Amazingly enough, the Right's "culture of life" spokespersons, who have regular conference calls with themselves, Jesus, and God regarding what the latter want to impose in American law, are usually the most fervent advocates of the death penalty. When you ask people why the might support this barbaric, and frankly prehistoric, 3rd world type of government action, they'll typically give you "eye for an eye" type arguments, or deterrent arguments based on complete myth and misunderstanding, rather than fact.

Obviously, considering the finality of such a punishment, one would think the system needs to be flawless in order to impose it correctly. Unfortunately, the death penalty has flaws that many don't often consider.

First, let's take a look at the list of some of the nations that continue to use the Death Penalty, to get an idea of the company the United States is in step with, versus some of the nations who do not:

Nations who have abolished the Death Penalty completely	Nations who use the Death Penalty only for military crimes or extraordinary circumstances/most recent execution	Nations who routinely use the death penalty for ordinary crimes (non-military)
Australia	Albania/NA	Afghanistan
Austria	Argentina/NA	Algeria
Belgium	Bolivia/1974	Bangladesh
Canada	Bonsia/NA	Cameroon
Colombia	Brazil/1979	Chad
Czech Republic	Chile/NA	China
Denmark	El Salvador/1973	Cuba
Finland	Fiji/1964	Egypt
France	Greece/1972	Ethiopia
Germany	Israel/1962	Ghana
Honduras	Latvia/1996	India
Hungary	Mexico/1937	Indonesia
Ireland	Peru/1979	Iran
Italy	Turkey/1984	Iraq
Lithuania		Jordan
Monoco		Kenya
Netherlands		Kuwait
New Zeleand		Loas
Nicaragua		Lebanon
Norway		Libya
Panama		Mongolia
Paraguay		Niger
Poland		North Korea
Portugal		Pakistan
Romania		Saudi Arabia
Slovak Republic		Palestinian Authority
Slovenia		Philippines
Solomon Islands		Qatar
South Africa		Rwanda
Spain		Singapore
Sweden		Somalia
Turkmenistan		Sudan
Switzerland		Syria
Ukraine		United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom		USA
Venezuela		Vietnam
Yugoslavia		Zimbabwe

The Death Penalty as a Deterrent

° Death-penalty states as a group do not have lower rates of criminal homicide than non-death penalty states. During the 1980s for example, death-penalty states averaged an annual rate of 7.5 criminal homicides per 100,000 of population; abolition states averaged a rate of 7.4 (Uniform Crime Reports, annually, 1980-1989)

° In 1997, the South was the only region with a homicide rate above the national average, despite the fact that it accounts for 80% of all executions. The Northeast, which accounts for less than 1% of all executions in the U.S., has the lowest homicide rate. Here's a look at how much the South is execution-happy:

° Use of the death penalty in a given state may increase the subsequent rate of criminal homicide in that state. In New York, for example, between 1907 and 1964, 692 executions were carried out. On the average, over this 57-year period, one or more executions in a given month aided a net increase of two homicides to the total committed in the next month. (Bowers and Pierce, "Deterrence or Brutalization," in Crime & Delinquency (1980)

° In neighboring states -- one with the death penalty and the others without it -- the one with the death penalty does not show a consistently lower rate of criminal homicide. For example, between 1972 and 1990, the homicide rate in Michigan (which ha s no death penalty) was generally as low as or lower than the neighboring state of Indiana, which restored the death penalty in 1973 and since then has sentenced 70 persons to death and carried out 2 executions

° Any punishment can be an effective deterrent only if it is consistently and promptly employed. Capital punishment cannot be administered to meet these conditions

° Police officers on duty do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide in states that have abolished the death penalty than they do in death-penalty states. Between 1973 and 1984, for example, lethal assaults against police were not significantly more or less frequent in abolition states than in death-penalty states. There is "no support for the view that the death penalty provides a more effective deterrent to police homicides than alternative sanctions. Not for a single year was evidence found that police are safer in jurisdictions that provide for capital punishment

° Prisoners and prison personnel do not suffer a higher rate of criminal assault and homicide from life-term prisoners in abolition states than they do in death-penalty states. Between 1984 and 1989, seventeen prison staff were murdered by prisoners in ten states; of these murders, 88 percent (15 of 17) occurred in death penalty jurisdictions -- just as about 88 percent of all the prisoners in those ten states were in death penalty jurisdictions. Evidently, the threat of the death penalty does not even exert an incremental deterrent effect over the threat of a lesser punishment in the abolitionist state.

Nationwide Murder Rates
By 2003 rank, highest murder rate to lowest
(2002 to 1995 Shown for Comparison)
Murder Rates per 100,000 people

(Death Penalty-FREE States in Yellow)

Financial Cost of the Death Penalty
° In New York each death penalty trial costs $1.4 million compared with $602,000 for life imprisonment. The cost of imposing the death penalty in New York State has been estimated to be $3 million for each case (NY Daily News, July, 28, 1998).

° In Florida the cost of each execution was estimated to be $3.2 million, about 6 times the amount needed to incarcerate a convicted murderer for life. From 1973 to 1988 Florida spent $57 million on the death penalty (Miami Herald, July 10, 1988).

° In Kentucky the cost of a capital trial varied between $2 and $5 million dollars (Blakley, A.F. 1990. Cost of Killing Criminals. Northern Kentucky Law Review 18, 1: 61-79).

° The most comprehensive study of the costs of the death penalty found that the state of North Carolina spends $2.16 million more per execution than for a non-capital murder trial resulting in imprisonment for life (Duke University, May 1993; Carter, M. 1995. Cost of the Death Penalty: An Introduction to the Issue. Nebraska Legislature, Legislative Research Division; Cook, P.J. and D.B. Slawson. 1993. Costs of Processing Murder Cases in North Carolina. North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.).

° In California the death penalty adds $90 million annually to the costs of the criminal justice system. $78 million of that cost is incurred at the trial level (Sacramento Bee, March 18, 1988).

° The Judiciary Committee of the Nebraska legislature reported that any savings from executions are outweighed by the legal costs of a death penalty case. The report concluded that death penalty does not serve the best interests of Nebraskans (Nebraska Press & Dakotan, January 27, 1998; Carter, M. 1995. Cost of the Death Penalty: An Introduction to the Issue. Nebraska Legislature, Legislative Research Division.).

° In Texas the cost of capital punishment is estimated to be $2.3 million per death sentence, three times the cost of imprisoning someone at the highest possible security level, in a single prisoner cell for 40 years (Dallas Morning News, March 8, 1992; Dieter, R.C. 1994. Future of the Death Penalty in the U.S.: A Texas-Sized Crisis. Death Penalty Information Center. Washington, D.C.).

° In Indiana three recent capital cases cost taxpayers over $2 million just for defense costs. Prosecution costs usually exceed those of the defense (Indianapolis Star/News February 7, 1999).

° In Washington State, officials are concerned that costs for a single capital case will approach $1 million. The county in which the trial was held had to let one governmental position go unfilled, postponed employee pay hikes, drained the county’s $300,000 contingency fund and eliminated all capital improvement projects for the fiscal year (The Spokesman-Review, January 19, 1999).

° Thurston County in Washington has budgeted $346,000 for 1999 alone, to seek Mitchell Rupe’s third death sentence. Rupe is dying from liver disease and the state of Washington has had to undertake extreme measures to save Rupe from a natural death so that he may be executed. Since 1997, Thurston County has spent $700,000 just for the most recent sentencing hearing (Seattle Times, March 12, 1999).

° The state of Ohio spent over $1.5 million to execute one mentally ill man who was a death penalty volunteer. Some of the costs included $18,147 in overtime for prison employees and $2,250 in overtime for State Highway Patrol officers to provide support for the execution. In addition the state had to pay overtime for 25 prison public information officers who worked the night of the execution. The state also spent $5,320 on a satellite truck so the official announcement of the execution could be beamed to outside media. Ohio’s Attorney General had between 5 and 15 prosecutors working on the case, expending 10% of the state’s annual budget for its capital crimes section, over a five year period. Keeping the man who was executed in prison for his entire life would have cost less than half as much (Columbus Dispatch, February 28, 1999).

° Because of death penalty trial costs, Okanogan County Washington had to delay pay raises for the county’s 350 employees; could not replace two of four public health nurses in the county, and had to stop all non-emergency travel and put on hold on updating county computers and vehicles (Associated Press, April 2, 1999).

° New Jersey laid off more than 500 police officers in 1991, at a time when it was putting into place a death penalty statute that would cost $16 million a year, more than enough to rehire all 500 officers (American Bar Association, 1992; 16).

° In Florida, budget cuts resulting in a reduction of $45 million in funding for the Department of Corrections required the early release of 3,000 inmates (American Bar Association, 1992: 21) while spending an estimated $57.2 million on executions (Von Drehle, 1988: 12A).

° Professors Richard Moran and Joseph Ellis estimated that the money it would take to implement the death penalty in New York for just five years would be enough to fund 250 additional police officers and build prisons for 6,000 inmates (Moran and Ellis, 1989).

° Ten other states also reported early release of prisoners because of overcrowding and underfunding (American Bar Association, 1992: 54). In Texas, the early release of prisoners has meant that inmates are serving only 20 percent of their sentences and re-arrests are common. On the other hand, Texas spent an estimated $183.2 million in just six years on the death penalty (American Bar Association, 1992: 54).

° Georgia's Department of Corrections lost over 900 positions in the past year while local counties have had to raise taxes to pay for death penalty trials (American Bar Association, 1992: 18).

Top 12 Reasons to Oppose the Death Penalty

° Capital punishment is cruel and unusual. It is a relic of the earliest days of penology, when slavery, branding, and other corporal punishments were commonplace. Like those other barbaric practices, executions have no place in a civilized society.

1. When Republican presidents hire, appoint, or advocate for people of color, they almost always share the same conservative, anti-progressive values regarding civil rights as do their white, male counterparts. That is to say - the official may look great "on paper," but they find the 2% of the minority who don't share the same civil rights philosophies, heritage, and justice that have pushed civil rights past major roadblocks for the past 100 years.

A perfect example of this was Bush senior's appointment of Clarence Thomas. He was replacing Thurgood Marshall, another minority, on the court - so the appointment of another person of color to take his place looks very respectable on the surface. Thomas however, is extremely conservative, and doesn't even advocate for the very practice that got him to where he is today - affirmative action (I am a close relative of someone who worked at Holy Cross where Thomas attended college, and can verify the proceeding statement to be fact). This is all compounded by serious allegations of Thomas harassing another minority Therefore, appointing a person of color in this instance makes no difference whatsoever.

2. If the appointee is from the other 98% who does in fact share the common civil rights views of other minorities, sociologists, college professors, social-scientists and leading professionals within the realm of civil rights struggles, they are NOT put in a position of power to affect social change.

This is where Condi Rice and Colon Powell come in. At first glance one might say, "wow, two black individuals near the hierarchy of the cabinet, good for you George!" Then, one might take a look at their positions - not attorney general, the most powerful lawmaker - not the Vice President, the head of the Senate - but Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State. Two positions that have nothing to do with making any social change in this country.

-Investigate complaints alleging that citizens are being deprived of their right to vote by reason of their race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or by reason of fraudulent practices

-Study and collect information relating to discrimination or a denial of equal protection of the laws under the Constitution because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice

-Appraise federal laws and policies with respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin, or in the administration of justice

-Serve as a national clearinghouse for information in respect to discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws because of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, or national origin

-Submit reports, findings, and recommendations to the President and Congress; Issue public service announcements to discourage discrimination or denial of equal protection of the law

• Voting Rights: The Bush administration did not provide leadership to ensure timely passage and swift implementation of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002. As a result, Congress did not appropriate funds for election reform until almost two years into the administration. The law sets out new federal requirements on all aspects of voting, including provisional ballots, statewide computerized voter lists, “second chance” voting and access to voting for people with disabilities. While most states have passed legislation to enable these reforms, including provisional ballots, lack of funding has undermined the infrastructure needed for implementation, according to the report. “As a result of the president’s inaction, little will change before the 2004 elections, and the problems that linger, unless resolved, will most likely disenfranchise some eligible voters,” the report says.

