[statecom-discuss] Re: [statecom] State Committee Minutes -1/27/07

Thu Feb 1 21:20:29 EST 2007

Hi Everyone,

I haven't said anything about this issue so far. I have thought about 
getting involved. However, so far, I have decided to focus my energies 
on other important party business. To be honest, I have not chosen to 
express myself because I find the issue to be complicated and the 
expression of my thoughts and feelings to be too scary.

There are many members of State Comm, including myself, who have not 
said anything about this topic. Some of us, like me, have been content 
to read all the comments. Others, I guess, have been reading these 
messages less often.

 For those who want to continue discussing this topic, let's come up 
with another title, which will properly label the discussion, so those 
who wish not to be engaged, can quickly delete the message.

This "issue" has engendered a lot of passionate comment, both at the 
State Committee and ever since by e-mail. For me this is proof that 
there is something extremely important going on here.

I hear a lot of screaming. At times, it is scary and painful for me to 
listen. However, I know that my friends and comrades are screaming 
because they are in pain.

I choose to continue to listen. I honor those of you who are expressing 
your pain.

Love,

Mike Heichman
----------------------------------------

Betty H. Zisk wrote:

>Grace, I love and respect you. But please remember that not all those who
>dissert from statecom decisions have been vocal about dissent. I have simply
>given up (though I have followed debates closely since I got back on e mail
>during the last month--a move which I frankly occasionally regret.) My
>objections are not identical with Adam's (though I share some of his
>concerns on both Ashley and Palestine issues)--but rather that GRP is
>spending so much time as a party on these items. Tons and tons of e mails on
>both. So I have given up on even feeling my voice matters on other issues
>about which I care. I dont think your summary of Ashley's situation was
>fair--because I think Adam was raising questions, asking for more
>information and the like--a fair thing to do in my view--NOT taking the
>position you attribute to him. But Adam doesnt need me to defend him. Betts
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org
>[mailto:statecom-discuss-bounces at green-rainbow.org]On Behalf Of
>gracegrnrnbw at aol.com
>Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 6:46 PM
>To: statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>Subject: Re: [statecom-discuss] Re: [statecom] State Committee Minutes
>-1/27/07
>
>
> Actually, Adam - so far only three people (if my math is right) who have
>written in to express any kind of disagreement with the statecom decision -
>which involved almost thirty of us.
>
> I am personally ready to throw m y hands up in the air and give up- I ran a
>camapgin where I was criticized in the party a fair amount for not taking
>purist-enough stands - now I am written off for backing the rights of folks
>with disabilities as being "politically correct" (I begin to wonder if the
>epithet "politically correct" is just reserved for those who stand up for
>the rights of any oppressed group of which the name-caller is not a
>part... )
>
> I had actually pretty much given up in the back and forth - because it was
>too painful - I wrote but had not sent the following:
>
>  "Okay so at this point, I feel clear that there are some people in my
>party who do not believe all people are created equal - and it seems like I
>am in at least one of the less-than categories. I guess I had hoped
>otherwise - I am going to remove myself from this conversation because I
>believe I am of equal value and so is Ashley and this is no longer a healthy
>exchange for me at this time.
>
> I am not sure I heard what folks were trying to say; however, this is what
>I glean from the arguments of those who oppose my perspective and is an
>attempt to say it directly without sugar coating - since iti s an attempt to
>capture a positionnot my own, you certainly should correct me.
>
> As I hear it, those arguments could be translated into perhaps a party's
>statement something like as follows:
> "We trust and agree with the medical establishment's recommendations
>(without regard to invasiveness) and we accept existing social constraints
>for now and into the foreseeable future, so that caretakers are indeed
>trapped into doing whatever they deem necessary to make their caretaking of
>severely disabled children easier.
>
> We believe that the mental capacity of three month olds can be accurately
>assessed with regard to meaning making and experience of pain by adults in
>their lives and that it is in some ways less than a dog or cat. As we
>consider the spaying of adult dogs and cats not to be mutilation, we believe
