Why women should vote
Find a Conversation
Why women should vote
| Wed, 09-24-2008 - 9:24am |
WHY WOMEN SHOULD VOTE.
This is the story of our Grandmothers and Great-grandmothers; they lived only 90 years ago.
![[]](http://webmail.earthlink.net/wam/MsgAttachment?msgid=6252&attachno=1)
Remember, it was not until 1920
that women were granted the right to go to the polls and vote.
![[]](http://webmail.earthlink.net/wam/MsgAttachment?msgid=6252&attachno=2)
The women were innocent and defenseless, but they were jailed
nonetheless for picketing the White House, carrying signs asking
for the vote.
![[]](http://webmail.earthlink.net/wam/MsgAttachment?msgid=6252&attachno=3)
(Lucy Burns)
And by the end of the night, they were barely alive.
Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing
went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of
'obstructing sidewalk traffic.'
They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above
her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping
for air.
![[]](http://webmail.earthlink.net/wam/MsgAttachment?msgid=6252&attachno=4)
(Dora Lewis)
They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her
head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate,
Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack.
Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging,
beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.
Thus unfolded the 'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15, 1917,
when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his
guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because
they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right
to vote.
For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their
food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms.
![[]](http://webmail.earthlink.net/wam/MsgAttachment?msgid=6252&attachno=5)
(Alice Paul)
When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/suffrage/nwp/prisoners.pdf
This is the story of our Grandmothers and Great-grandmothers; they lived only 90 years ago.
Remember, it was not until 1920
that women were granted the right to go to the polls and vote.
The women were innocent and defenseless, but they were jailed
nonetheless for picketing the White House, carrying signs asking
for the vote.
(Lucy Burns)
And by the end of the night, they were barely alive.
Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing
went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of
'obstructing sidewalk traffic.'
They beat Lucy Burns, chained her hands to the cell bars above
her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping
for air.
(Dora Lewis)
They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her
head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate,
Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack.
Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging,
beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.
Thus unfolded the 'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15, 1917,
when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his
guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because
they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right
to vote.
For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their
food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms.
(Alice Paul)
When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/suffrage/nwp/prisoners.pdf

Pages
My GM is 96 and when I was 18 I went to register to vote.
Aside from nit picking....you didn't answer my question.
Who are the religious fanatics in office right now?
According to your logic, if you are a liberal you see replacing two relatively liberal judges with two more relatively liberal judges, keeping the court with
I think I might not have been clear.
>>Has Roe v. Wade been reversed yet?
No it hasn't. It takes a long time to reverse such an enormously contentious case, like this one. But here is what has happened:
1. Two anti-Roe v. Wade supremes have been appointed.
2. One pro-Roe v. Wade supreme left the court.
3. This tips the court to a 5-4 margin against Roe v. Wade.
We can expect one to three supremes to retire within the next four years, which means that the next president will likely have a hand in how the court decides a case that *might* overturn or uphold Roe v. Wade.
I also wanted to address another point. It was said here that we shouldn't be concerned if Roe v. Wade is overturned, because we can trust our states to ensure that abortions are safe and legal. I'm afraid that's incorrect. Unfortunately, many states still have abortion bans in place. Others have recently banned abortion in the absence of Roe v. Wade. With Roe v. Wade, these laws are unconstiutional. Without Roe v. Wade, they will be valid. Here's a quick summary of these laws:
20 states have laws that could be used to restrict the legal status of abortion.
4 states have laws that automatically ban abortion if Roe were to be overturned.
13 states retain their unenforced, pre-Roe abortion bans.
7 states have laws that express their intent to restrict the right to legal abortion to the maximum extent permitted by the U.S. Supreme Court in the absence of Roe.
7 states have laws that protect the right to choose abortion prior to viability or when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.
(Source: Gutmacher Institute, http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_APAR.pdf)
(If you don't trust Guttmacher, you can find this information elsewhere. This was the least biased source that I could find that summarized these laws.)
I should also quickly introduce myself. I've been lurking here for several weeks and finally decided to jump in. I'm an oldie from the Current Debates board here at ivillage all those many years ago. I left when the formatting changed, but I'm interested enough in this topic to deal with this cumbersome format right now. *smile*
Laura
I am only halfway through the thread, but I had to add this....
“Obama said that had he been in the US Senate two years ago, he would have voted for the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, even though he voted against a state version of the proposal. The federal version was approved; the state version was not. Both measures required that if a fetus survived an abortion procedure, it must be considered a person. Backers argued it was necessary to protect a fetus if it showed signs of life after being separated from its mother…the difference between the state and federal versions, Obama explained, was that the state measure lacked the federal language clarifying that the act would not be used to undermine Roe vs. Wade.” "
• 21 Senators Opposed the bill. Senators Bowles, Geo-Karis (Republican), Hendon, Molaro, Radogno (Republican), Shaw, Smith, Trotter, Viverito and Welch voted present on Senate Bill 1661. Senators Cullerton, Del Valle, Halvorson, Jacobs, Lightford, Link, Madigan, Obama, Parker (Republican), Ronen and Shadid voted no on Senate Bill 1661.
MONTANA MOM !
>>When I was in HS and even when my mom was in HS, we KNEW about condoms!
How did you learn about them?
And since your mother had an unintended pregnancy while young, do you consider her stupid? (I'm not being snarky here. I'm sincerely asking.)
Laura
MONTANA MOM !
Pages