• Parental Rights: Bush, the family values president, repealed a rule in December 2002 that allows states to use unemployment compensation funds to provide benefits to workers who must leave their jobs temporarily to care for newborn or newly adopted children. The measure, known as the “Baby UI” rule, took effect in 2000 and was completely voluntary for states exploring new ways to help working families balance work and family responsibilities. In 2001, bills had been introduced in 20 state legislatures to establish birth and adoption unemployment benefit programs.

• Women's Rights: The administration also ended distribution of information about women’s workplace rights and abolished the Department of Labor’s Equal Pay Matters Initiative, an effort to achieve equal pay for women. In 2002, women earned 77 cents for every dollar men earned working full-time, year round, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

• Equality for Female Athletes- The Bush administration recently released a clarification to Title IX, the 1972 federal law that requires equal opportunity for women and girls in education and sports. The clarification allows for schools to show compliance with Title IX even if they do not provide equal funding and opportunity for women's sports, provided they show that their female students do not have the same level of interest in sports as the male students. The change also allows schools to avoid a 1996 guideline that states that multiple factors should be used in determining the level of student interest in sports. This cleared the way for schools to use a flawed email survey of their female students to duck their Title IX obligations.

• Equal Educational Opportunity: The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) does not sufficiently address unequal education, a major barrier to closing the achievement gap between minority and white students. The reports says Bush underfunded his own education reform law, the No Child Left Behind Act, by nearly $30 billion while some parts the law don’t sufficiently tackle the problem of minority students’ unequal access to quality education.
  
• Affirmative Action: Instead of promoting affirmative action in federal contracting and education, the administration promotes "race neutral alternatives," in many instances not applicable and in others not overly effective at maintaining diversity.

• Meeting with Civil Rights Groups: The report also noted Bush's failure to meet frequently with minority leaders, including the Congressional Black Caucus, the National Council of La Raza and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
  
• Environmental Justice: EPA has taken few actions to ensure disparate impact of minority communities to environmental contamination.

• Failure to Protect Gays & Lesbians in the Workplace: The report cites Bush's opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would protect gays and lesbians from bias in the workplace. “President Bush has not defined a clear agenda nor made civil rights a priority,” the report concludes.
  
• Racial Profiling: The administration responded to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by instituting regulations that facilitate profiling rather than prevent it. Immigrants and visitors from Arab and Middle Eastern countries were subjected to increased scrutiny, including interviews, registration, and in some cases removal. "Arab Americans and Muslims complained that airline personnel and airport security denied them access to aircraft and subjected them to unwarranted searches and harassment. In some instances, airport security removed individuals from planes because members of the crew or passengers did not 'feel safe'," says the report. "On a larger scale, profiling resulted in detentions, forced registration, and extensive monitoring of persons of Middle Eastern descent," adds the document, which is critical of a number of federal agencies, principally the Department of Justice (DOJ), which includes the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Bush and Women's Rights:

Women Fed Up With Dubya & His Policies
A national survey found that more women than men have turned against President Bush and the Republican party. The poll, conducted for EMILY's List by Garin-Hart-Yang Research Group and the Feldman Group in May, found that women are concerned about the war in Iraq, plans to change Social Security, and what they see as inappropriate political intervention in personal or family decisions. Although last fall an estimated 48 percent of women voters supported Bush, one-third of women surveyed who voted for Bush in 2004 said they don't intend to vote Republican in the 2006 congressional mid-term elections. Women favored Democrats over Republicans for Congress, 43 percent to 32 percent, which, combined with men's responses, would put Democrats ahead, 40 percent to 36 percent. Social Security was women's top concern, followed by Iraq, health care and education. Six in 10 women favored improved international diplomacy to fight terrorism, while 25 percent advocated hunting down suspects to "defeat them before they can strike us." Women said they were more concerned about the decline of morality and family values with the next generation than economic problems. But when they were asked who should be the arbiter of values, most women and men said abortion, sexuality and religious issues should be left to individuals, not government.
Source, Capitol Hill Blue, "Women Fed Up With Dubya & His Policies," Margaret Talev, June 23, 2005

Proposed Budget Cuts College Readiness Programs for Low-Income Young Women
Although President Bush vows to leave no child behind, his proposed 2006 federal budget and the budget resolution passed by Congress in April does just that—by calling for a cut of over $500 million from the Department of Education. These budget cuts stand to particularly impact female teens. "Since women make up a disproportionate share of low-income students, they will be particularly affected by planned cuts to the Perkins Program, TRIO and GEAR UP," said Jacqueline King, director of Policy Analysis at the American Council on Education. About 61% of the students who stand to lose the Upward Bound and Talent Search programs are female, according to the Washington-based Council for Opportunity in Education. The Council says the budget cuts will leave female teens across the country without a lifeline to higher education.
Source: Women's E-News, "Budget May Cut College Dreams Short," Kara Alaimo, May 29, 2005

Bush Administration Admits that Sliding-Scale Social Security Benefit Cuts Harm Women and Children
The Bush Administration recently acknowledged that its proposed sliding-scale benefit cuts to Social Security would apply not just to retired workers with earnings over $20,000 per year, but also to their widows and surviving children. Even widows whose own earnings were less than $20,000 could have benefit cuts—which will affect an estimated 70 percent of retired workers and their families, according to the National Women's Law Center.
Source: National Women's Law Center, "Private Accounts Would Dismantle Social Security Safety Net: Lawmakers Must Examine the Particular Impact of Private Accounts on Women and Families," May 17, 2005

Bush Administration Drops the Ball on Women's Collegiate Sports
On March 18, 2005, the Bush administration released a clarification to Title IX, the 1972 federal law that requires equal opportunity for women and girls in education and sports. The clarification allows schools to show compliance with Title IX even if they do not provide equal funding and opportunity for women's sports, provided they show that their female students do not have the same level of interest in sports as the male students. The change also allows schools to avoid a 1996 guideline that states that multiple factors should be used in determining the level of student interest in sports. This clears the way for schools to use a flawed email survey of their female students to duck their Title IX obligations.
Source: National Women's Law Center

