Yesterday, America went back in time. What does the Supreme Court decision and the Wendy Davis filibuster mean for the “future”?
♦◊♦
Today, my Korean American daughter turns 2 years old. Next month, we move to Houston, Texas. I am terrified for her.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court voted to overturn a key component of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (1965!)—thereby making it legal for states to set voting laws without federal approval. This means voting laws that may, and probably will, discriminate against poor people and minorities. Texas immediately announced it would be remapping districts (which will surely favor the party in power) and passing voter identification laws. Soon to go will be early voting laws that help turn out the vote among, well, liberals. (See this Times article for a breakdown.)
Later in the day, Texas State Senator Wendy Davis attempted to filibuster an abortion law likely to shut down the vast majority of clinics in the state, closing them under the guise of safety regulations. The law will require abortion clinics to be up to the equipment standards of a hospital operating room, which is outside of most clinics’ budgets. The closings will, of course, greatly affect women’s health care.
I write “attempted” because the Republican senators used parliamentary objections to shut down the filibuster. The sticking point was that Davis brought up sonogram laws, which Republicans cited as not “germane” to the abortion bill. Democrats argued that sonograms are indeed relevant; sonograms are often crucial in the decision to abort and the laws making it harder to abort. Eventually, the growing crowd at the Senate building took matters into its own hands, effectively starting a “people’s filibuster” by shouting out the voting procedure until midnight had passed—at which time, a vote is against the rules. The Republicans, however called the vote anyway, claiming that the interruption—that is, the direct voice of the people they represent—was only a time out, and passed the bill 19-10. Thankfully, this decision was thrown out this morning, but the same law is likely to pass in a special session or in a later amendment.
By the way, you read that correctly: a “time out,” like what you would say when you were about to be tagged, in Tag, as a child. Just before you might run away and call “time in” from a safe place.
For women and minorities, those safe places are disappearing. Even the illusion that those in power still represent the will of the people is disappearing, as polls that show the general population (democracy) in support of gay marriage and gun control go ignored by lawmakers, who listen instead to lobbyists (oligarchy?). And it is no coincidence that the disappearance of rights is happening now, when those people who have historically had less freedom are close to becoming the majority, when we have a black president who could possibly be followed by a woman president.
When people are starting to realize that freedom of speech is not only about having the freedom to speak, but about the freedom for all people to be heard.
Yesterday, we took a step back in time, a step toward silencing those Americans who are not rich white men. I am raising a Korean American daughter, while losing hope that she will have as many rights as I did, in the 1980s. I am losing hope that we are progressing.
The reason the Supreme Court gave for overturning the Voting Rights Act was that most dangerous bit of racism: that things are equal enough. That minority voters are beyond needing protection. I am sure we see very different worlds, the Judges and I. Yet mine is the world their worldview is affecting.
To recap, SCOTUS ruled yesterday that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to insist on standards for equal voting right by claiming equal rights exist. Even if that were completely true (which it is not), the logic here is breathtakingly backwards. Imagine justifying killing someone by saying death is just a fact of life. Imagine a county with zero murders in the last year annulling the law that makes murder illegal. (And for those who would object that this justification isn’t representative of the entire country, I’m here to tell you that the SCOTUS justification isn’t either.)
Or think of it this way, while Democrats fall over themselves to insist that banning assault rifles doesn’t mean they are rejecting a right granted in 1776 to protect farmers from invading imperialists, SCOTUS is saying that a law passed to protect civil liberties in 1965 is outdated now because—you’re welcome, America—people’s liberties are safe.
But what makes me most terrified of raising a daughter in this America is the kind of racism, the type of inequality, that does exist so rampantly now and is being held up by law and lawmakers. Post-racism is, in our current moment, maybe the most dangerous type of racism. It is the kind of racism that says, the racism minorities experience is all in our heads. It is the kind of racism that says, the racism that is still going on is okay. Because we’re pretending we don’t see it. It is the kind of racism that attempts to completely disempower not only minorities (a la the “original” racism), but also the efforts for real equality. It is the kind of racism that creates the very breeding ground for more, and more of, overt and legitimized racism, as it asserts that no one needs to protect the rights of people of color.
On top of that, the Republican party has laid down the gauntlet against women in the same manner. Women don’t need to be able to make decisions about their bodies, Republicans are saying, because they have enough power already. Rich white men are only looking out for women’s rights by denying them rights.
