were able to say, yes you can, but you will get towed, that would make a difference.
Great idea.
Reply in comments below
Ya gotta see these tweets!
I often run across tweets that are too visual in nature to include in the Tweet of the Week contest (the template for the poll does not allow the use of images). Here are a few good ones I’ve come across recently:
There’s still time to vote in the conventional Tweet of the Week poll!
Thank you for supporting the Picayune Sentinel. To help this publication grow, please consider spreading the word to friends, family, associates, neighbors and agreeable strangers. Stay fresh, cheesebags!
I prefer to keep an open comment tab open as I read to capture initial thoughts. Hell no. Pritzker's Tweet seems like a typical political 'sound byte." Politico seems to have made a conclusion. RvW hasn't been struck down - they only have an initial draft in a long process of SCOTUS legal debating. I want to know who leaked this more than anything. Maybe it was to rally the troops - but a lot can happen between now and Nov. Will this one "issue" really create any wave? Elections are about who fills "My" checklist the best.
A gender reveal party is a “sex assigned at birth” party ? You should have called that one out for being just plain wrong. Those parties take place BEFORE birth. Sex is not “ assigned” ( which sounds like a random guess) but either determined based on observed genitalia in utero or ….increasingly commonly …on scientific testing of chromosomes. Trans people don’t just have a gender identity at odds with their “ assigned” sex . In 99.999 percent of cases they have a gender identity at odds with their sex based chromosomes. While there are some possible chromosomal abnormalities are at play in some cases, only those without a Y chromosome will be born with clearly female anatomy . ( this doesn’t mean every single solitary human without a Y chromosome has this). But chromosomal sex is so linked to sex based anatomy in such an incredibly high number of cases that any variation must be considered an Anomaly.