The AWARE Project

Through thick and thin, Black women love their bodies    Upon the heels of this week’s heated debate about Black women, fat and diabetes sparked by a recent New York Times op-ed, a new report released May 8th by the Institute of Medicine tempers the dialogue by placing it within the context of the national epidemic of obesity. “Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving The Weight of the Nation” provides updated statistics that two-thirds of adults and one-third of children are obese or overweight in America.       While Alice Randall’s NYT article begins with a look at the numbers—four out of five Black women being seriously overweight, and one out of four middle-aged Black women having diabetes—the point of contention is her statement that the hidden, misunderstood factor is that “Black women want to be fat.” The article notes aesthetic, cultural, and political reasons for why we love to keep meat on our bones.      Randall is correct that anthems like “Brick House” have certainly set the standard of sexy as Black women with curves. Black women do yearn for fuller figures in order to attract and keep the interest of a man. We do delight in our curves, wherever they fall on our bodies, to reinforce our confidence and self-esteem.      I was a late bloomer who can recall wondering if the schoolgirl chant, “I must, I must, I must increase my bust” really worked after reading it in “Are you there God, it’s me Margaret?” When a male high school friend reconnected with me as an adult and admiringly asked me, “When did you get breasts?” the compliment was tempered by a female friend who caringly informed me that breasts are largely fatty tissue.      Yet, I still chose to be proud of my emerging bust line in my early twenties. As a first generation daughter of an Indo-Caribbean family, I grew up loving that the softness of my belly made a sari sexier. As a petite dancer, I modeled my body image after the positive example of the petite athletic build of Trinidadian-American dancer Pearl Primus, whose grace defied the thickness of her thighs.      The conviction of Black women to love our bodies and accept the beauty of all of our hues, sizes and shapes only becomes poignant in the midst of mainstream gender constructs of feminine beauty that revolves around the sleek angles of thin white women, and relies on the degradation of the image of Black women. Our self-love transmutes into a political act of resistance against this paradigm and transcends the conditioned insecurities born of troubled comparison.      The results of a February poll conducted by the Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation ran under the headline, “Black women heavier and happier with their bodies than white women.” It found that, “Although 41 percent of average-sized or thin white women report having high self-esteem, that figure was 66 percent among black women considered by government standards to be overweight and obese.”      But this state of happiness should not be equated or mistaken as a place of complacency that makes us indifferent about our health and fitness. As we age, shifts in our lifestyles, family size, activity levels, work hours, hormones and habits compel us to become more proactive, responsible and conscientious about the choices we make in order to prevent our weight from tipping the scales toward obesity.      The Post poll reflected this reality. Among a list of priorities, 90 percent of Black women said living a healthful lifestyle is important, yet two-thirds admitted to eating fast food once a week, and a little more than half actually cooked dinner at home on a regular basis.      Cooking has indeed become a lost art. I have many friends who are shocked that I, a professional woman, enjoy cooking and baking for myself and others. When did a professional woman throwing down in the kitchen become a contradiction in terms? Another myth that deserves debunking is that thin women are inherently healthy. In fact, fat people who exercise regularly are healthier than thin people who don’t. Our weight may have a correlation to our heath status, but it does not necessarily indicate causation.      Typical of most negative social indicators, African Americans suffer at disproportionate rates of disease due to lack of access to resources, affordable solutions, practical education and direct support mechanisms within our communities and institutions. Obesity is no exception.      I remember the day I stumbled across one of the stores in a chain supermarket in the heart of downtown Chicago while I was in college—and becoming angry at the stark contrast in the quality of its produce compared to the chain’s stores in the African American neighborhoods. The store looked like a museum, with robust, vibrant fresh fruits and vegetables presented in terracotta bowls and glass displays.      The scope and breadth of the national epidemic extends obesity beyond race and age, and Black women’s personal relationships with our bodies. It draws attention to the socioeconomic factors that exacerbate the problem such as vanishing parks and playgrounds; eroding neighborhood safety that hinders the most affordable exercise: walking; and limited or no access to fresh foods.      The Institute of Medicine was asked by the Robert Johnson Wood Foundation to include recommendations in its report, and it listed five key actions: 1) Integrate physical activity every day in every way; 2) market what matters for a healthy life; 3) make healthy foods and beverages available everywhere; 4) activate employers and health care professionals; and 5) strengthen schools as the heart of health.      These recommendations echo the core elements of First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! National Initiative to help reverse the alarming trajectory of childhood obesity. It calls upon all stakeholders—from elected officials, schools, health care providers, parents and community leaders—to work collectively to increase awareness on nutrition, promote healthy alternatives and provide more opportunities for physical activity and exercise.      The weight of women is inextricable from the weight of our nation. We must make our health a priority—for ourselves and our daughters. We must thread it into the fabric of our lives as acts of love.  And remain consistent—through thick and thin.
May 11

Through thick and thin, Black women love their bodies

   Upon the heels of this week’s heated debate about Black women, fat and diabetes sparked by a recent New York Times op-ed, a new report released May 8th by the Institute of Medicine tempers the dialogue by placing it within the context of the national epidemic of obesity. “Accelerating Progress in Obesity Prevention: Solving The Weight of the Nation” provides updated statistics that two-thirds of adults and one-third of children are obese or overweight in America. 