Bush Administration Considers Weakening FMLA
Enacted under Clinton, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees eligible employees up to 12 weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave for a serious illness, to care for a seriously ill family member or to care for a newborn or newly adopted child. This important legislation allows workers to avoid having to choose between family and job. Opponents of FMLA - the very groups that fought the law's original passage 12 years ago - are reportedly pressuring the Bush administration to weaken the law by eliminating some of the circumstances in which employees may take unpaid leave and by restricting the use of intermittent leave. Though the Department of Labor reportedly has denied plans to propose these changes, it has said it will make changes to regulations governing notice for leave time.
Source: National Partnership for Women and Families

Bush's Mercury Emissions Plan Does Little to Help Women and Children
The Bush administration's plan to curtail mercury emissions is less stringent than many environmental groups had hoped. The plan will allow the coal-burning power plants that are responsible for dangerous amounts of mercury being released into the environment to buy and sell emissions credits as they see fit and as their budgets allow. Mercury is a poisonous metal that has been found to harm the developing nervous systems of infants and fetuses along with women of childbearing age.
Source: The New York Times, "Bush Plan to Permit Trading of Credits to Limit Mercury", Felicity Barringer, March 13, 2005.

U.S. Delegation Impedes Progress at Beijing Plus 10
2005 marks the tenth anniversary of the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women, at which the U.S. signed the Beijing Platform for Action, a landmark international agreement that committed governments to promoting women's freedom of political participation, increasing their access to education, employment, and health care, and protecting their human rights. When 6,000 delegates gathered in New York in late February 2005 for a two-week conference taking stock of progress on the Beijing platform, the U.S. delegation interrupted the first order of business by trying to amend the one-page platform with anti-abortion language. The U.S. delegation eventually withdrew the stance, but reportedly only after they felt they could declare victory because they had convinced enough other nations to agree with them.
Sources: Women's Enews, "U.S. Engages in Tug-of-War at Beijing Plus 10," March 7, 2005, Allison Stevens; BBC.com, "US sparks row at UN over abortion," Feb. 28, 2005; Washington Post, "U.S. Drops Abortion Issue at U.N. Conference," Colum Lynch, March 5, 2005; Newsday, "In U.S. world policy, women lose out" March 10, 2005, Sheryl McCarthy

Bush Addresses Anti-Choice Marchers
During the annual "March for Life" in January, Bush spoke with anti-choice marchers who descended on Washington D.C. In a message broadcast to the marchers, Bush promised that his administration was working to foster a "culture of life" through legislation like the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban and the "Unborn Victims of Violence" Act. Bush also told the marchers that a U.S. without abortion is slowly coming into view. "We're making progress in Washington," Bush said.
Sources: The White House, "President Bush Calls "March for Life" Participants," Jan. 24, 2005; National NOW Times, "Second Term Could Mean the End for Roe," Winter 2004/2005.

Bush Enacts Domestic Gag Rule
In Dec. 2004, Bush signed into law the so-called "Abortion Non-Discrimination Act" (ANDA) as an amendment to the final version of the $388 billion omnibus appropriations bill, an important piece of legislation that dictates how much money goes to various government programs each fiscal year. The amendment, originally proposed by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, will impact U.S. reproductive healthcare in the same way that the global gag rule weakened international reproductive health services. Under ANDA, Medicare, HMOs, private insurance companies and hospitals can bar doctors from providing abortion referrals, performing abortions or even counseling patients about their options—even if the patient asks for the information. Anti-choice Rep. Dave Weldon, R-Fla., added the two-sentence clause to the 3,000-page appropriations bill in a closed-door session. A number of senators argued against the amendment, but a continued debate would have held up the budget for numerous other government-funded programs. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., assured the opposing senators they would have an opportunity to repeal the provision in the spring. However, with Republicans controlling 55 of the Senate's 100 seats in the new Congress, a reversal of the amendment is highly unlikely.
Sources: Planned Parenthood, "So-Called 'Abortion Non-Discrimination Act' Threatens Women's Health," Dec. 9, 2004; Women's Enews, "California Sues U.S. Over Budget's Abortion Ban," Rebecca Vesely, Feb. 7, 2005; Reuters, "California Fights Anti-Abortion Law," Jan. 25, 2005

Bush White House Perpetuates the Wage Gap
With new leaked White House salary figures and an Excel spreadsheet, crack Washington Post researcher Margot Williams determined in July that men in the Bush White House earn an average of $76,624 a year, and women earn $59,917 on average. That means Bush women are paid about 78 cents for every dollar that Bush men earn—similar to the wage gap that still exists between men and women throughout the U.S. (In 1963, women employed full-time in the U.S. were paid, on average, only 59 cents to the dollar received by men; in 2001 women were paid 76 cents for every dollar received by men.) At the White House, the gap is the result of the predominance of men in highest-paid jobs; 12 of the 17 White House staffers earning $157,000—the top of the pay scale this year—are men. Men and women are paid similar salaries for similar work, says The Post, but fewer women hold top positions.
Sources: "Leaked Salary List Shows Bush's Highest Paid Staff Mostly Male," Dana Milbank, Washington Post, July 13, 2004; "White House Salary List Released," Ken Herman, Cox News Service, July 13, 2004; National Organization for Women, "Pay Equity: A Long Overdue Step in the Road to Equality," April 9, 2003.

Bush & Co. Policies Mean Fewer Jobs for Women
1.3 million jobs have disappeared since the recession began 38 months ago in March 2001, inaugurating the only period of sustained job loss for women in the past four decades. Women workers lost more than 300,000 jobs between the start of the recession in March 2001 and March 2004. Even though the past three months have seen what the Economic Policy Institute's JobWatch.org calls "healthy gains," the group says it would be a mistake to attribute these gains to the Bush administration's tax cuts, which took effect in July 2003 with the stated goal of creating of 5.5 million new jobs by the end of 2004. In fact, since the tax cuts took effect, the U.S. has seen the greatest sustained job loss since the Great Depression.
Sources: "Labor Market Experiences Third Month of Healthy Job Growth," JobWatch.org; "Record-Breaking Job Loss Continues for Women, Three Years After Start of Recession," Institute for Women's Policy Research, June 2, 2004; "Bush Administration's Tax Cuts Not Fulfilling Job Creation Promises," Economic Policy Institute, June 2004; "Greatest Sustained Job Loss Since the Great Depression," Economic Policy Institute, June 2004

