Paige Johnson
Recently, Americans celebrated the 88th Anniversary of women’s suffrage in the United States. One hundred forty-four years after the founding of this country, women – representing more than half the population and having birthed the other half – won the right to vote.
In spite of their numbers, women were the last citizens to be granted the right to vote in this country. This quintessential American story of triumph after struggle is filled with wonder, courage and inspiration. Yet, the official anniversary of this incredible achievement, celebrated as Women’s Equality Day on Aug. 26 receives little fanfare, much less media coverage.
This is particularly noteworthy in an election year dominated by calls for change. Remarkably, the first female candidate with a viable shot at the White House didn’t seem to register with voters as something new. During Primary 2008, Barack Obama delivered a mesmerizing speech to the nation on the issue of race in America. Imagine a national conversation about gender. It’s not likely to happen very soon.
Perhaps our inability to talk about gender shouldn’t be surprising. Gender is another word for sex. It really would represent unprecedented change if we talked about sex in an honest way.
We live in a highly sexualized world, where skimpily clad bodies and suggestive postures are used to sell everything from cars to computers. Sex resonates and thus sells because sexuality is a normal part of human development regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. It should be viewed as normal and healthy.
Instead, the private sector in the United States typically exploits sexuality to their benefit while the public sector runs scared or, as evidenced by the Bush administration, tries to regulate the most intimate aspects of human sexuality – none more so than a woman’s right to make personal childbearing decisions.
Recently, for example, the Bush administration proposed a new regulation governing how recipients of federal funding must provide health care – or, more precisely, how they are not to provide health care.
The proposed rule stipulates that recipients of federal funds may not “require any individual to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity funded by [the Department of Health and Human Services] if such service or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.â€
The administration said their intent was merely to clarify existing laws that allow health care workers to refuse to participate in abortion or sterilization if they are personally opposed to this care. In fact, this rule goes much further.
And the Bush administration knows it.
In announcing the proposed rule change, HHS Sec. Mike Leavitt conceded that some groups might want to “press the definition of abortion†to include birth control. Earlier this summer, HHS issued a draft version of the proposed rule that explicitly defined abortion to include some forms of birth control. The draft was leaked to the press and public outcry forced HHS to make changes.
It’s astounding, really, in this day and age, that we’re still fighting over birth control. Studies show that 98 percent of women use some form of birth control at some point in their lives. The average American woman spends five years trying to get pregnant, being pregnant and nursing. She spends three decades trying not to get pregnant.
Birth control is basic health care for women. One might even say it’s as basic as the right to vote.
Paige Johnson is the director of Public Affairs at Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina.