Monday, November 9, 2009

Feminism and health reform (1)

Octogalore has up a must-read post about health reform legislation, the Stupak amendment, and why women should not be wholly owned subsidiaries of either political party. She starts off in a way that warms my heart:

“Feminism is about more than women’s rights, it’s about an interlocking network of all oppressions!”

Not by my definition.

She then explains why electing Republicans who appoint Supreme Court justices who overturn Roe v Wade would not be the cataclysm Democrats would like women to believe. She further explains why the House health reform bill would raise higher barriers to poor women getting abortions than would the overturn of Roe v Wade. She sums up with:

I think in this instance they [Republicans] would be better for women’s rights simply because smaller government has less ability to affect women’s choices, not because they also wouldn’t sell women out for the “greater good.” This particular health plan, rather than simply straight-out subsidizing health care for those Americans who cannot get it through their employers and cannot otherwise afford it, seeks to expand government (male-dominated) power, which then takes advantage of those it sees as reliable, uncomplaining loyalists: women.

Not content with having written a truly outstanding post, Octogalore responds very thoughtfully to a commenter who claims President Obama is not a fiscal liberal but rather a corporatist. She talks about what defines a fiscal liberal and concudes:

I think one can be a corporatist and still be fiscally liberal, in in a lot of ways Obama and Bush were both. And I also think being a fiscal liberal does not equate to caring about lower socioeconomic classes. Some fiscal liberals do -- others don't. The latter are more concerned with expansion of government (and therefore their own) power. Similarly, some fiscal conservatives do care about lower socioeconomic classes -- and others don't.

Read the whole thing.

No comments: