Anti-abortion activist Abby Johnson has advocated for a head-of-household voting system that has historically barred women and people of color from casting ballots.

Anti-abortion activist Abby Johnson, who will speak on Tuesday during the second night of the Republican National Convention, has advocated in recent months for a head-of-household voting system that has historically barred women and people of color from casting ballots. “What is the most controversial thing you believe?” Johnson asked on Twitter in early May. “I would support bringing back household voting,” Johnson replied to her tweet. “How anti-feminist of me.” Johnson’s prime time RNC remarks come on the eve of the 100th anniversary of the adoption of the 19th Amendment, which extended voting rights to women. (In practice, many women of color were excluded for many years thereafter.) Before the adoption of the 19th Amendment, and the 15th Amendment, which prohibits denying U.S. citizens the right to vote based on race, the right to vote was largely extended to White men who owned property and, in some cases, met certain religious criteria. Previously, some states had extended voting rights to Black men and White men who did not own property. Several had laws permitting women to cast ballots. One argument made against women’s suffrage was that their male husbands could vote on behalf of the household. Today, “head of household” is a filing status within the U.S. tax system that provides financial savings to unmarried individuals with children or other dependents. Head-of-household decision making is used in some religious communities, with male spouses and partners nearly universally being the head. Head-of-household voting would permit only the head of a household — and not all household members who are citizens over 18 years of age — to cast a ballot. Johnson believes the male member of the household would be the de facto decision maker. “But what happens when the husband is a Republican and the wife is a Democrat or vice versa?” a Twitter user asked Johnson. “Then they would have to decide on one vote. In a Godly household, the husband would get the final say,” she replied. Johnson’s convention speaking role comes as the presidential campaigns of Trump and Democrat Joe Biden vie for support from women, particularly White suburban women and women without college degrees, who are the most likely to be reconsidering backing the president in November after doing so in 2016. Kyle Morse, the spokesperson for American Bridge 21st Century, a super PAC that supports Democrats, said Johnson’s speaking slot “further underscores just how extreme Donald Trump’s GOP has become.” In a statement to The 19th, Trump campaign spokesperson Tim Murtaugh said, “President Trump strongly supports the sacred principle of one person, one vote.” Johnson worked at Planned Parenthood for eight years before leaving to become an anti-abortion activist and found And Then There Were None, an organization that supports the career transitions of individuals working in facilities that perform abortions. Her story was chronicled in a 2019 film. Similar statements about head-of-household voting have landed other Republicans in hot water. In 2018, a Republican county precinct chair in Utah wrote on Facebook: “The more I study history the more I think giving voting rights to others not head of household has been a grave mistake!” The state party chair denounced the remark, saying: “The Constitution, while divinely inspired, has been improved via amendments that made voter equality a right of America’s citizenry.” This article has been updated with a statement from the Trump campaign. Amanda Becker Washington Correspondent Amanda Becker portrait Published August 25, 2020 Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

For the friends I’ve lost in the past and recent past because of my political beliefs or because I’m anti-racist or because of being a liberal and expressing the desire to “love one another” no matter your creed or culture or the color of your skin or your physical or sexual identity or anything else...

I’m sorry that my thoughts and expressions got in the way of our #friendship. 

Social Media is truly a way to express yourself, get people’s attention, communicate with each other, but it’s also a Petri dish for bad vibes and offending people who don’t believe the same as you do.

So for those I’ve offended and you felt you had to defriend me and/or block me.... I apologize.

Peace love and hugs to all.... even if you hate me!!

Research shows different ways of solving everyday problems linked to political ideology

• Liberals more likely than conservatives to use ‘Aha!’ strategy to solve problems
• People don’t consciously choose an insight versus analytic approach in their thinking
• Thinking defaults automatically to particular approach of problem solving

EVANSTON, Ill. --- Big differences in the ways conservatives and liberals think about solving the nation’s most pressing problems couldn’t be more apparent during this presidential election cycle.

But political ideas aside, people who hold conservative versus liberal perspectives appear to differ in everyday thinking processes and problem solving, according to research from Northwestern University and the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago (RIC).

When solving short (non-political) verbal problems in an experiment, liberals were more likely than conservatives to achieve solutions with a sudden insight or “Aha!” In contrast, both groups achieved roughly an equal number of solutions through gradual, analytical processing.

Different from instinctive or gut reactions, insight problem solving occurs when after working on a problem for awhile and maybe feeling stuck, a solution unexpectedly emerges into consciousness in an ‘Aha!’ moment. The problem is suddenly seen in a new light, often surprising the solvers who are typically unaware of how the reorganization of their thought processes occurred.

Insight solutions contrast with methodical and analytical problem solving, which involve a gradual approach toward the solution and awareness of the steps involved.

“This view is consistent with similar results from other labs across behavioral, neuroscientific and genetic studies, which converge in showing that conservatives have more structured and persistent cognitive styles,” said Carola Salvi, lead author of the study and a postdoctoral fellow in cognitive psychology at Northwestern and RIC.

“Liberals have a less structured and more flexible cognitive style, according to those studies. Our research indicates that cognitive differences in people with different political orientations also are apparent in a task that some consider to be convergent thinking: finding a single solution to a problem,” Salvi said. 

Given previous findings relating political orientation with cognitive styles, the researchers hypothesized that liberals and conservatives would preferentially employ different processes when tackling problems that could be solved using either an analytical or insight approach. 

“It’s not that there’s a different capacity to solve problems,” stressed Mark Beeman, senior author of the study and professor and chair of psychology at Northwestern. “It’s more about which processes people end up engaging in to solve the problem.”

And it’s not about preferences, said Jordan Grafman, co-author of the study and professor in physical medicine and rehabilitation at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and director of brain injury research at RIC.

“People may default automatically to a particular approach out of habit or predisposition, but they are not consciously choosing to solve a problem one way or the other,” Grafman said.

Approximately 130 Northwestern students were randomly assigned to the study. Those whose survey responses demonstrated a particular political ideology were ultimately divided into either a liberal or conservative group and balanced for age and ethnicity. A third group of students who scored “neutral” were excluded from the analysis. 

To test their hypothesis, the researchers used a well-known task in the problem-solving literature -- the Compound Remote Associate (CRA) problems. These problems can be solved through either insight or analytic processes with participants reporting how they solved each problem. Each problem consisted of the simultaneous presentation of three words, each of which could form a compound word or phrase with the solution word. For example: pine/crab/sauce – the solution word is APPLE.

Past research has demonstrated that different mental processes and distinct brain regions are involved when people report solving these problems with insight, versus when solving analytically.

“Liberals tended more than conservatives to use insight to solve verbal problems in which you have to ‘think outside the box,’” Salvi said.

In life you often use both approaches, Salvi noted.

“Everyday life presents us with a variety of scenarios where we are asked to solve problems analytically, others only with a spark of insight, most of them can be solved either way,” Salvi said. “In this last case, liberals are more likely to achieve the solution with an ‘Aha!’ moment, whereas conservatives’ problem solving approach does not prefer one style or the other.” 

Retrieved From: https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2016/03/political-insight-republicans-democrats-conservatives-liberals-think-differently
March 15, 2016 | By Hilary Hurd Anyaso

 1976, we couldn’t wait to be nurses. Our starched white dresses with the nurse caps and stripes symbolized our graduation status as we were called one by one to receive our diploma and a rose.

We took an oath to care for the sick, to be professional, to critically think, to respect doctors and to respect patients and family members.

And to respect each other.

It was the age before computers. We learned how to calculate IV fluids in drops per hour and drops per minute. We had large folders that contained algorithms for sepsis, or myocardial infarctions or code blues. We had a three-fold flow sheet that we would manually document on. Threefold front and back. Blood pressures every 15 minutes and the pressors to coincide with the blood pressure. Everything was manually written from labs to a patient’s chart to MDs handwriting new orders — and endless charting of everything that happened to the patient in the ICU or CCU. We knew everything we charted had to be precise as it was always a potential for legal matters.

The handheld calculator had just come out on the market. It was the newest invention: $85 for a handheld calculator. So we were thrilled that we could now plug in some numbers to get an accurate drip rate for IVs or calculate dosages in an instant.

We were associate-degree and diploma nurses. And only the “elite” would earn a BSN.

We didn’t have breaks; they didn’t exist. We just kept working until it was time to go.

You worked the shifts your manager told you to. There was no compromising. You just did what you were told to do. We were the new pioneers in this field of nursing, and we were quite proud of ourselves.

Some older nurses did not communicate well with younger nurses.

Sometimes it was bullying the young. Or harassing or degrading a younger nurse who was just learning.

And the newly coined phrase appeared:

“The old eating their young.”

And the phrase stuck. Unfortunately.

And there was nowhere to turn. The managers turned their heads away. Sometimes the hazing was so bad that nurses would resign and even find a new career.

The nurses we couldn’t wait to be were riddled with harassment and ridicule.

