House GOP memo: abortion is “leading cause of death” in black community

I wish I was kidding, but I’m not. H/T to Mother Jones for making this type of propaganda known to the public.

A memo on Monday was circulated by Republican members on the House judiciary committee on Monday before Arizona Republican Rep. Trent Franks’ Susan B. Anthony and Frederick Douglass Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act’s scheduled markup. The memo seems to promote the bill, and uses some interesting statistics to back up its inaccurate claims. As we all known, the bill would outlaw abortions based on race or sex and would also give family members the ability to sue if they can prove an abortion was done on the basis of race or sex.

Part of the memo reads:

Even more invidious, a thorough review of the American family planning movement reveals a history of targeting African-Americans for “population control,” arguably resulting in the current statistic that a black baby is five times as likely to be aborted as a white baby. Abortion is the leading cause of death in the black community. With greater than 450,000 black abortions per year, more blacks Americans are lost to abortion annually than are lost to cancer, heart disease, diabetes, AIDS, and violence combined.

I should note that the memo cites Susan Cohen’s Abortion and Women of Color: A Bigger Picture, published by the Guttmacher  Institute, as one of the sources for its stipulation that black babies are “five times as likely to be abortion as a white baby.” While the report does admit the black abortion rate is five times higher than that of white women, Cohen presents  slew of economic, racial and social disparities that contribute to this statistic. She further notes that activists, “including some African-American pastors, have been waging a campaign around this fact, falsely asserting that the disparity is the result of aggressive marketing by abortion providers to minority communities.”

More:

These activists are exploiting and distorting the facts to serve their antiabortion agenda. They ignore the fundamental reason women have abortions and the underlying problem of racial and ethnic disparities across an array of health indicators. The truth is that behind virtually every abortion is an unintended pregnancy. This applies to all women—black, white, Hispanic, Asian and Native American alike. Not surprisingly, the variation in abortion rates across racial and ethnic groups relates directly to the variation in the unintended pregnancy rates across those same groups.

Black women are not alone in having disproportionately high unintended pregnancy and abortion rates. The abortion rate among Hispanic women, for example, although not as high as the rate among black women, is double the rate among whites. Hispanics also have a higher level of unintended pregnancy than white women. Black women’s unintended pregnancy rates are the highest of all. These higher unintended pregnancy rates reflect the particular difficulties that many women in minority communities face in accessing high-quality contraceptive services and in using their chosen method of birth control consistently and effectively over long periods of time. Moreover, these realities must be seen in a larger context in which significant racial and ethnic disparities persist for a wide range of health outcomes, from diabetes to heart disease to breast and cervical cancer to sexually transmitted infections (STI), including HIV.

Looks like the GOP has been caught red-handed distorting the facts and picking and choosing sentences without providing any context in order to promote their paternalistic, racist, anti-choice agenda.

(New Black Woman breaks it down)

Posted in abortion rights, black children, black community, black women, politics, race baiting, racism, white privilege | Leave a comment

Pete Hoekstra airs racist campaign ad

This ish is bananas, y’all. Michigan U.S. Senate candidate Pete Hoesktra is in hot water for perpetuating racist Asian stereotypes from a campaign ad that ran during last night’s Super Bowl. For those who don’t want to watch the ad, here’s a transcript of what the young woman says:

“Thank you, Michigan Senator Debbie Spenditnow. Debbie spends so much American money. You borrow more and more from us. Your economy get very weak. Ours get very good. We take your jobs. Thank you, Debbie Spenditnow.”

A Washington Post article notes the ad has been criticized by at least one GOP operative and an Asian-American voter organization:

GOP consultant Nick De Leeuw flat-out scolded the Holland Republican for the ad.

“Stabenow has got to go. But shame on Pete Hoekstra for that appalling new advertisement,” De Leeuw wrote on his Facebook page Sunday morning. “Racism and xenophobia aren’t any way to get things done.”

The nonpartisan Asian & Pacific Islander American Vote group’s Michigan chapter said it was “deeply disappointed” by the ad, noting that the Asian-American community is a major contributor to Michigan’s economy. In 2010, Michigan’s 236,490 Asian-Americans made up 2.4 percent of the state’s population, up 35 percent from 2000.

“It is very disturbing that Mr. Hoekstra’s campaign chose to use harmful negative stereotypes that intrinsically encourage anti-Asian sentiment,” the group said in a statement.

Hoekstra campaign spokesman Paul Ciaramitaro said the ad is meant to be satirical. Hoekstra’s Facebook page, which by early evening was getting a barrage of criticism on the ad, snapped back that those “trying to make this an issue of race demonstrates their total ignorance of job creation policies.” On YouTube, the ratings buttons on the ad were disabled after it aired.

Democrats talk about race when they can’t defend their records,” Ciaramitaro said. “The U.S. economy is losing jobs to China because of Stabenow’s reckless spending policies. China is reaping the reward.”

Why do people think they can hide behind satire and/or humor when it comes to not only appropriating an oppressed group’s culture, but also promoting long-held racist, xenophobic stereotypes? Why is humor and satire the default defense one employs when it comes to making racist, xenophobic, transphobic, ableist, and homophobic beliefs known to the public at large?