Bush Administration Remembers Reagan as Breaking Ground for Women
At a June awards luncheon for women in government, Lynne Cheney invoked the struggles of suffragists and late former president Ronald Reagan. The Gipper, a feminist champion? In the early 1980s, polls found that many women held the opposite view. "I realize that historians have not usually thought of him as a man who broke way for women," Cheney said, departing briefly from her prepared text at the Library of Congress. But she listed some of his appointments, including her own as the first female chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, to make the case. Reagan named Margaret Heckler secretary of health and human services, Ann Korologos secretary of labor, Elizabeth Dole secretary of transportation and Jeane Kirkpatrick ambassador to the United Nations. Cheney called these appointments "a record for that time." As a kicker, she noted that within one year of Reagan's inauguration, he nominated Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, sharp readers remind us that Reagan "legitimized racism, intolerance, homophobia, attacks on the environment and women's rights, corporate greed and corruption and more scandals per week than any other administration until Bush and his cronies came along. Reagan was an unmitigated disaster ... the media seems to have been infected with Alzheimer's when it comes to the disgraceful legacy of a boorish bigot." As Truthout.org pointed out back in April 2004: Ronald Reagan was the first to issue the global gag rule that yanked vital funding from women's health clinics worldwide.
Sources: "Spinning One for the Gipper," Washington Post, June 10, 2004; "Reagan Remorse," Contra Costa Times, June 18, 2004; Truthout.org, April 25, 2004

FDA Responds to Political Pressure, Rejects Over-The-Counter Emergency Contraception
Overruling the advice of its own scientific advisors, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 6 rejected over-the-counter sales of emergency contraception (EC), prompting NOW and other critics to accuse the agency of responding to political pressure from the Bush administration. In December, two FDA scientific panels voted 23-4 in support of making EC available without a prescription. Afterward, the agency was subjected to political pressure from conservatives who argued that increased access to EC would encourage teenagers to be sexually active. While acting drug chief Dr. Steven Galson denied that politics played a role in his decision, women's rights advocates said otherwise. "The FDA is playing politics with women's lives and contributing to the deterioration of public health in this country," NOW President Kim Gandy said. "The FDA has set aside its mission and caved to political pressure from the Bush administration and its allies who oppose birth control." Barr Laboratories, makers of the Plan B emergency contraception brand, plan to rapidly seek approval for nonprescription sales for people aged 16 years and older. "It's a matter of weeks and months to deal with this objection," said Barr chief executive Bruce Downey, saying that means the FDA could reconsider the issue within a year. "Clearly ... the door's open, and we plan to go through it."
Sources: "FDA May Reconsider Morning-After Pill," Associated Press, May 8, 2004; "Politics Triumph in FDA Battle over Morning-After Pill," National Organization for Women, May 6, 2004; "U.S. Rejects Wider Access to Morning-After Pill," Lisa Richwine, Reuters, May 6, 2004; "U.S. Rules Morning-After Pill Can't Be Sold Over the Counter," Gardiner Harris, The New York Times, May 7, 2004

Bush Administration Deletes Women's Issues Information from Government Websites
The Bush administration has quietly deleted and altered information on women's issues from government agency websites, a research group has found. A report from the National Council for Research on Women (NCRW), released in mid-April, says the deletion of information on subjects including pay equity and childcare was "apparently [done] in pursuit of a political agenda." At least 25 publications were removed from the website of the Department of Labor's Women's Bureau alone. Some items that were not deleted were reportedly altered: For example, information about the use of condoms to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases was changed to say that the effectiveness of condoms was "inconclusive." The National Cancer Institute's website was changed in 2002 to say studies linking abortion and breast cancer were inconsistent; an outcry from scientists resulted in an amendment to say abortion is not associated with an increased risk. The NCRW report also indicated that key government offices such as the Office of Women's Initiatives and Outreach in the White House and the President's Interagency Council on Women have been disbanded, with attempts made at the Pentagon to disband the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Finally, the report found that as of March 2004, Attorney General John Ashcroft had failed to conduct and publish a study required under the Violence Against Women Act to investigate discrimination against domestic violence victims in getting insurance.
Sources: "U.S. Deletes, Alters Gender Issue Web Data," Deborah Zabarenko, Reuters, April 28, 2004; "MISSING: Information About Women's Lives," The National Council for Research on Women, March 2004.

Bush & Co. to Women: Male Lawmakers (Not You or Your Doctor) Know What's Best For You
On Nov. 5, George W. Bush signed into law the most significant restriction on abortion in the 30 years since Roe v. Wade. Accompanied by a cadre of men, Bush delivered what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called "a slap in the face to women across America" by signing the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban. Pelosi, angered by the celebratory nature of the bill-signing event, decried the gathering as "a group of men celebrating depriving women of a medical procedure that could save their health and their lives." Opponents of the ban hope that this will be "a wake-up call to voters who support abortion rights."
Sources: Washington Post, "Bush Signs Ban on Late-Term Abortions Into Effect," Nov. 6, 2003; San Francisco Chronicle, "Bill-Signing Photo Angers Pelosi: Men Surrounded Bush When he OKd Limits on Abortion," Nov. 8, 2003; New York Times, "In Anti-Abortion Campaign, One Leap for Incrementalism," Nov. 6, 2003

Ashcroft's Civil Rights Division to Enforce Abortion Procedures Ban
Adding insult to injury, the Bush administration has given the civil rights division of the U.S. Department of Justice the task of enforcing the dangerous new ban on abortion procedures. Despite the fact that three federal judges have already blocked enforcement of the law (a nearly identical state law was declared unconstitutional just three years ago), the Justice Department, under John Ashcroft, said it "will continue to strongly defend the law ... using every resource necessary." The decision to charge the civil rights division rather than the criminal division with enforcement of the law has provoked outcry. Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee accused Ashcroft of "perverting the federal government’s role in promoting civil rights." In a letter to Ashcroft, House Democrats said "it is Orwellian that you would have the civil rights division enforce a law which has been essentially found by the Supreme Court to violate the civil rights of millions of American women." Groups opposing abortion rights see gaining civil rights for fetuses as another step towards the eventual overturn of Roe v. Wade.
Sources: Associated Press, "Government Promises to Defend New Abortion Law," Nov. 7, 2003; The Guardian, "Fury at Bush's Civil Rights Policing of Abortion Ban," Nov. 8, 2003