     While Alice Randall’s NYT article begins with a look at the numbers—four out of five Black women being seriously overweight, and one out of four middle-aged Black women having diabetes—the point of contention is her statement that the hidden, misunderstood factor is that “Black women want to be fat.” The article notes aesthetic, cultural, and political reasons for why we love to keep meat on our bones.

     Randall is correct that anthems like “Brick House” have certainly set the standard of sexy as Black women with curves. Black women do yearn for fuller figures in order to attract and keep the interest of a man. We do delight in our curves, wherever they fall on our bodies, to reinforce our confidence and self-esteem.

     I was a late bloomer who can recall wondering if the schoolgirl chant, “I must, I must, I must increase my bust” really worked after reading it in “Are you there God, it’s me Margaret?” When a male high school friend reconnected with me as an adult and admiringly asked me, “When did you get breasts?” the compliment was tempered by a female friend who caringly informed me that breasts are largely fatty tissue.

     Yet, I still chose to be proud of my emerging bust line in my early twenties. As a first generation daughter of an Indo-Caribbean family, I grew up loving that the softness of my belly made a sari sexier. As a petite dancer, I modeled my body image after the positive example of the petite athletic build of Trinidadian-American dancer Pearl Primus, whose grace defied the thickness of her thighs.

     The conviction of Black women to love our bodies and accept the beauty of all of our hues, sizes and shapes only becomes poignant in the midst of mainstream gender constructs of feminine beauty that revolves around the sleek angles of thin white women, and relies on the degradation of the image of Black women. Our self-love transmutes into a political act of resistance against this paradigm and transcends the conditioned insecurities born of troubled comparison.

     The results of a February poll conducted by the Washington Post and Kaiser Family Foundation ran under the headline, “Black women heavier and happier with their bodies than white women.” It found that, “Although 41 percent of average-sized or thin white women report having high self-esteem, that figure was 66 percent among black women considered by government standards to be overweight and obese.”

     But this state of happiness should not be equated or mistaken as a place of complacency that makes us indifferent about our health and fitness. As we age, shifts in our lifestyles, family size, activity levels, work hours, hormones and habits compel us to become more proactive, responsible and conscientious about the choices we make in order to prevent our weight from tipping the scales toward obesity.

     The Post poll reflected this reality. Among a list of priorities, 90 percent of Black women said living a healthful lifestyle is important, yet two-thirds admitted to eating fast food once a week, and a little more than half actually cooked dinner at home on a regular basis.

     Cooking has indeed become a lost art. I have many friends who are shocked that I, a professional woman, enjoy cooking and baking for myself and others. When did a professional woman throwing down in the kitchen become a contradiction in terms? Another myth that deserves debunking is that thin women are inherently healthy. In fact, fat people who exercise regularly are healthier than thin people who don’t. Our weight may have a correlation to our heath status, but it does not necessarily indicate causation.

     Typical of most negative social indicators, African Americans suffer at disproportionate rates of disease due to lack of access to resources, affordable solutions, practical education and direct support mechanisms within our communities and institutions. Obesity is no exception.

     I remember the day I stumbled across one of the stores in a chain supermarket in the heart of downtown Chicago while I was in college—and becoming angry at the stark contrast in the quality of its produce compared to the chain’s stores in the African American neighborhoods. The store looked like a museum, with robust, vibrant fresh fruits and vegetables presented in terracotta bowls and glass displays.

     The scope and breadth of the national epidemic extends obesity beyond race and age, and Black women’s personal relationships with our bodies. It draws attention to the socioeconomic factors that exacerbate the problem such as vanishing parks and playgrounds; eroding neighborhood safety that hinders the most affordable exercise: walking; and limited or no access to fresh foods.

     The Institute of Medicine was asked by the Robert Johnson Wood Foundation to include recommendations in its report, and it listed five key actions: 1) Integrate physical activity every day in every way; 2) market what matters for a healthy life; 3) make healthy foods and beverages available everywhere; 4) activate employers and health care professionals; and 5) strengthen schools as the heart of health.

     These recommendations echo the core elements of First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! National Initiative to help reverse the alarming trajectory of childhood obesity. It calls upon all stakeholders—from elected officials, schools, health care providers, parents and community leaders—to work collectively to increase awareness on nutrition, promote healthy alternatives and provide more opportunities for physical activity and exercise.

     The weight of women is inextricable from the weight of our nation. We must make our health a priority—for ourselves and our daughters. We must thread it into the fabric of our lives as acts of love.  And remain consistent—through thick and thin.

