Debating Freedom of Choice

The vice-presidential debate shed some interesting light on two men who share the same religion but have very different stances on women’s reproductive rights.

Moderator Martha Raddatz of ABC News, — who did a terrific job — asked “the abortion question” but tied it directly to the impact of religion on each man’s political stance. It was one of the few times during the evening that both were thoughtful, quiet, and reserved. Ryan said he agrees with the Catholic Church that life begins at conception and that his view is based on science, reason, and an ultrasound he saw of his unborn child. He reiterated the Romney-Ryan position – to make abortion illegal, except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother’s life.

Biden, also Catholic, said that while he personally accepts the Church’s position on abortion, he refused to impose that view on others. “I do not believe we have a right to tell women they can’t control their bodies. It’s a decision between them and their doctor.”

Ryan also agrees with the Church about contraception. He co-sponsored The Sanctity of Human Life Act, which would make some forms of contraception illegal and also voted last year to de-fund Planned Parenthood. According to an action alert from the organization, that not only affects contraception, but also risks other important preventive care including screenings for cancer and STDs. However, he could not describe a plan on addressing the fallout from that decision.

Watching these two men, both deeply committed to their faith, and both committed public servants, presented a bit of a dichotomy. If you did not know their party affiliation, it might be logical to assume the much-younger Ryan would be the advocate for women’s rights and health. Clearly looks can be deceiving. Joe Biden has been a long-time supporter of women’s health and wellness — including co-sponsoring the 1994 Violence Against Women Act.

It is much easier to be objective about these two candidates as a journalist than as a woman. When those in charge elsewhere in the world try to force their views down other people’s throats we call them tyrants or dictators who repress their citizens. Here, it is Republican leaders telling 50 percent of the country that “we know what’s best for your body” and too bad if you don’t like it.

We are fortunate to live in a country where freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are so important that they are the first article in the Bill of RIghts. However, freedom of choice — especially when it comes to your own body — is equally as important to maintain a just society.

The vice-presidential debate shed some interesting light

Poetry, Politics, & American Rage

About a hundred billion tweets ago, in the middle of June, the writer Sherman Alexie sent out this tweet: “What is most

Poster for 100 Thousand Poets for Change

lacking from American poetry: humor and rage.” I’ve thought of this brief literary criticism off and on ever since. I’ve seen plenty of humor in contemporary poems—even the Poetry Foundation now bestows a prestigious poetry prizefor humorous poems—but what about rage? I’ve not heard of any awards given for rageful poetry.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t poets putting their rage to use. Just last week, on September 29, poetry readings and other events were sponsored worldwide by a grassroots group, 100 Thousand Poets for Change. According to their Web site, these events seek to address societal ills like “wars, ecocide, the lack of affordable medical care, racism” through a community focus on the arts and “peace and sustainability.” In its inaugural year, 2011, there were 650 events in 550 cities.

A similar movement in the United States, Split This Rock, seeks to “celebrate the poetry of witness and provocation” and urge poets to assume “a greater role in public life.” The organizers took the name from a poem by Langston Hughes,” Big Buddy”:

Don’t you hear this hammer ring?
I’m gonna split this rock
And split it wide!
When I split this rock,
Stand by my side.

Poet and novelist Alice Walker, in an interview published earlier this year, in conjunction with the Split This Rock festival where she presented her work, said that the best poetry “cuts through to the heart of what’s of value in life. To really be true to your own spirit. To be awake and develop patience so that you truly understand what it is you’re trying to do, desire, and who in fact you really are. … It’s a wonderful gift to the planet.”

I shouldn’t take a tweet too seriously, but Alexi hit on something I don’t often articulate. I’ve had some of my poems published, and even won a prize or two. I have an MFA in poetry. I’ve given readings. But what value does poetry really have in our society? His comment on rage got me thinking about how vital poetry is and has been in many cultures worldwide. Neruda, of course, was revered as a poet and statesman in Chile before the coup in the early ‘70s, illustrating Shelley’s famous quip that “Poets are the unacknowledged legislators of the world.” And poetry is a life-and-death endeavor for some: just yesterday a Tibetan poet self-immolated in protest against China’s policies in his homeland.

But in the United States? Quick: can you name a living American poet? Okay, can you recite a favorite poems by one of your contemporaries? Or (**gasp**) can you imagine Kay Ryan moderating a presidential debate?

As we head into high debate season in this last month of the presidential campaigns, we all might do well to take a look at this sampler of political poems at the Poetry Foundation. Here’s one stanza, by poet Fred Merchant:

I think that if my tongue alone could talk
it would swear
in any court that poetry
tastes like the iodine in blood,
or the copper in spit, and makes a salt stronger than tears.

Next week I’ll post on poetry, empathy, and health care reform.

About a hundred billion tweets ago, in