Bush Administration Goes After Non-Profits That Oppose His "Abstinence Only" Policy
Salon.com reports that "some nonprofit organizations that don't agree with the Bush administration's 'abstinence only' philosophy" have been "repeatedly investigated by the government, while faith-based groups get a free pass." Advocates for Youth, a national nonprofit that provides teens with comprehensive sex education, had never in its 18 years as a federal grantee been subject to an audit by the government. Over the past year it has been subjected to three. The organization claims that "it's being unfairly targeted because of its negative views towards the administration’s abstinence-only education policies." Their claims are supported by a leaked Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) memo published by the Washington Post in July 2001. The memo describes Advocates for Youth as "ardent critics of the Bush administration." And Advocates for Youth are not the only ones being targeted. Three reviews have been conducted over the past 10 months of San Francisco's STOP AIDS program. The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SEICUS) has undergone two audits this year. While Advocates for Youth, STOP AIDS, and SEICUS have all "come through their audits with flying colors," last year a number of faith-based organizations receiving federal grants were found guilty of misusing government money. For example, a number of sex-education programs funded by Louisiana Governor Mike Foster's Program on Abstinence "were found guilty in a federal court of openly violating the constitutional tenet of separation of church and state." However, none of these Louisiana nonprofits have been subject to an HHS audit. James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth says, "Our complaint is not with getting audited" but "with the selective and political nature of these audits. Ideology is invading—if not subverting—science within the Department of Health and Human Services."
Source: Salon.com, "No Sex, Please—Or We'll Audit You," Oct. 28, 2003

Bush's Posturing on Sex Trade Meets Skepticism
The Associated Press reports that human rights groups were skeptical about President Bush's demands that foreign nations crack down on the international sex trade, saying the problem can only be solved by addressing root causes like poverty and poor education. In his recent speech to the United General Counsel, Bush ended with warnings about the dangers of the trade in sex slaves. In a sleight of hand, Bush said that the U.S is committing $50 million to organizations that give shelter and medicine to exploited women and children, but did not say whether that money was new or already allocated. Jodi Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Health and Gender Equity, said the U.S. has not done enough to fight related issues like AIDS. The Bush administration has promised $15 billion for five years to combat AIDS, but part of the AIDS bill will deny funds to any group or organization working with female prostitutes that do not have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution, a provision rights groups oppose. "You cannot straitjacket the groups that are working with trafficking survivors," says Ritu Sharma, executive director of Women's Edge Coalition.
Source: Associated Press, "Bush Stand on Sex Trade Meets Skepticism," Sept. 24, 2003.

Bush Reinstatement of Gag Rule Resulting in Deaths, Disease Globally
Women's eNews reports that the global gag rule "has led to closed clinics, cuts in healthcare staff and dwindling medical supplies, leaving women, children and families without access to vital healthcare services." This policy, reinstated by President Bush in 2001 as one of his first acts in office, prohibits any organization receiving population funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development from using those or other funds to provide or promote abortion. The gag rule also led to shortages in contraceptives due to large cuts in funding to organizations that refused to sign the rule. By 2002, the gag rule had cut off shipments of USAID-donated supplies to 16 developing countries, because the only recipients in those countries were members of the International Planned Parenthood Federation which lost $20 million in USAID funds because it refused to comply with the policy. Condoms procured with HIV/AIDS funds are not subject to the rule, but critics of the rule say that, in practice, organizations that refused to sign the rule have not been able to get funds earmarked for HIV/AIDS prevention. Hillary Fyfe, chair of the Family Life Movement of Zambia, asserts, "I think they are killing these women, just as if they are pointing a gun and shooting. There is no difference."
Source: Women's eNews, "Report: Global Gag Rule Spurring Deaths, Disease," Sept. 25, 2003.

Bush Expands Global Gag Rule
President Bush issued an executive memorandum over the Labor Day weekend expanding the global gag rule to include family planning funds administered by the U.S. Department of State. The "global gag rule" is a policy that denies United States family planning funds to any international organizations that perform abortions or refer patients to abortion services, even with their own funds. Bush's latest action extends the gag rule to all assistance for voluntary population programs funded through the State Department. The Center for Reproductive Rights reports that "this drastic expansion means that more of the world's most vulnerable women, including refugees, will be denied basic health care services."
Sources: Executive Memorandum, "Assistance for Voluntary Population Planning," August 29, 2003; Center For Reproductive Rights, "Expanded Global Gag Rule Limits Women's Rights and Endangers Their Well-Being," Sept. 5, 2003.

UNFPA, Condemned by Bush Administration, Loses Additional $50 Million in U.S. International Family Planning Funds
With a narrow majority, the House of Representatives voted to block $50 million in international family planning funds to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), based on the unsubstantiated argument that the program supports China's coercive population control policy. The Bush administration and some GOP lawmakers disparaged UNFPA—a program which provides millions of dollars to promote contraception, as well as safe birthing and child care practices for poor women in more than 150 countries—saying that it violates U.S. law by supporting China's "one child" policy, which they claim sometimes entails coerced or forced abortions. Yet UNFPA officials assert that the program does not promote abortion, and an investigative panel convened by Bush last year reported that there was no evidence that UNFPA promotes coerced abortions or involuntary sterilizations in China. Despite the panel's findings, the Bush administration withdrew $34 million from the program in 2002 and did not request any funding for the program in Bush's 2004 budget. As a result of the House vote, it appears that UNFPA will not receive any funding this year either.
Source: Washington Post, "House Blocks Family Planning Funds," Juliet Eilperin, July 16, 2003

House Votes to Ban Safe Abortion Procedures; Bush Has Repeatedly Promised to Sign Bill into Law
In what could become one of the most significant restrictions on abortion in decades, the U.S. House approved the so-called Partial-Birth Abortion Ban bill, H.R. 760, on June 4. In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush urged Congress to give him a bill he could sign, and has repeatedly promised to sign the legislation, which passed the Senate earlier this year in a slightly different form. The bill would ban an array of safe, common abortion methods used in the second or third trimester of pregnancy, and provides no exception for the woman's health. A number of abortion rights groups, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and the National Abortion Federation, have said they will immediately file suit to block the legislation once the president signs it.
Sources: Washington Post, "House Votes to Restrict Abortions," Juliet Eilperin, June 5; New York Times, "House Bans an Abortion Method," Robin Toner, June 5; Associated Press, "Abortion Bill Approved By House," Jim Abrams, June 5.