The Woe Over Roe: Sinking and swimming in the legislative currents of reproductive rights and religion If the resignation this week of Susan G. Komen’s senior vice president of public policy, Karen Handel, the woman at the center of the Planned Parenthood defunding firestorm, was meant to signal the Foundation’s remorseful return to advocacy and reverse the self-inflicted damage to its brand, it didn’t come close. Women have not been swayed one inch by the so-called Congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood’s compliance with the Hyde Amendment. With only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services relating to abortion, women understand that they are engaged in a recharged war against their rights. Kinda like Humpty Dumpty’s predicament, it is sadly symbolic and wholly insufficient to inspire women to tape, glue or staple back together the pink ribbons that they cut into pieces and shared with the world on Facebook. What women have been inspired to do in response to this betrayal by one of the most prominent women’s health advocates, however, is raise their voices louder in support of protecting women’s access to health care. The fact that more than three-quarters of women served by Planned Parenthood today are at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level is not a modern trend. It reflects the organization’s founding mission of providing health services, education and care to low-income women in the face of the cultural and religious marginalization of their rights and total disregard of their needs. Women of color hold a precarious position in this debate. The sensitivity of our relationship with birth control has involved a fight against the cultural stigma that it opens the flood gates for sexual irresponsibility and promiscuity, which has historically demonized the image of Black women. These images were further exploited by eugenicists within the US birth control movement, who tailored a unique brand of scientific racism that spurred massive sterilization programs, racial breeding experiments, and influenced anti-immigration, anti-miscegenation and segregation laws. Black and immigrant women were considered inferior within scientific, socioeconomic and cultural discourse, and declared “undesired” populations that needed to be reduced or exterminated in order to reinforce the racial superiority of Whites. The suspicion that the medical community embraced negative eugenics when dealing with Black women and birth control prevailed as scientists and researchers were funded to establish methods to limit population growth as a means of preventing uncontrollable poverty, pollution and famine, and the reduction in the quality of life. Unfortunately, statistics have not helped calm these fears within the Black community. According to the Census Bureau, Whites account for nearly 73% of the US population, and Blacks nearly 15%. Yet, despite the decreasing total number of abortions reported from 1990 to 2007, the CDC reported that Black women had higher rates and ratios of abortions than White women and women of other races. Per 1,000 women of the same race, 8.5 abortions were reported for White women while 32.1 abortions were reported for Black women. When compared to 1,000 live births by race, White women had 144 abortions while Black women had 480 abortions. However, the subtext for these abortion statistics is that nearly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are reported as unintended, with African American women having more than twice as many unintended pregnancies than White women. This is yet another health disparity attributed to a lack of access to health education and affordable care such as birth control. That’s why the new federal health policy that all employers, except for churches and houses of worship, must provide fully covered contraception under health insurance plans for all employees is critical. The majority of sexually active women have used contraception at one time or another. For women who work but cannot afford the out-of-pocket or co-pay expense for contraception today, this new ruling will remove this barrier. The uproar over the ruling from religious conservatives, particularly Catholic bishops, is causing the public to miss the forest for the trees. The Catholic Church vehemently opposed the legalization of contraception in the early 1900s. Contraceptives were commonly used by middle and upper class women before the Purity Movement swept across the US in the late nineteenth century and led to laws banning the distribution and use of contraceptives, and even literature providing education about contraception. Contraception became obscene and illegal, and abortion was a crime outside of incidences of pregnancy resulting from rape and incest. It was only when venereal disease threatened the health of military men in an explosion of cases among WWI soldiers that ensuring public health trumped observing puritanical religious and cultural morays. This led to the medical community fully accepting birth control as a basic component of comprehensive health care. Priorities shifted away from personal morality to public health. The pool of birth control advocates broadened from the radical working class to the progressive professional upper class as the birth control movement gained traction. The movement was led by Margaret Sanger, a nurse whose mother had 18 pregnancies in 22 years, dying at the age of 45. After handling tragic cases of self-inflicted abortion, Sanger worked to educate poor and immigrant women on safe birth control practices and resources—information and access kept quietly reserved in the circles of wealthy women of means—as a means to give them control over their bodies, their health and their lives. Eventually, her work led to the merger of two birth control organizations to form Planned Parenthood. The Catholic Church fought the growing movement, pressuring media and venues to boycott its lead activists. It lost that battle. And after the landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973, it lost the war over reproductive rights. At the time of the Roe decision, 21 of the original 36 state laws limiting abortion were still in effect; nevertheless the case moved the consideration of abortion as a crime to a medical procedure that physicians had the right to perform under protection of the Constitution. The Court never ruled abortion as a right of a woman to choose or the right of a fetus to live. Again, health care trumped the moral and social arguments that emerged out of the birth control battle. Since then, the religious right has been trying to put the genie back in the bottle—irrespective of the impact of stripping the empowerment of rights and access to poor, vulnerable, female and minority populations. Bitter sentiments over so-called conservative disenfranchisement of its moral authority have fueled attempts to hit a reset button and reframe the debate in terms of religious morality. Sounding more like slave masters who decried Emancipation as an infringement on their rights as businessmen to earn profits, conservative concerns over personhood, parental notification, spousal consent, and partial birth—and in the case of Komen and the HHS ruling—taxpayer accountability and government reach—have consistently been rejected by the majority in this country as religious pretentiousness that ultimately does nothing but put women’s health at risk and return women to second class citizenship. Having grown up with a Catholic patriarch and Muslim elders, I have the deepest respect and understanding of the use of faith as guidance in a person’s life. But we do not live in a theocracy, and setting the poor and women on the altar runs counter to upholding moral standards in the name of God. If 98% of Catholic women use contraception, is this criticism being leveled by the 2% of women who do not? And where are the voices of the female leadership in the Catholic Church representing this position? Oh, I forgot. Women are not ordained to governance positions within the institutional Catholic Church. It’s hard to swallow the hypocrisy of so-called religious standard bearers lifting up charges of discrimination against the Administration when these voices are fall silent against the sexual abuse of girls and boys by priests and religious heads. This same hypocrisy was exposed in the case of Komen, which continued to fund Penn State during the ongoing investigation of the Sandusky sexual abuse scandal despite its policy not to fund organizations under investigation that purportedly led to its move of defunding Planned Parenthood. The claim that the new HHS ruling violates religious liberty and freedom is a faulty, skewed premise that seeks to turn “separation of church and state” on its head. Religiously affiliated organizations—as institutions—are not the Church nor are their staff or employees a monolith of “the faithful.” Therefore, the exemptions afforded to the Church do not extend to its affiliations, in much the same way that diplomatic immunity is not extended to affiliate organizations that support the work of embassies. Faith-based organizations operate in the public space, not as the sanctuary of a house of worship. The law therefore does not make a distinction between them and secular organizations. They are equally accountable to the greater public good as employers, which includes public health and public safety. Freedom of speech cannot jeopardize public safety and freedom of religion cannot jeopardize public health. Surely we see this come into play for individuals who may believe in animal sacrifice as a part of their religion but find themselves arrested for violating animal cruelty laws. This is not a First Amendment conflict. Individuals managing faith-based organizations, no matter how pious they may be in their personal religious lives, have the responsibility in their professional capacities to operate their institution in compliance with labor laws that govern all employers’ treatment of all their employees. All women, even those working for faith-based institutions, should receive the same benefits of fully covered contraception, if they choose to elect it in their plan. The charge that this ruling will infringe on religion is clearly refuted in the widespread implementation of the medical conscience clause for the provision of health care services, which applies to this new HHS ruling. Individuals are not forced to prescribe, dispense or use contraception. Although conscientious objectors to the draft are not forced to enter the military, it is clear that the draft is legal and applies to all under the law. The government, or State, has the full authority to enact laws, rules and legal limitations that apply equally to all in the public space. You don’t get a pass because your faith practice goes against the law. Or, because you belong to the 1% financially elite or, in this case, the 2% of the faithful
Feb 9

The Woe Over Roe: Sinking and swimming in the legislative currents of reproductive rights and religion

If the resignation this week of Susan G. Komen’s senior vice president of public policy, Karen Handel, the woman at the center of the Planned Parenthood defunding firestorm, was meant to signal the Foundation’s remorseful return to advocacy and reverse the self-inflicted damage to its brand, it didn’t come close.

Women have not been swayed one inch by the so-called Congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood’s compliance with the Hyde Amendment. With only 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services relating to abortion, women understand that they are engaged in a recharged war against their rights.

Kinda like Humpty Dumpty’s predicament, it is sadly symbolic and wholly insufficient to inspire women to tape, glue or staple back together the pink ribbons that they cut into pieces and shared with the world on Facebook.

What women have been inspired to do in response to this betrayal by one of the most prominent women’s health advocates, however, is raise their voices louder in support of protecting women’s access to health care. The fact that more than three-quarters of women served by Planned Parenthood today are at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level is not a modern trend. It reflects the organization’s founding mission of providing health services, education and care to low-income women in the face of the cultural and religious marginalization of their rights and total disregard of their needs.

Women of color hold a precarious position in this debate. The sensitivity of our relationship with birth control has involved a fight against the cultural stigma that it opens the flood gates for sexual irresponsibility and promiscuity, which has historically demonized the image of Black women. These images were further exploited by eugenicists within the US birth control movement, who tailored a unique brand of scientific racism that spurred massive sterilization programs, racial breeding experiments, and influenced anti-immigration, anti-miscegenation and segregation laws.

Black and immigrant women were considered inferior within scientific, socioeconomic and cultural discourse, and declared “undesired” populations that needed to be reduced or exterminated in order to reinforce the racial superiority of Whites. The suspicion that the medical community embraced negative eugenics when dealing with Black women and birth control prevailed as scientists and researchers were funded to establish methods to limit population growth as a means of preventing uncontrollable poverty, pollution and famine, and the reduction in the quality of life. Unfortunately, statistics have not helped calm these fears within the Black community.

According to the Census Bureau, Whites account for nearly 73% of the US population, and Blacks nearly 15%. Yet, despite the decreasing total number of abortions reported from 1990 to 2007, the CDC reported that Black women had higher rates and ratios of abortions than White women and women of other races. Per 1,000 women of the same race, 8.5 abortions were reported for White women while 32.1 abortions were reported for Black women. When compared to 1,000 live births by race, White women had 144 abortions while Black women had 480 abortions.

However, the subtext for these abortion statistics is that nearly half of all pregnancies in the U.S. are reported as unintended, with African American women having more than twice as many unintended pregnancies than White women. This is yet another health disparity attributed to a lack of access to health education and affordable care such as birth control.

That’s why the new federal health policy that all employers, except for churches and houses of worship, must provide fully covered contraception under health insurance plans for all employees is critical. The majority of sexually active women have used contraception at one time or another. For women who work but cannot afford the out-of-pocket or co-pay expense for contraception today, this new ruling will remove this barrier.

The uproar over the ruling from religious conservatives, particularly Catholic bishops, is causing the public to miss the forest for the trees. The Catholic Church vehemently opposed the legalization of contraception in the early 1900s. Contraceptives were commonly used by middle and upper class women before the Purity Movement swept across the US in the late nineteenth century and led to laws banning the distribution and use of contraceptives, and even literature providing education about contraception. Contraception became obscene and illegal, and abortion was a crime outside of incidences of pregnancy resulting from rape and incest.

It was only when venereal disease threatened the health of military men in an explosion of cases among WWI soldiers that ensuring public health trumped observing puritanical religious and cultural morays. This led to the medical community fully accepting birth control as a basic component of comprehensive health care. Priorities shifted away from personal morality to public health. The pool of birth control advocates broadened from the radical working class to the progressive professional upper class as the birth control movement gained traction.

The movement was led by Margaret Sanger, a nurse whose mother had 18 pregnancies in 22 years, dying at the age of 45. After handling tragic cases of self-inflicted abortion, Sanger worked to educate poor and immigrant women on safe birth control practices and resources—information and access kept quietly reserved in the circles of wealthy women of means—as a means to give them control over their bodies, their health and their lives. Eventually, her work led to the merger of two birth control organizations to form Planned Parenthood.

The Catholic Church fought the growing movement, pressuring media and venues to boycott its lead activists. It lost that battle. And after the landmark Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973, it lost the war over reproductive rights. At the time of the Roe decision, 21 of the original 36 state laws limiting abortion were still in effect; nevertheless the case moved the consideration of abortion as a crime to a medical procedure that physicians had the right to perform under protection of the Constitution. The Court never ruled abortion as a right of a woman to choose or the right of a fetus to live. Again, health care trumped the moral and social arguments that emerged out of the birth control battle.

Since then, the religious right has been trying to put the genie back in the bottle—irrespective of the impact of stripping the empowerment of rights and access to poor, vulnerable, female and minority populations. Bitter sentiments over so-called conservative disenfranchisement of its moral authority have fueled attempts to hit a reset button and reframe the debate in terms of religious morality.

Sounding more like slave masters who decried Emancipation as an infringement on their rights as businessmen to earn profits, conservative concerns over personhood, parental notification, spousal consent, and partial birth—and in the case of Komen and the HHS ruling—taxpayer accountability and government reach—have consistently been rejected by the majority in this country as religious pretentiousness that ultimately does nothing but put women’s health at risk and return women to second class citizenship.

Having grown up with a Catholic patriarch and Muslim elders, I have the deepest respect and understanding of the use of faith as guidance in a person’s life. But we do not live in a theocracy, and setting the poor and women on the altar runs counter to upholding moral standards in the name of God.

If 98% of Catholic women use contraception, is this criticism being leveled by the 2% of women who do not? And where are the voices of the female leadership in the Catholic Church representing this position? Oh, I forgot. Women are not ordained to governance positions within the institutional Catholic Church.

It’s hard to swallow the hypocrisy of so-called religious standard bearers lifting up charges of discrimination against the Administration when these voices are fall silent against the sexual abuse of girls and boys by priests and religious heads. This same hypocrisy was exposed in the case of Komen, which continued to fund Penn State during the ongoing investigation of the Sandusky sexual abuse scandal despite its policy not to fund organizations under investigation that purportedly led to its move of defunding Planned Parenthood.

The claim that the new HHS ruling violates religious liberty and freedom is a faulty, skewed premise that seeks to turn “separation of church and state” on its head. Religiously affiliated organizations—as institutions—are not the Church nor are their staff or employees a monolith of “the faithful.” Therefore, the exemptions afforded to the Church do not extend to its affiliations, in much the same way that diplomatic immunity is not extended to affiliate organizations that support the work of embassies.

Faith-based organizations operate in the public space, not as the sanctuary of a house of worship. The law therefore does not make a distinction between them and secular organizations. They are equally accountable to the greater public good as employers, which includes public health and public safety. Freedom of speech cannot jeopardize public safety and freedom of religion cannot jeopardize public health. Surely we see this come into play for individuals who may believe in animal sacrifice as a part of their religion but find themselves arrested for violating animal cruelty laws.

This is not a First Amendment conflict. Individuals managing faith-based organizations, no matter how pious they may be in their personal religious lives, have the responsibility in their professional capacities to operate their institution in compliance with labor laws that govern all employers’ treatment of all their employees.

All women, even those working for faith-based institutions, should receive the same benefits of fully covered contraception, if they choose to elect it in their plan. The charge that this ruling will infringe on religion is clearly refuted in the widespread implementation of the medical conscience clause for the provision of health care services, which applies to this new HHS ruling. Individuals are not forced to prescribe, dispense or use contraception.

Although conscientious objectors to the draft are not forced to enter the military, it is clear that the draft is legal and applies to all under the law. The government, or State, has the full authority to enact laws, rules and legal limitations that apply equally to all in the public space. You don’t get a pass because your faith practice goes against the law. Or, because you belong to the 1% financially elite or, in this case, the 2% of the faithful