(New Black Woman breaks it down)

Posted in Michigan, Pete Hoekstra, politics, racism, xenophobia | 2 Comments

Humor is no defense, Roland Martin

I actually like Roland Martin. Not only are his tweets and Facebook postings humorous, but he also gives some of the best political insight that’s available for us who live outside The Beltway.

So, I was disappointed to see Martin play into long-standing gender stereotypes with tweets he made about a commercial during Sunday’s Super Bowl:

Since I’ve been following him for close to a year, I understand his long-running jokes he makes about soccer, as he notes about an hour after posting the above tweets. However, the tweet, “Ain’t no real bruhs going to H&M to buy some damn David Beckham underwear” caused a shit storm among some GLBTQ folks on Twitter. Of course, Martin defended his tweets by accusing people of not fully reading his timeline to fully grasps what he *really* was getting at.

I’m still pondering what Martin meant by “real bruhs,” though. I’ve read his timeline for 15 minutes before writing this and I still can’t grasps what he means by real bruhs. Do real bruhs purchase Hanes, formerly pitched by Michael Jordan, from Wal-Mart instead? Do they purchase their underwear from mall stores? Gap? Old Navy? Abercrombie & Fitch? Aero? Ecko? So, what if a dude at someone’s Super Bowl party was hyped about Beckham’s H&M underwear ad? Why does he deserve to have the “ish” smacked out of him, as Martin directed to his followers?

Does a man getting hyped about Beckham’s underwear ad make him less of a bruh, Martin? Does that make him worthy of ridicule? Mocking? What if a real bruh’s young son were to get hyped about Beckham’s underwear ad? Does that young son deserved to have the shit smacked out of him, reminding him of how real bruhs are supposed to conduct themselves in the presence of other real bruhs, young and old?

Here’s another screenshot of Martin’s tweets. Notice his defensiveness…

Martin’s response to his critics is typical of cisgendered, straight folks who refuse to check their privilege in the presence of GLBTQ peeps. Here’s the thing Roland Martin: if a member of an oppressed group criticizes your tweets as offensive and homophobic–just like GLBTQ folks regarding your tweets–you have no right to question their reasoning or their perception of your tweets. As a cis, straight man, you have no right to lecture gays, lesbians, bisexuals or transgender folks on how they should perceive homophobia. You have no right to dictate to GLBTQ folks on what is or isn’t homophobic. Your cis, straight privilege doesn’t give you that ability. Plain and simple.

Cracking on men wearing skinny jeans is very different than advocating violence towards those who aren’t “real bruhs” because they would get excited about seeing David Beckham’s underwear ad.

The difference, Roland Martin, is you are perpetuating gender stereotypes and promoting the idea that real men only act a certain way or like certain products. You’re promoting the idea that real men don’t get excited about going to H&M to purchase David Beckham’s new underwear. Furthermore, you’re promoting the accepted hypermasculine response to anything that goes against gender conformity as subject to ridicule and violence as an effort to put those misfits in check.

The idea that Martin would even hide behind humor to explain away the latent homophobia in his tweets is beneath a man of his intelligence. I can bet on my 2005 Honda Civic that Martin wouldn’t excuse Newt Gingrich if he tried to hide behind humor to explain his racist, sexist or homophobic statements. So, why should he expect his Twitter followers to accept his haphazard excuse for his homophobic tweets?

Posted in homophobia, Roland Martin, Super Bowl | 3 Comments

Things white activists say to activists of color

This is probably one of my favorite installment of shit/things  [insert group of people] say to [insert another group of people] videos. Every white, cis, feminist, anarchist, anti-capitalism activist needs to watch this video as I’m sure they’ve on occasion made these absurd, ignorant statements in the name of being progressive.

Posted in activism, politics, racism, whiteness | 3 Comments

Romney is “not concerned about the very poor…”

It’s hard for me to like Mitt Romney. I used to have some respect for him as a moderate Republican, but he’s slowly making his way down towards the top of my Politicians I’d Like To Disappear list. In an interview with CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, the likely GOP presidential nominee said he’s not concerned about the “very poor” as they have a safety net and the “very rich” as they are doing “just fine.”

Romney said he’s concerned about the average Americans who have been battling a terrible economy since President Barack Obama took office. Here’s the exact exchange:

“I’m not concerned about the very poor,” he said. “We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I’ll fix it. I’m not concerned about the very rich; they’re doing just fine. I’m concerned about the very heart of America, the 90%, 95% of Americans right now who are struggling, and I’ll continue to take that message across the nation.”

When pressed by CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien about his remark about the very poor, Romney cited food stamps, Medicaid and housing vouchers.

“You can choose where to focus,” he said. “You can focus on the rich; that’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor; that’s not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans.”

Because, you know, only middle-income Americans have been the only ones hurt by the Great Recession…

How can one not be concerned about the very poor, yet advocate fixing the safety net “if it needs repair?”

The Republican crop of presidential candidates have been on this kick of not necessarily scapegoating the poor and the struggling, but of dismissing their plight as unimportant or not distinct enough to garner their attention. What do you make of Romney’s comments? A simple gaffe or a reflection of the type of campaign he will run?

 

Posted in Mitt Romney, presidential politics, Republican Party | 1 Comment