Bush: Discrimination Against Women Not As Serious As Racial, Ethnic Discrimination
At a recent press conference, George W. Bush indicated through White House spokesperson Ari Fleischer that he does not consider discrimination against women to be an offense as serious as racial or ethnic discrimination. According to Fleischer, membership in a group that excludes women is not "a disqualifying factor" for candidates to Cabinet posts. However, when prodded, Fleischer stated that racial or ethnic discrimination is a "very different category for the President."
Sources: PR Newswire, "Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer," Dec. 11, 2002; Federal Document Clearing House, "Ari Fleischer Holds White House Briefing," Dec. 9, 2002

Bush Attempts to Confer Personhood on Embryos
The Bush administration changed the mission of the Advisory Committee on Human Research Protection—which oversees the safety of human research volunteers—to include embryos. Although the committee can only advise the Department of Health and Human Services to offer embryos the same federal protections offered to fetuses, children and adults, many consider this move the latest in Bush's attempts to confer personhood on embryos and fetuses. According to the Washington Post, many have "called the move an inappropriate political and religious intrusion." The modifications potentially limit embryo research, which scientists expect could provide cures for a number of degenerative diseases.
Source: Washington Post, "New Status for Embryos in Research," Rick Weiss, Oct. 30, 2002

Validity of Charges Against UNPFA Questioned by Knight Ridder Investigation
Debunking Bush & Co.'s trumped up charges against the United Nations Population Fund (UNPFA), an investigation by Knight Ridder has raised more questions about the validity of claims made by the Population Research Institute (PRI) that UNPFA knowingly supported China's coercive family planning programs. The allegations made by PRI—which is headed by anti-abortion and anti-family planning Steven Moshe—led to Bush's July withholding of more than $34 million in funds that Congress had appropriated for UNPFA. The administration recently announced that it would transfer the $34 million to a United States Agency for International Development program that aims to improve children's health in other countries.
Sources: Associated Press, "Bush Transfers U.N. Population Funds," Scott Lindlaw, Sept. 30, 2002; Knight Ridder, "Small Advocacy Group Influences American Policy," Jodi Enda, Sept. 22, 2002

Administration Withdraws Funding for Family Planning
The White House announced it plans to withhold $34 million appropriated by Congress for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), a decision that according to many observers will cost innumerable women and children their lives. Conservative extremists claim that UNFPA supports China's coercive abortion and sterilization programs, although a State Department investigation found no evidence to back those claims. UNFPA estimates the lost funds will translate to two million more unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 more abortions, 4,700 more dead mothers and 77,000 deaths of children under five.
Source: Agence France Presse, "U.S. Withdraws Millions from the UN Population Fund Over China Program," Stephen Collinson, July 22, 2002

Bush Administration Tries Underhandedly to Designate Fetuses as Persons
Bush's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, announced a scheme to promote fetal personhood, by designating fetuses as children eligible for funds under the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). While the Bush administration claims the move was fueled solely by a desire to extend prenatal care, activists expressed concern that the goal of Thompson's proposal is to undermine abortion rights. Activists also lamented that the Bush administration did not simply extend full prenatal health care to all pregnant women.
Source: Knight Ridder, "Bush Administration Ignites Abortion Debate with Health-Care Proposal," Jodi Enda, Feb. 1, 2002

Bush Addresses Anti-Abortion Protestors
On the 29th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Bush addressed anti-abortion rights marchers via cell phone, saying: "Everyone there believes, as I do, that every life is valuable; that our society has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and weak, the imperfect and even the unwanted; and that our nation should set a great goal that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law."
Source: The White House, "President's Phone Call to March for Life Participants," Jan. 22, 2002

Bush Declares 29th Anniversary of Roe "National Sanctity of Life Day"
Bush declared January 22, 2002, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, "National Sanctity of Human Life Day" in a proclamation that not-so-subtly likened abortion to terrorism. The proclamation stated: "On September 11, we saw clearly that evil exists in this world, and that it does not value life ... Now we are engaged in a fight against evil and tyranny to preserve and protect life."
Source: The White House, "National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2002," Jan. 18, 2002

Bush Nominee Declares Support for Reevaluation of Mifepristone
At his confirmation hearing, Bush's Secretary of Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, indicated that he would seek FDA re-evaluation of mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486, or the "abortion pill"). The Bush administration also restricted Medicaid funding for mifepristone to cases of rape, incest, or to preserve the pregnant woman's life.
Source: Newsweek, "The 'Abortion Pill': Not Stocked Here," Jane Spencer, June 19, 2001

Bush Tries to Eliminate Required Contraceptive Coverage for Federal Employees, Dependents
In the 2002 budget, Bush proposed eliminating required contraceptive coverage for female federal employees and for federal employees' dependents. Lawmakers in both houses of Congress indicated they would fight to keep a provision that requires federal health plan providers to offer federal employees the five birth control methods approved by the Federal Drug Administration. Andrea Brooks, director of the women's and fair practices department at the American Federation of Government Employees, called the proposal "extremely discriminatory."
Source: Washington Post, "Cut in Birth Control Benefit Of Federal Workers Sought," Ellen Nakashima, April 12, 2001

White House's Budget Would Cut Maternal, Child Health Programs
Bush's 2002 proposed budget seeks to cut the Maternal and Child Health Block Grants that provide health care to women before, during and after pregnancy, according to the House Democratic Policy Committee. The budget would also freeze the Healthy Start program, which has been shown to reduce infant mortality and morbidity.
Source: The White House Bulletin, "House Democrats Claim Bush Budget Devastates Spending For Children's Programs," March 21, 2001

Bush Reinstates Global Gag Rule
On his first day in the Oval Office, Bush reinstated the infamous Global Gag Rule, cutting off U.S. funding to international family planning organizations that offer abortion counseling or services with their own privately-raised funds, lobby the host government for abortion law reform, or disseminate information about abortion. The policy had been instituted under the Reagan administration in 1984 and had been overturned by President Clinton.
Source: Washington Post, "Bush Reverses Abortion Aid," Mike Allen, Jan. 23, 2001

Bush Supports Ban on Military Women, Dependents Abroad from Obtaining Abortions at Military Hospitals
Bush supports the policy that prohibits military women serving abroad, and their dependents, from obtaining safe medical abortions at military hospitals, even if they pay with personal funds. As a result of current policy, servicewomen must travel long distances for an abortion or have an abortion locally, which is extremely dangerous in some countries, especially the Middle East. They must also obtain permission from their commander, in another difficult hurdle, in order to take leave for the procedure.
Source: NARAL Pro-Choice America, "The Powers of the President: Reproductive Freedom and Choice"

(back to top)

• First, although President Bush claimed more than 60 lines were available, in reality, there were only a handful of viable lines.

• Second, all of the lines Bush approved turned out to be contaminated with mouse cells, making them unable to ever be used in human medical therapies.

• Third, thousands of embryonic cells which could be used for research are simply destroyed every year; about 400,000 unused embryonic cells are awaiting incineration after being created, then not used for in vitro fertilization.

• Finally, refusing to allow the federal government to be involved in research also means there is no government oversight. There is private investing that fund a small amount of stem cell research, but private investment seeks to make a profit - as soon as it is shown a profit cannot be made, the private investor can pull their funding, no matter how beneficial the research can be to society as a whole. Government oversight ensures benefits of that are health related, not financially driven.

• As much as we might wish it to be otherwise, no non-embryonic sources of stem cells -- not stem cells from cord blood or from any "adult" sources -- have been shown to have anything like the potential to lead us to viable treatments for such diseases as juvenile diabetes, Parkinson's and spinal cord injury that stem cells derived from very early embryos do. The science here is unequivocal: Access to embryonic stem cell lines is essential to rapid progress in stem cell research

• The embryonic stem cell lines the president approved for federal funding three years ago, all of which were derived before August 2001, are clearly inadequate to advance stem cell science, let alone to take that science from the bench to the bedside. There are too few of them, no more than 21. All of the approved stem cell lines were prepared using mouse cells and thus pose a risk of contaminating human subjects with mouse viruses. This is a needless risk; since 2001 we have developed techniques for establishing embryonic stem cell lines without using mouse cells. Even if the approved lines were safe for use in humans, many patients who would be appropriate and willing participants in the first human trials would have difficulty receiving grafts based on these lines because of problems of genetic matching. There are just too few lines to even begin to accommodate the genetic diversity in our population.

• Under the current policy, it is not possible to use federal funding to generate or study stem cells derived from embryos with genetic defects or disease genes. Such cell lines would be invaluable in helping to determine the molecular basis of disease and in seeking ways to correct problems or ameliorate their consequences.

• Restricting federal funding to just the approved lines is retarding progress for financial as well as scientific reasons. The $25 million allocated by the Bush administration for embryonic stem cell research in 2003 is a tiny fraction of the National Institutes of Health budget of $18.3 billion for extramural research. To put this in perspective, in that same year the government spent almost eight times as much ($190.7 million) on research with less promising "adult" stem cells. There are formidable scientific and medical challenges to attaining our goal of providing cell-based therapies that are safe and effective. It will take the efforts of many scientists and clinicians in a variety of disciplines to bring this technology to the clinic. The results of laboratory investigations on human embryonic stem cells are highly encouraging and consistent with meeting this goal. Private funding of stem cell research is important and is increasingly forthcoming, but in these early stages, federal funding is paramount and essential.

• We are losing ground to other countries with less restrictive policies on embryonic stem cells. This month British government officials announced the first license to use cloning techniques to generate a human embryo to produce stem cells that might be used for the treatment of disease. Other nations are investing heavily -- hundreds of millions of dollars -- in embryonic stem cell research. The United States stands to lose substantially in the global economy of intellectual property and biotechnology. More important, patients everywhere, and scientific advancement stand to lose. As much as other countries invest, they cannot fill the gap. They are not as well positioned scientifically as the United States to advance stem cell research. Losing ground to other countries also means losing oversight of critical points in the research cycle, over the ethical treatment of human subjects and embryos, and over quality control. Hype and symbols will not advance our national debate about stem cell research. Facts and frankness will.

• The science is clear. The only way to ensure that we realize the promise of stem cell research as quickly as possible is to permit federal funding to be used to create new embryonic stem cell lines and to support research with new lines. President Bush's values are also clear. He believes that the destruction of embryos can never be morally justified, no matter how much human suffering might be alleviated, even if the embryos are only still a clump of cells not visible to the human eye and even if the embryos will be destroyed in any event in fertility clinics where they are no longer needed.

- Unitarian Universalist Association
- Ethical Culture Society
- Society for Humanistic Judaism,
- The most recent addition of the Episcopal Church
- Metropolitan Community Churches
- Reform Judaism,
- United Church of Christ.
- Presbyterian and United Methodist churches may not be far behind, and further, there is a disconnect between papal condemnation of gay marriages and the position of many local Catholic parishes.

- Jewish law once required childless husbands to marry a second time, with or without divorcing the first wife.
- Only the upper one-third of empire Romans had the legal right to marry; everyone else lived together outside the law.
- For its first five hundred to a thousand years, the early Christian church considered marriage a tainted, earthly institution, something rendered unto Caesar, and didn't officially declare marriage a sacrament until 1215.
- In English and American law, women did not have the right to be their children's guardians until the 19th century.
- While American states were battling for nearly 150 years over whether to recognize each others' divorces, Protestant denominations were roiled by the question of whether it was sinful to remarry divorced people whose ex-spouses were still alive.
- Strict restrictions against divorce have been eased. Getting a divorce used to be much more difficult, until rights of equality were given to women which allowed them to, among other things, leave abusive relationships.
- The idea of love in marriage has made its appearance relatively recently, replacing arranged marriage.
- Many Southern states defined marriage as between one man and one woman of the same race, but most anti-miscegenation laws have long since been repealed. -Affording gays and lesbians the right would simply be another change in a historically dynamic institution