And instead of holding each other up, we slowly destroyed each other.

Fast forward to the year 2000.

We older nurses are counting the years we can say goodbye to this long, hard, relentless career. This career that afforded our family vacations and a house and car and nice clothes and college for the kids.

This career that challenged us in the gut as we watched people live longer or die faster. As we said our goodbyes to our patients, we grew to love, and we’d gulp buckets of tears when it was over. Our last goodbyes to patients we loved.

We slowly evolved painstakingly learning the computer. And the computer was foreign to us. We were “special” and slow and didn’t adapt as well as the younger nurses did. These younger ones started computers in their home, in kindergarten and throughout the rest of their young lives.

Though they sported lots of energy, they walked faster than us, and they now had medical protocols and procedures right at their fingertips — instant knowledge.

But what the young ones didn’t know was that we were pioneers. We’re the ones with years and years of knowledge and experience and wisdom. And thus, the cycle of bullying was reinvented.

I’ve been a manager of an emergency department, I’ve been first assist to the surgeon, I’ve been a staff nurse and a charge nurse in ICU. And I’ve endured over 30 years in nursing. I have to continue working three more years before I can financially retire.

My sadness comes in when I hear the young men and women in this nursing career start the harassment.

“Where’s your hearing aid?”

“Are you STILL working?”

“Where’s your walker with the tennis balls?”

And then there’s a laugh.

But it’s not funny.

It’s sad and degrading.

It compromises our integrity, worth and our camaraderie. And instead of working together — we tear each other apart.

This is the hardest part of nursing.

I know it’s not everywhere, but it does exist.

And so now the coin has flipped.

The young eating the old.

Are we strong enough to stop this?

Are we strong enough to encourage positive work ethics and behaviors and to learn from the new and learn from the old?

Can this profession be saved?

It’s up to us.

All of us.

Respect.

Educate.

Enrich.

Empower.

We came here for a reason. Let’s not destroy ourselves.

Debbie Moore-Black is a nurse who blogs at Do Not Resuscitate

 

#womensvoicesmedia

 

In my book “moderate Taliban” ranks right up there with “organic vienna sausage” as an oxymoron.  But the President seems to be reaching out to the so-called moderate militias in Afghanistan in talking about how to end the violence and fix the unending mess started by W and left no better by Obama. Trump fleshed out his blueprint for gaining a peace on Friday, when he announced plans to bring home 5,000 more American troops as the front edge of what he says will be a conditions-based withdrawal over 14 months.

Women’s groups, both in the U.S. and Afghanistan, want to make sure any shifts in policy don’t further harm women and girls.  Despite both the Bush and Obama administration’s claims to the contrary, females have been set back — way back—since 2001.  Most are once again in the burqua, and girls are being attacked with acid for the crime of going to school. Women are often deprived of food, and have been kicked out of bread lines by the Taliban.

This is not a new concern. As far back as 2009 Dr. Sima Samar, chairperson of the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, was making the  rounds on Capitol Hill to sound the alarm. “I do not believe there are any moderate Taliban,” she said at the time. “The U.S. must not provide support for those who have terrorized women and girls and violated their rights.”

Underscoring the point that women’s rights are human rights and not subject to so-called cultural norms, Afghanistan has ratified the universal women’s human rights treaty known as CEDAW (the U.S. has not), and the Afghan constitution has basic protections for women.  The challenge is bringing culture and practice, still under the grip of  Taliban oppression, in line with the law.

So far it’s not happening and there’s no reason to think that will change with the so-called peace agreement. Violence has continued to escalate since the pullout was first announced at the end of 2016.  Along with the women’s groups, women in the Senate are worried that the Trump withdrawal will result in more – not fewer - setbacks for women, since women’s rights have not been on the agenda for the talks. Case in point: it was announced with great fanfare in April of last year that women would be included in the Taliban delegation. One day later the Taliban made it clear they had no such intention. “We still have a clear-cut policy that we wouldn’t allow women to represent us in any capacity or work publicly when we come into power” said one Afghanistan-based commander told NBC News.

During the same month, girls’ schools were firebombed in western Afghanistan, and officials were told to fire all the male teachers because girls shouldn’t be taught by men. Though the Taliban in control of the area denied responsibility, graffiti left behind on a nearby wall read “long live the Islamic Emirate” – the Taliban’s name for their movement.

It no surprise that the U.S. is sacrificing women for yet another ego trip by our narcissist president. Let’s hope female voters remember in November.

Read more about the U.S. and global women’s rights here:

Your Voice, Your Vote 2020-2021