Carefully Considering Coretta    As the world today celebrates the 29th anniversary of the official observance of “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day,” I consider Coretta.     More than the weeping widow of a martyred leader, Mrs. King masterfully transcended the traumatic loss to establish The King Center for Nonviolent Social Change within months after his assassination.  She is widely acknowledged for her activism before and beside Dr. King and recognized for the successful lobbying for today’s federal holiday.    Her work after losing him stands as a testament to her dignified resilience, unwavering integrity and humble brilliance. She devoted herself to creating a living memorial that corrects the accuracy of the arc of history that would inevitably record Dr. King’s life and work.  She understood the heart of the mission of her husband extended beyond attaining civil rights legislation and worked to move his economic justice agenda forward through her community work and programmatic initiatives through The King Center.    Her indomitable commitment to advancing her husband’s ideals was even more remarkable—or perhaps necessitated—amidst the shroud of negativity angled towards him leading up to his murder.  She refused to allow the world to use rose-tinted glasses to see her husband but sought the effective transformation of his memory of being America’s “number one threat” as declared by then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to beloved hero and inspirational icon for his convictions that the oneness of humanity and the attainable social, political and economic justice in society.    This courageous will to ensure a lucid national remembrance of Dr. King was equally demonstrated by President Obama during his remarks for the official dedication of the King Memorial on the National Mall: “We forget now, but during his life, Dr. King wasn’t always considered a unifying figure. Even after rising to prominence, even after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. King was vilified by many, denounced as a rabble rouser and an agitator, a communist and a radical. He was even attacked by his own people, by those who felt he was going too fast or those who felt he was going too slow; by those who felt he shouldn’t meddle in issues like the Vietnam War or the rights of union workers. We know from his own testimony the doubts and the pain this caused him, and that the controversy that would swirl around his actions would last until the fateful day he died. I raise all this because nearly 50 years after the March on Washington, our work, Dr. King’s work, is not yet complete.”    Mrs. Coretta Scott King—we honor you today as we honor the legacy of Dr. King, a legacy that you carefully continued and inextricably wove with the threads of your love and life.
Jan 16

Carefully Considering Coretta

   As the world today celebrates the 29th anniversary of the official observance of “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day,” I consider Coretta. 

   More than the weeping widow of a martyred leader, Mrs. King masterfully transcended the traumatic loss to establish The King Center for Nonviolent Social Change within months after his assassination.  She is widely acknowledged for her activism before and beside Dr. King and recognized for the successful lobbying for today’s federal holiday.

   Her work after losing him stands as a testament to her dignified resilience, unwavering integrity and humble brilliance. She devoted herself to creating a living memorial that corrects the accuracy of the arc of history that would inevitably record Dr. King’s life and work.  She understood the heart of the mission of her husband extended beyond attaining civil rights legislation and worked to move his economic justice agenda forward through her community work and programmatic initiatives through The King Center.

   Her indomitable commitment to advancing her husband’s ideals was even more remarkable—or perhaps necessitated—amidst the shroud of negativity angled towards him leading up to his murder.  She refused to allow the world to use rose-tinted glasses to see her husband but sought the effective transformation of his memory of being America’s “number one threat” as declared by then-FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to beloved hero and inspirational icon for his convictions that the oneness of humanity and the attainable social, political and economic justice in society.

   This courageous will to ensure a lucid national remembrance of Dr. King was equally demonstrated by President Obama during his remarks for the official dedication of the King Memorial on the National Mall: “We forget now, but during his life, Dr. King wasn’t always considered a unifying figure. Even after rising to prominence, even after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, Dr. King was vilified by many, denounced as a rabble rouser and an agitator, a communist and a radical. He was even attacked by his own people, by those who felt he was going too fast or those who felt he was going too slow; by those who felt he shouldn’t meddle in issues like the Vietnam War or the rights of union workers. We know from his own testimony the doubts and the pain this caused him, and that the controversy that would swirl around his actions would last until the fateful day he died. I raise all this because nearly 50 years after the March on Washington, our work, Dr. King’s work, is not yet complete.”

   Mrs. Coretta Scott King—we honor you today as we honor the legacy of Dr. King, a legacy that you carefully continued and inextricably wove with the threads of your love and life.

Women in Public Service Moving beyond the ballot to exercise a full franchise    When Michelle Bachmann ended her presidential bid after pulling a mere five percent of voters in the Iowa Caucus, she pointed a finger to gender bias in the electoral process among the reasons for her last place finish. While Bachmann’s fall from her summertime straw poll grace resulted more from the volatile Republican rollercoaster ride towards a nomination, her campaign touched upon a political reality in the broadest sense.  The disparity between men and women in public service increases with rank.    I find this remarkable in a country where the first African American man now holds the highest office in the land, considering women’s suffrage was gained over four decades before the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 protected the right to vote for African Americans. Did racial politics catch up with the gender gap when then-Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008? Not quite—and surely not for women of color.    Only 30 African American women have followed in the footsteps of the late Shirley Chisholm, who left her ‘unbought and unbossed’ legacy as the first Black woman elected to Congress in 1969—but only one of them serving in the Senate, Carol Moseley-Braun (IL, 1993). Of the 90 women serving in the current Congress, only 24 are women of color, in addition to House Delegates Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), an African American, and Rep. Donna Christensen (V.I.), a Caribbean American.     The percentage drops to 15.5 percent on the state level, with 11 women of color out of 71 women serving in elective executive offices; and 20 percent at state legislatures, with 348 women of color (100 state senators and 248 representatives) out of 1,745 women.  As a whole, women of color constitute 4.7 percent of the total 7,382 state legislators. On the local level, the gap is even wider. Only two of the largest 100 cities today have African American women serving as mayors—Baltimore and Tacoma.    Turning into my teens in New York City in the late eighties, I remember how the name of local political activist Lenora Fulani was spoken with great awe. I didn’t really understand then that she was the first woman and the first African American woman to gain ballot access for a presidential candidacy in all 50 states, albeit on an independent ticket.  What registered and remained was her boldness, her courage to run—reminiscent of the spirit of Chisholm who first sparked my love for public service.    My fire was further stoked three weeks ago participating in the first colloquium of the Women in Public Service Project, launched by the U.S. State Department under the direction of Secretary Clinton. Women account for more than 50 percent of the world’s population, but only hold 20 percent of parliamentary seats, she noted, stressing the need for women at all levels of government, at the table, working on solving today’s problems.    Why? “Women make space for others,” International Monetary Fund’s Managing Director, Christine Legarde said quite simply.    Developed by a founding partnership of the State Department and the five leading women’s colleges in the U.S., the Project aims to train a new generation of women leaders in the public sector, inspired and empowered to invest in their communities and countries. Additional women’s colleges, including Spelman College, have joined the initial partnership, and the first Institute will be held at Wellesley College this June, with 50 emerging women leaders in public service or political/elected office from across the globe.    Feminist icon Gloria Steinem summarily commented on the Project’s value: “Show me one thing that has not been transformed by the addition of the other half of the human race.”    The day’s agenda—filled with powerful women leaders from around the world—was highlighted by two one-on-one conversations, first with the new president of Kosovo, Atifete Jahjaga, who humbly shared her commitment in facing her challenges as the first Muslim, first female, and the youngest head of a Balkan state; then with Special Advisor to President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, who politely instructed us, “Don’t sit around waiting for someone to recognize your worth. Point it out!”    U.S. Secretary for Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius drew the contrast of men who constantly seek to participate regardless of their intelligence or preparation levels, against women who hesitate and decide to wait for one more course, one more degree, one more promotion, etc.  Perhaps, the most salient comment of the day came from NATO Navy Vice Admiral Carol Pottenger, who raised the bar by saying, “It is important to make opportunities for women to succeed, not just participate.”    The overwhelming consensus was women have to seek to take advantage of these opportunities and believe we deserve and have a right to them. We should not be satisfied with only casting a vote at election time. We need to get involved in our communities now and stay involved. We need to become informed about the issues and policies that affect our lives and our loved ones.    And women who possess the humanity to enter public service and courage to run for office should never forget those who paved the way for them, and help those following in their footsteps. This is the fullness of the American franchise. In the words of former Secretary of State Madeleine Alrbight in closing the colloquium, “There is a special place in hell for women who do not help other women, so there must be one in paradise for those who do.”    Ultimately, the Women in Public Service Project will build a global network of women leaders shaping the world through the public sector.  As dynamic platforms continue to be raised and expanded for women to serve, the glass ceiling will not only be shattered, it will inevitably become the floor.    Twitter: @GraceCreated
Jan 9

Women in Public Service

Moving beyond the ballot to exercise a full franchise

   When Michelle Bachmann ended her presidential bid after pulling a mere five percent of voters in the Iowa Caucus, she pointed a finger to gender bias in the electoral process among the reasons for her last place finish. While Bachmann’s fall from her summertime straw poll grace resulted more from the volatile Republican rollercoaster ride towards a nomination, her campaign touched upon a political reality in the broadest sense.  The disparity between men and women in public service increases with rank.

   I find this remarkable in a country where the first African American man now holds the highest office in the land, considering women’s suffrage was gained over four decades before the passing of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 protected the right to vote for African Americans. Did racial politics catch up with the gender gap when then-Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008? Not quite—and surely not for women of color.

   Only 30 African American women have followed in the footsteps of the late Shirley Chisholm, who left her ‘unbought and unbossed’ legacy as the first Black woman elected to Congress in 1969—but only one of them serving in the Senate, Carol Moseley-Braun (IL, 1993). Of the 90 women serving in the current Congress, only 24 are women of color, in addition to House Delegates Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.), an African American, and Rep. Donna Christensen (V.I.), a Caribbean American. 

   The percentage drops to 15.5 percent on the state level, with 11 women of color out of 71 women serving in elective executive offices; and 20 percent at state legislatures, with 348 women of color (100 state senators and 248 representatives) out of 1,745 women.  As a whole, women of color constitute 4.7 percent of the total 7,382 state legislators. On the local level, the gap is even wider. Only two of the largest 100 cities today have African American women serving as mayors—Baltimore and Tacoma.

   Turning into my teens in New York City in the late eighties, I remember how the name of local political activist Lenora Fulani was spoken with great awe. I didn’t really understand then that she was the first woman and the first African American woman to gain ballot access for a presidential candidacy in all 50 states, albeit on an independent ticket.  What registered and remained was her boldness, her courage to run—reminiscent of the spirit of Chisholm who first sparked my love for public service.

   My fire was further stoked three weeks ago participating in the first colloquium of the Women in Public Service Project, launched by the U.S. State Department under the direction of Secretary Clinton. Women account for more than 50 percent of the world’s population, but only hold 20 percent of parliamentary seats, she noted, stressing the need for women at all levels of government, at the table, working on solving today’s problems.

   Why? “Women make space for others,” International Monetary Fund’s Managing Director, Christine Legarde said quite simply.

   Developed by a founding partnership of the State Department and the five leading women’s colleges in the U.S., the Project aims to train a new generation of women leaders in the public sector, inspired and empowered to invest in their communities and countries. Additional women’s colleges, including Spelman College, have joined the initial partnership, and the first Institute will be held at Wellesley College this June, with 50 emerging women leaders in public service or political/elected office from across the globe.

   Feminist icon Gloria Steinem summarily commented on the Project’s value: “Show me one thing that has not been transformed by the addition of the other half of the human race.”

   The day’s agenda—filled with powerful women leaders from around the world—was highlighted by two one-on-one conversations, first with the new president of Kosovo, Atifete Jahjaga, who humbly shared her commitment in facing her challenges as the first Muslim, first female, and the youngest head of a Balkan state; then with Special Advisor to President Obama, Valerie Jarrett, who politely instructed us, “Don’t sit around waiting for someone to recognize your worth. Point it out!”

   U.S. Secretary for Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius drew the contrast of men who constantly seek to participate regardless of their intelligence or preparation levels, against women who hesitate and decide to wait for one more course, one more degree, one more promotion, etc.  Perhaps, the most salient comment of the day came from NATO Navy Vice Admiral Carol Pottenger, who raised the bar by saying, “It is important to make opportunities for women to succeed, not just participate.”

   The overwhelming consensus was women have to seek to take advantage of these opportunities and believe we deserve and have a right to them. We should not be satisfied with only casting a vote at election time. We need to get involved in our communities now and stay involved. We need to become informed about the issues and policies that affect our lives and our loved ones.

   And women who possess the humanity to enter public service and courage to run for office should never forget those who paved the way for them, and help those following in their footsteps. This is the fullness of the American franchise. In the words of former Secretary of State Madeleine Alrbight in closing the colloquium, “There is a special place in hell for women who do not help other women, so there must be one in paradise for those who do.”

   Ultimately, the Women in Public Service Project will build a global network of women leaders shaping the world through the public sector.  As dynamic platforms continue to be raised and expanded for women to serve, the glass ceiling will not only be shattered, it will inevitably become the floor.

   Twitter: @GraceCreated

Remembering Yellow-Ribboned Trees: Where’s The Parade?  This week, President Obama announced that the remaining U.S. military troops in Iraq would be home by the end of next week. Where is the welcome home parade? Have we forgotten the streets across the country that filled with chants of “Bring The Troops Home” by protesters against the prolonged war in Iraq, the questionable WMD evidence that fueled the onset of the war, and Abu Ghraib?   Have we forgotten the rows of flag-draped caskets of fallen U.S. soldiers, rows of helmets hanging over rifle barrels, and rows of trees wrapped in yellow ribbons? My sister served in Desert Storm and my family was so extraordinarily joyful when she returned home to us, especially her four-month-old daughter and toddler son. By President Obama keeping his promise to end the war in Iraq, he has brought the same joy to every soldier’s family.   Is our collective memory so overwhelmed by issues in the current sociopolitical landscape that it clouds those from the not-so-distant past, resulting in a failure to recognize the significance of this moment?  Such national amnesia over the sacrifice and suffering of good soldiers is reminiscent of the Vietnam syndrome—and leaves more than a few good men and women in an ever precarious position as they try to transition back into everyday life. More Vietnam veterans committed suicide after the war than died in it, because of the cold, ambiguous reception of their return. Whether there is a national parade or not, Iraqi veterans should not only be embraced by their families—they should be welcomed home by everyone regardless of one’s perspective on the Iraqi war itself and war in general.   Tie a yellow ribbon around a tree. The troops are coming home.
Dec 16

Remembering Yellow-Ribboned Trees: Where’s The Parade? 

This week, President Obama announced that the remaining U.S. military troops in Iraq would be home by the end of next week. Where is the welcome home parade? Have we forgotten the streets across the country that filled with chants of “Bring The Troops Home” by protesters against the prolonged war in Iraq, the questionable WMD evidence that fueled the onset of the war, and Abu Ghraib?

  Have we forgotten the rows of flag-draped caskets of fallen U.S. soldiers, rows of helmets hanging over rifle barrels, and rows of trees wrapped in yellow ribbons? My sister served in Desert Storm and my family was so extraordinarily joyful when she returned home to us, especially her four-month-old daughter and toddler son. By President Obama keeping his promise to end the war in Iraq, he has brought the same joy to every soldier’s family.

  Is our collective memory so overwhelmed by issues in the current sociopolitical landscape that it clouds those from the not-so-distant past, resulting in a failure to recognize the significance of this moment?  Such national amnesia over the sacrifice and suffering of good soldiers is reminiscent of the Vietnam syndrome—and leaves more than a few good men and women in an ever precarious position as they try to transition back into everyday life. More Vietnam veterans committed suicide after the war than died in it, because of the cold, ambiguous reception of their return. Whether there is a national parade or not, Iraqi veterans should not only be embraced by their families—they should be welcomed home by everyone regardless of one’s perspective on the Iraqi war itself and war in general.

  Tie a yellow ribbon around a tree. The troops are coming home.

Air = Inspiration

Politico article headline on the Cain campaign calls it a result of political gravity. The inevitable and uncontrollable fall. What goes up must come down. Would the natural forces of elevation then be considered political levity? I liked that. Thought: HOW you rise in the political world will determine how you fall. Will you thud and disintegrate like a ton of cold, hard bricks? Or will you cascade to a rest like a parachute?

So… what inspires your politics? What gives life to your policies or political principles? Better yet, what are you relying on to keep you up in the political air?

Breath = Life

Dec 4
Political Levity

"mah love didn’t work lak they love, if dey ever had any. Love ain’t somethin’ lak uh grindstone dat’s de same thing everywhere and do de same thing tuh everything it touch. Love is lak de sea. It’s uh movin’ thing, but still and all, it takes its shapte from de shore it meets, and it’s different with every shore"

- Their Eyes Were Watching God by Zora Neale Hurston

Dec 2