How do we judge political consciousness? By its depth, by its physical manifestation; by the emotional expression? by the results?
I am surprised by the level of activism that the American people showed -- both men and women - their reaction to the nomination of Trump's nominee.
Some stood in front of doors of senators; others called one "Liar" to his face; others shouted "Shame, shame, shame" showing their fierce rejection of the nominee.
Phones kept ringing in the senatorial offices for the callers to voice out their anger and frustration.
Will the Filipino people ever reach that level of expression of their political positions?
It's very difficult to say because our people are very unassuming and not wont to confrontations.
But may be the American people, especially the women could really project into the future as to what that nominee would do once he gets into office -- and that is, to be a parrot to be squawking what his nominator asks him to do.
Now what are the women guarding against? That the right to control their bodies for or against pregnancy will not be abolished, for one. (Read Roe vs Wade law below.)
When you yourself live in the western world and experience four seasons all throughout your life -- summer, spring, autumn and winter-- it is very difficult to maintain one's physical well-being, what more so with another mouth to feed. And so, we cannot blame the western women when they find it important to have that right intact.
Unfortunately, the majority of the senators who opted to confirm that nominee are not inclined to go against the wishes of the nominator. So after two years of questionable acquisition of the presidential position which is still being investigated for having the imprints of Russian intervention, the majority of the senators are still confirming the nominee, a favorable response to the wishes of the nominator.
Hence the confrontation is harsh because the nominator is illegally occupying a post and yet can control the processes within.
However, as seekers of change in our lives, we must guard against bringing the momentum of the movement to a conclusion that will bring chaos and greater disappointments. I have seen in the Philippines how the deposition of President Erap Estrada from being the president brought the people to states of fear, nervousness and hesitancy to engage in politics again. This was because the deposition was characterized by that fake Edsa crowding which was answered by another crowding for the sake of President Erap. The people feared in the ensuing elections that any activist move on their part would be an exercise in futility because there were and still are forces manipulating the politics in the country.
Ergo, it is incumbent upon leaders of any movement to be very careful about causing the people to lose hope, resort to violent means, much more so, become distrustful of democratic processes.
Rather as Mandela says, "I never lose: I either win or learn," meaning to say, as our heroine Salud Algabre who fought for liberation from American rule in the 30's also said, each act that we take is a step towards refining the next steps until we reach our goal.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] is a landmark decision issued in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted access to abortions. The Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[2]Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.
Later, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992),[3] the Court rejected Roe's trimester framework while affirming its central holding that a woman has a right to abortion until fetal viability.[4] The Roe decision defined "viable" as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid."[5] Justices in Casey acknowledged that viability may occur at 23 or 24 weeks, or sometimes even earlier, in light of medical advances.[6]
In disallowing many state and federal restrictions on abortion in the United States,[7][8] Roe v. Wade prompted a national debate that continues today about issues including whether, and to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, what methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication, and what the role should be of religious and moral views in the political sphere. Roe v. Wade reshaped national politics, dividing much of the United States into pro-life and pro-choice camps, while activating grassroots movements on both sides.
Design on the right taken from the Southern Baptist website
No comments:
Post a Comment