I am so worried about bringing up my daughter in a country that will not acknowledge her humanity at all.
My family is moving to Texas, but this move back to the 1950s is not a Texan problem. This is an American problem. This is not a problem Americans can avoid by pretending it isn’t there, or that we have moved beyond discrimination as a nation. This is not a problem Americans can avoid, either, by avoiding Texas. If we still paid attention to history, we would see how far see-no-evil/hear-no-evil can get us. And we had better pay attention to history, because we’re about to be living in it.
—photo Youtube/AP
We moved to Texas from Illinois due to a job transfer. Regretted moving back ever since. If it weren’t for family, in particular the grandkids, we’d move back in a heart beat.
same here. I’m currently trying to convince my wife that the hill country would be a great place for our kids…
Texas is not a place to move if you have progressive tendencies. If, for some reason, you must, Houston and Austin are the places to go. Although, as soon as you get outside even these metro areas, you can be brought back to 1960s race and gender relations in a heartbeat. The politics there are unimaginably corrupt, all the while with a “faith-based” veneer. Natives who still live there, and love it since they don’t know any better, are generally dismissive of the rest of the country, though they gladly take in billions of federal dollars, particularly in defense and… Read more »
I grew up in Texas. I have lived for the past 20 years up and down the East coast while traveling all over the US for work. Crappy politicians and poor race relations are not the sole province of conservative states. I suggest you spend a year in Washington DC, Philly or NY just observing the local politics. I have a feeling you might be shocked.
To be honest, state-level politics aside, Dallas is a pretty “standard” American city that feels far less “Texan” than you’d think. Spending a lot of time there I was struck by how little difference there was between Dallas and most other cities in terms of individuals’ outlooks and the such. Of course once you get outside of the city you’ll see all the stereotypes popping in to say hello.
Perhaps the US is stuck in the past because the legislative processes are from the 1800s?
Sigh. In terms of abortion-rights, we all do ourselves a panic-inducing breakout when we cease to see things in a larger context. To be honest, these extreme anti-abortion bills being forced through the more conservative legislatures are, in my view at least, far closer to a “last, desperate gasp” for the anti-abortion movement than to some widespread, popular support for restricting a woman’s personal autonomy. Maybe my choice of outlook is just sunnier, but these are the death rattles of crazy people. This is an issue that is decided, and in another 10-20 years this will all be an unseemly… Read more »
You are actually mistaken. The high point for abortion was the mid 90’s. It has lost support since then owing to Millennials tepid support. This new wave isn’t so much a last stand as it is a renewed push with more support. http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/Abortion.aspx And these “extreme” bills as you call them are not so extreme when you factor in advances in medical science. A baby born at 22.5 weeks has a non-zero chance to live by middle of 23 weeks its 20%, 24 weeks its 40% and after 25 weeks its over 50%. Considering that the date of conception can… Read more »
I would further add that this new wave of limiting abortion in red states is actually in line with the way most of Europe treats abortion.
We’re not going to argue this because we’re from opposing sides, it seems. But I can’t see how you could think that contraceptive availability would inversely affect abortion rights. They’re the same discourse.
I wonder what the author would think if a bunch citizens who were opponents of the ACA had bum rushed congress to prevent its passing? Somehow I doubt that he would piously and pompously refer to it as a “people’s filibuster” and would instead be talking about a small group hijacking our sacred democracy: Mob rule for me but not for thee!
As far as being terrified of moving to Houston, a sophisticated , growing, diverse city of millions- seriously?
The SC decision was covered beautifully by Henry
I think author is totally misinformed on the details. The court did not rule “that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to insist on standards for equal voting right by claiming equal rights exist.” SCOTUS ruled that the formula for determining which districts require federal oversight for changing their voting laws is out of date, and to such a degree that said formula is invalid. A new formula based on current data would put the act back into practice—which it probably should be. I’d imagine a new formula would show that the act is indeed still required to preserve… Read more »
Henry, I completely agree with you.
I pointed this out but apparently, it wasn’t accepted by the moderator. Voting Right Act has a bunch of sections Section 3 – bail-in. If the DOJ proves a state is discriminating they get included. This has actually been done to New Mexico, Arkansas, and the City of Los Angles. They will continue to be required to preclear everything, and the DOJ will be able to continue to use this. Section 4 – works out to a formula that has been the same for 40+ year that essentially says the South has to get preclerance. Section 5 – what is… Read more »
Well said. These are scary days indeed.