October 22nd, 2012

Harriet Vane

What it means to women when states control funding

Dear friends and readers,

Like previous presidents, including Clinton, Mitt Romney is going to continue the policy of cutting social program, turning then over to the state (vouchers anyone?). Take it to your local insurance company. Oh what fun!

How does this sort of thing affect women. Often badly.  The other day the Texas governor sneered and triumphed that if the health care centers in Texas do not get rid of Plannet Parenthood he will cut off funding for everything in them for women. He was enjoying himself. In South Carolina funds intended for HIV prevention have not been distributed for this at all. So an economic castastrophe for rural black women whom HIV disproportionately affects  in the US;

In The Nation this week there was a review of a book by a man named Self who has written with great candour about the Republican conservative movement in the US. They would prefer that people go broke rather than women be freed from family control. (Men too must be controlled.)  They have supported breast-feeding in order to keep women on a leash. He argues the center of capitalism is the control of women's reproduction and making them have babies. Men have lost power since the distribution of contraception. If you want to understand why desperately poor people will vote republican the book shows you their stance. Breadwinner Conservatism: