To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
In this world, where everything and everyone is for sale, we must sustain independent media we can trust. If you believe independent journalism is critical to protecting democracy and the common good, please support Common Dreams this Giving Tuesday! We wouldn't exist without you.
"A pioneer for women's rights, Rep. Schroeder spoke up for Colorado in D.C. for over two decades, defying odds and making her mark," said one lawmaker.
Progressive lawmakers were among those mourning the death of former U.S. Rep. Patricia Schroeder, who served in the House for 24 years and pushed for legislation to protect the jobs of parents, control military spending, and expand healthcare for low-income people. She died in Celebration, Florida on Monday at age 82.
Schroeder first ran for Congress in 1972, representing the Denver area and centering her grassroots campaign largely on her opposition to the U.S. war in Vietnam.
She was one of just 14 women in the House when she took office and was the first woman to serve on the House Armed Services Committee, on which she sat for her entire legislative career.
Upon being named to the committee, Schroeder recalled being ordered by Chairman F. Edward Hébert, a right-wing Democrat from Louisiana, to share a seat with African-American Rep. Ron Dellums (D-Calif.), saying that Hébert told the newly elected lawmakers that they were "only worth half the normal member."
She had previously been told by a dean at Harvard Law School, where she earned a law degree in 1964, that she and the other 14 women in her class had "taken this position from a man."
She was undaunted by the sexism she encountered, and used her position on the Armed Services Committee to regularly call for arms control and reduced military spending. Schroeder aimed to reform the committee that she said acted too frequently as the Pentagon's "lap dog."
The congresswoman was also well known for leading the fight for women's rights in the workplace, pushing for the passage of the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, which prohibited employers from firing women because they were pregnant. Fifteen years later, she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 to ensure people wouldn't lose their jobs for taking time off work to care for a newborn or other family member.
Other legislation she played a crucial role in passing included the Violence Against Women Act of 1994; the National Child Protection Act of 1993, which established a background check system for childcare providers; and the Breast and Cervical Cancer Mortality Prevention Act of 1990, which provided screenings for lower-income women.
In 1995, Schroeder joined Bernie Sanders, then an Independent member of the House representing Vermont, in rising to oppose the comments of Rep. Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.). Cunningham uttered a slur as he attacked the two lawmakers for supporting gay Americans who served in the military and told Sanders, "Sit down, you socialist!"
Schroeder retorted with a "parliamentary inquiry," asking, "Do we have to call the gentleman a gentleman if he's not one?"
On Tuesday, Sanders tweeted that Schroeder "was not only a friend but an extraordinarily effective congresswoman who, in so many ways, led the way in opening up opportunities for women."
"Former Congresswoman Pat Schroeder was a fearless champion for women's rights," said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). "Her work has inspired countless women in politics and government, and we hope to continue to uphold her legacy."
Newly elected progressive Reps. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) and Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) also expressed appreciation for Schroeder's legacy.
"A pioneer for women's rights, Rep. Schroeder spoke up for Colorado in D.C. for over two decades, defying odds and making her mark," said Crockett. "Last night we lost a giant—but Pat Schroeder's legacy and work lives on!"
On October 8, 1991, six other female members of Congress and I stormed the steps of the U.S. Senate and interrupted the Democratic Senators' weekly caucus lunch, demanding that Professor Anita Hill be given an opportunity to testify during the confirmation hearings of Clarence Thomas about allegations of sexual misconduct.
You might think that a Democratic-controlled Senate and Judiciary Committee would not have required the intercession of six Democratic members of the House of Representatives to give a public airing to the outrageous actions of President George H.W. Bush's Supreme Court nominee. But to think that is a fundamental misunderstanding of the environment at the time.
There were, in 1991, no female members of the Senate Judiciary Committee on either side of the aisle. Thousands of American women -- including more than a few on Capitol Hill -- endured sexual discrimination and harassment at their workplaces in silence (in addition to unequal pay, which continues to this day). And there was a feeling among the men in charge that inappropriate personal or professional actions of a judicial nominee, even one for a lifetime appointment, shouldn't interfere with the progression of his illustrious career.
So here we are again, 27 years later. The similarities between the reactions to Professor Hill's accusations and those of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Julie Swetnick against Judge Brett Kavanaugh have been well documented. And the actions of the Senate leadership and the Senate Judiciary Committee leaders raise questions about exactly what, if anything, the Senate Judiciary Committee learned from its gross mistreatment of Professor Hill.
The answers will have profound implications far outside the nation's capital.
Just days after we marched up the Senate steps, Professor Hill swore to tell the truth and testified before the all-male, all-white Senate Judiciary Committee. I'll never forget watching the blank faces of the men questioning Professor Hill, casting doubt on her credibility and calling into question her motives. The hearings devolved into a shameful discourse that sought to embarrass and cast fault on the accuser. In reality, Professor Hill was on trial that day.
For many, it was captivating television, a real life political thriller. But for too many women in America, experiences like Professor Hill's were all too real.
In 1991, far fewer people, including U.S. Senators of both parties, took seriously the pervasiveness of sexual harassment and abuse of women in our society. Professor Hill's testimony marked a tipping point, changing how we talk about workplace sexual harassment, raising public awareness about its pervasiveness and spurring the "Year of the Woman," when then-record numbers of women ran for and were elected to Congress.
Decades later, it seems increasingly likely that the Senate Judiciary Committee will repeat its catastrophic failures from the Thomas hearings, reportedly hiring an outside prosecutor to conduct a legalistic interrogation of Kavanaugh's alleged victim instead of a Senate hearing.
It's not enough for the committee to prematurely hold a hearing for Judge Kavanaugh and Dr. Blasey Ford to testify in order to set the stage for a quick vote immediate afterwards. It must pause for a thorough FBI investigation of the allegations against Kavanaugh. Absent such an investigation, the nomination process must not proceed.
If the Republican Senate majority could stall on the last Supreme Court nomination for 293 days for political reasons, surely multiple sexual misconduct allegations are a good reason to delay a hearing and a vote on a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land.
Senators must listen to Dr. Blasey Ford, Ms. Ramirez, Ms. Swetnick and any other women who comes forward without bias or malice, and treat them with the respect Professor Hill was not afforded. So far, they haven't. That is particularly disturbing given that several Republicans have served on the committee since the days of Professor Hill's testimony. For instance, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who accused Professor Hill of basing her testimony on "The Exorcist" and was one of the fiercest defenders of Justice Thomas, has now said that Dr. Blasey Ford may be "mixed up" and confusing Judge Kavanaugh with someone else.
Instead of showing deference or even compassion, Republican Senators on the Judiciary Committee have ignored Dr. Blasey Ford's request for the FBI to re-open its background check investigation of Judge Kavanaugh, and demanded her rushed participation in a Senate hearing to apparently be conducted by a sex crimes prosecutor. (Never mind that she received death threats and was forced to flee her home.) It's no wonder Dr. Blasey Ford apparently remains concerned about testifying on the Republicans' terms.
Only after reviewing the findings of a thorough investigation and hearing testimony from Kavanaugh's accusers should the committee members make a determination about the credibility of the nominee. Only then should the committee consider whether Kavanaugh's nomination should proceed based on his abilities, his judicial record and philosophy and his character.
I oppose Judge Kavanaugh's nomination for policy reasons, but such opposition should have no bearing on how this matter is handled. Whether you believe he would be a good addition to the Supreme Court or not, a full examination of these incidents and the judge's entire background is warranted.
The Senate erred gravely in proceeding with the Thomas nomination given the credible accusations against him, let alone with rushing through the hearings and refusing to hear testimony that supported Professor Hill's accusations. It should not make the same mistake again, thus perpetuating the mistreatment of another generation of women and girls.
Throughout the day before the summit in Helsinki, the lead story on the New York Times home page stayed the same: "Just by Meeting With Trump, Putin Comes Out Ahead." The Sunday headline was in harmony with the tone of U.S. news coverage overall. As for media commentary, the Washington Post was in the dominant groove as it editorialized that Russia's President Vladimir Putin is "an implacably hostile foreign adversary."
Contempt for diplomacy with Russia is now extreme. Mainline U.S. journalists and top Democrats often bait President Trump in zero-sum terms. No doubt Hillary Clinton thought she was sending out an applause line in her tweet Sunday night: "Question for President Trump as he meets Putin: Do you know which team you play for?"
A bellicose stance toward Russia has become so routine and widespread that we might not give it a second thought -- and that makes it all the more hazardous. After President George W. Bush declared "You're either with us or against us," many Americans gradually realized what was wrong with a Manichean view of the world. Such an outlook is even more dangerous today.
The Russiagate frenzy is largely about punching up contrasts between the United States (angelic and victimized) and Russia (sinister and victimizer).
Since early 2017, the U.S. mass media have laid it on thick with the rough political equivalent of a painting technique known as chiaroscuro - "the use of strong contrasts between light and dark, usually bold contrasts affecting a whole composition," in the words of Wikipedia. The Russiagate frenzy is largely about punching up contrasts between the United States (angelic and victimized) and Russia (sinister and victimizer).
Countless stories with selective facts are being told that way. But other selectively fact-based stories could also be told to portray the United States as a sinister victimizer and Russia as an angelic victim. Those governments and their conformist media outlets are relentless in telling it either way. As the great journalist I.F. Stone observed long ago, "All governments lie, and nothing they say should be believed." In other words: don't trust, verify.
Often the biggest lies involve what remains unsaid. For instance, U.S. media rarely mention such key matters as the promise-breaking huge expansion of NATO to Russia's borders since the fall of the Berlin Wall, or the brazen U.S. intervention in Russia's pivotal 1996 presidential election, or the U.S. government's 2002 withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or the more than 800 U.S. military bases overseas -- in contrast to Russia's nine.
For human survival on this planet, an overarching truth appears in an open letter published last week by The Nation magazine: "No political advantage, real or imagined, could possibly compensate for the consequences if even a fraction of U.S. and Russian arsenals were to be utilized in a thermonuclear exchange. The tacit pretense that the worsening of U.S.-Russian relations does not worsen the odds of survival for the next generations is profoundly false."
The initial 26 signers of the open letter - "Common Ground: For Secure Elections and True National Security" -- included Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, writer and feminist organizer Gloria Steinem, former UN ambassador Gov. Bill Richardson, political analyst Noam Chomsky, former covert CIA operations officer Valerie Plame, activist leader Rev. Dr. William Barber II, filmmaker Michael Moore, former Nixon White House counsel John Dean, Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen, former U.S. ambassador to the USSR Jack F. Matlock Jr., Pulitzer Prize-winning writers Alice Walker and Viet Thanh Nguyen, The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, former senator Adlai Stevenson III, and former longtime House Armed Services Committee member Patricia Schroeder. (I was also one of the initial signers.)
Since its release five days ago, the open letter has gained support from a petition already signed by 30,000 people. The petition campaign aims to amplify the call for protecting the digital infrastructure of the electoral process that is now "vulnerable to would-be hackers based anywhere" -- and for taking "concrete steps... to ease tensions between the nuclear superpowers."
We need a major shift in the U.S. approach toward Russia. Clearly the needed shift won't be initiated by the Republican or Democratic leaders in Congress; it must come from Americans who make their voices heard. The lives -- and even existence -- of future generations are at stake in the relationship between Washington and Moscow.
Many of the petition's grassroots signers have posted comments along with their names. Here are a few of my favorites:
Yet a wide array of media outlets, notably the "Russiagate"-obsessed network MSNBC, keeps egging on progressives to climb toward peaks of anti-Russian jingoism. The line of march is often in virtual lockstep with GOP hyper-hawks like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham. The incessant drumbeat is in sync with what Martin Luther King Jr. called "the madness of militarism."
Meanwhile, as Dr. King said, "We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence or violent coannihilation."