>that removal of not just the same organs as spaying but additional organs is
>therefore not a moral or social issue.
>
> We agree that becoming an adult female is inherently painful and
>inconvenient and brings no unique or deeper joys than pre-pubescent female
>physiology; so unless justified by plans to become pregnant, surgery of any
>kind to stop such development is a gift to such female beings.
>
> We don't feel that removal of numerous organs is invasive or mutilation,
>nor likely to leave traumatic emotional or physical scars, nor is it
>important that it might have longer term negative health implications as
>long as the mental capacity of the object of such surgery is sufficiently
>compromised.
>
> In addition, since decisions to alter Ashley physically were made by
>parents who state clearly that they love her and at the urging of medical
>experts, we have no concern that such decisions could have been impacted by
>centuries of discrimination against people with disabilities, nor decades of
>legalized sterilization (that were at least no longer legally required as of
>less than thirty years ago), nor the acknowledged infiltration of the US
>medical establishment by Nazi eugenicists after World War II or other
>US-born eugenicists."
>
> I hope that is accurate...
>
> Thanks, Grace
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: adam_artist at yahoo.com
> To: statecom at green-rainbow.org; statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> Sent: Thu, 1 Feb 2007 12:02 PM
> Subject: [statecom-discuss] Re: [statecom] State Committee Minutes -
>1/27/07
>
>  Dear Statecom -
>
>I am appalled at the statecom action in this "Expedited Round" (whatever
>that
>means).  It is crystal clear from the e-mail exchanges to date that there is
>far
>from general agreement on Ashley's medical procedures.  Similar to the
>Israel-Palestine issue, to me this response is utterly disrespectful of the
>diversity of opinion expressed to date.  Nor, in my opnion, is it a rational
>response to the actual situation, but a general outrage at the trespasses of
>the
>medical system and social engineering.  That outrage is frequently
>well-placed,
>but to reflexively generalize it to just any circumstance is in itself
>beyond
>the pale of the rational.  There are statements about Ashley's treatment
>that I
>could support such as more extensive ethical review, historical concerns,
>and
>suggestions of alternatives - but not condemnation of any parties involved
>in
>this particular instance.
>
>But fundamentally this is not about Ashley, nor is it about IP.  It is about
>profound lack of respect by party leadership or by a few persistent
>hypervocal
>activists for people who don't get to every meeting (David's comments about
>our
>not having leaders, only administrators, notwithstanding).  It is about
>co-option by those who will not tolerate disagreement that is not
>politically
>correct from their perspective, and about undermining anything resembling
>democratic process within the party.
>
>Adam
>
>BTW, I would suggest that sterilization of someone who never should
>have children (since it would only occur by rape) cannot be categorized
>as genocide or eugenics, since that person would not reproduce in any case.
>
>
>
>=============================
>
>
>"Expedited Round:
>
>F - Ashley Treatment Proposal
>
>Presented by Martina Robinson
>
>Ashley is a severely disabled person in Washington State whose body
>chemistry and physiology is being altered to prevent her from going
>through puberty. Martina believes that the GRP should speak out
>against this procedure because our platform is consistent with
>opposing this. The GRP should issue a press release or statement that
>condemns this issue and offers alternatives.
>
>David Rolde and Elie Yarden agreed that we should condemn the medical
>industry that allowed this to happen and not the parents.
>
>Wanda Boeke asked if the recommendations of the medical profession
>were followed.
>
>Gary Hicks said that anything that goes into this statement must
>relate that "this kind of crap" was going on for a long time, i.e.
>eugenics.
>
>Q: Colby Peterson asked if this has already happened:
>A: Yes, it happened on January 6th.
>
>There was a fast-paced rules and procedures discussion that degenerated.
>
>The proposal moves to AdCom.
>Annie Butler trusts that the AdCom and Martina can work out the wording."
>
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>________________________________________________________________________
>Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and security
>tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web,
>free AOL Mail and more.
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>_______________________________________________
>statecom-discuss mailing list
>statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
>http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss
>
>  
>