I actually don’t have a punch line, sorry, but all three of these things still relate to each other.
Over the last four days, three key events have taken place, with each one being important as the next; and it really makes you wonder, “Is this really happening all at once?” We’re talking about the inauguration of the 45th President of the United States, women’s marches where millions participated worldwide, and, of course, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade (1973).
Starting with the first event of the weekend, the inauguration of Donald Trump attracted less people than Obama, this much we know. However, the National Park Service does not actually measure crowd sizes, therefore we will never fully know just how many people attended the 45th Presidential Inauguration. Something else to think about: the Washington Metro System reported that 193,000 trips had been taken by 11 a.m. on the morning of January 20, 2017.
Obama’s first inauguration drew a crowd well over 1 million. This was completely unprecedented and may not happen ever again, only time will tell. Looking back on previous inaugurations, both George H.W. and George W. Bush drew crowd sizes somewhere between 300 to 400,000 persons. Obama had about 1.8 million attendees at his inauguration in 2009, but the number then fell to 1 million in 2013 (still considerably large). Bill Clinton’s 1993 inauguration had about 800,000 attendees. (Politifact).
The numbers only tell us about the popularity of some former presidents on their inauguration day(s), but are not substantive of their actual accomplishments once in office. But the fact of the matter remains: Obama’s crowd was bigger, Trump’s was somewhat dismal.
We might ask, "what does this really mean, though? Where were the people that we saw at the rallies President Trump held in Mechanicsburg, PA or Zanesville, OH? Where are the silent Trump supports that we heard about during the post-mortem period after the results had been called? Now that their man has won, why remain silent?"
When the time came to show support for the actual beginning of his term, the opposition was eager to declare Trump’s populist appeal an insufficient motivating factor to attend such a historic event. We definitely do not know this for sure, we cannot look into the minds of others and really tell whether or not they wanted to show support, and to assess that this was the case based on inauguration attendance numbers alone is simply poor deductive reasoning.
His supporters did not do their job very well either. In order to counter the belittlements and de-legitimization efforts of the President by the left, Reince Priebus went on Fox News the other day to speak with Chris Wallace about a possible conspiracy to misreport the actual crowd size of Inauguration Day. For as much as I stand with my party, the former RNC chairman’s defense was, quite frankly, embarrassing. The side-by-side comparison of Obama vs. Trump’s inauguration is almost breathtaking. Huge swaths of the mall and the parade route were barren. Wallace added firmly in the interview, “I was there," indicating that he knew what he saw, which to him was a profound emptiness.
Press Secretary Sean Spicer did a much better job at explaining the reasoning behind Trump and other senior level officials' reactions to the low attendance numbers during his afternoon press conference yesterday. To sum up his main point he begs the question: how would you feel if day in and day out you were told that you couldn't do something or that you weren't good enough? I think this is what President Trump underhandedly conveys when he responds to negative press, particularly about his inauguration ceremonies.
Spicer remarked that Trump hit every milestone that his opponents thought to be out of reach for him; he continuously proves people wrong and sometimes, its a little frustrating to be hit with these negative reviews rather than the words of encouragement and support that (I assume) all new presidents would like. Simple as this point may be, it really separates the politics from actual humanity.
Second topic: the women’s marches that took place just one day later, not only in the U.S. but also abroad, with strong attendance numbers overall. It is estimated that over 1 million marched in the U.S. alone. When I think of this number, it’s honestly quite difficult to wrap my head around the fact that a collective movement attracted so many willing participants from an array of backgrounds.
But then, I am reminded that these people no longer fall under the category of special interest. Women make up a little more than half of our population here in the U.S., and minority groups within the U.S. are on track to become more and more even in number with whites.
The sheer size and fact that a majority of the protests have so far been reported as non-violent would tell one that this is, in fact, a successful protest. What does this even mean, you might ask? How can we determine if a protest is successful? Of course, examining if there were any positive results for the participants who were demanding them in the first place. We will have to wait and see if these people were actually heard and effected change upon the country, or it’s new leader.
An obvious second answer to this question about success is if the First Amendment rights were exercised without interference, again this appears to be the case considering the widespread support the protests had amongst the media, Hollywood and other allies such as Planned Parenthood.
The Women’s March on Washington is not the first time that such an event has occurred. On August 26, 1970 - the 50th anniversary of the passing of the 19th Amendment - the Women’s Strike for Equality was held in New York City. Second-wave feminist spokesperson Betty Friedan was one of the main orchestrators of the event. Friedan represents a counter idea of feminism to someone such as Gloria Steinem, for example.
Friedan's Feminine Mystique launched an entire social movement that many women today take for granted. Her notion of the "the problem that has no name", sexism, is something that was not acknowledged in our society so instead many women suffered, both in and outside their homes. She may not be a household name as much as Steinem, but Friedan's version of feminism is something to consider as an opposition to the Steinems, the Dunhams, the Ashley Judds, or the Madonas of today.
This is because Friedan had gone through somewhat of an evolution in thought over the years and clashed with feminists for her positive opinion of, in general, men. Up until her death, she believed in equality between the sexes and wanted to disengage from a kind of segregationist man-hating that is unfortunately associated with women's movements such as the one we saw over the weekend. Steinem is a part of a different brand; in some ways, she and her supporters ascribe to a certain kind of collective paranoia that has coalesced around the President and his administration. The later is another unfortunate byproduct.
Finally, we have Jane Roe. Unfortunately, Jane Roe does not really exist. It's actually Norma McCorvey, a carnival worker who became pregnant in 1969 while working at a fair in Texas. Texas law at the time allowed for termination of pregnancy in case of rape. McCorvey made a statement that she was raped, however, there was no police report that would testify to the fact that she was raped. So essentially, she lied. McCorvey decided to file a suit hoping that the district court in TX would hear her case.
Henry Wade was the district attorney of said district. McCorvey won the case at the district court level, however, it refused to provide a place for her abortion. Eventually, McCorvey got in touch with ACLU lawyers and filed a suit under the name Jane Roe. Four years later after her pregnancy, the Supreme Court ruled that a woman may abort her pregnancy for any reason, but with a certain limit: up until the point at which the fetus becomes viable, which is defined as the ability to live outside the mother's womb, at or around 24-28 weeks.
On what grounds was any of this even decided? The majority opinion of the court used the logic of the 9th and 14th Amendments to make the assertion of the right to privacy. But the Constitution doesn't say anything about privacy rights, right? True. The right to privacy was determined based on the 9th Amendment: certain rights not specifically enumerated and protected in the Constitution - implicit rights - should be retained by the people; and the 14th Amendment: states cannot deprive any person of life, liberty or property.
In combination, the 9th and 14th Amendments are what gave the court the ability to effectively legalize abortion by disallowing state and federal restrictions, and therefore, abortion is a fundamental right under the Constitution. So it would seem, that in order for Trump or any of his allies to effectively cut funding for abortion access, or criminalize abortion in general, in the U.S. would be in direct violation of the right to privacy, as enumerated via the 9th and 14th Amendments.
A vicious Supreme Court battle would ensue if this were the case, and to be frank, I do not believe Trump wishes to spend his time in office battling it out over women's rights issues. Trump is a negotiator, he is practical in terms of balancing the logistical implications of government (so far). Abortion is not a non-issue to Trump and other Republicans, but for now, it takes a backseat to more pressing issues.
There are other reasons not to be alarmed. I, along with many other conservatives/Republicans, have come to the conclusion that Trump is, for the most part, socially liberal. While his campaign ran as pro-life, his intentions for the country as a whole do not firstly concern social issues. The same cannot be said for other Republican lawmakers, however, this President's focus has been boiled down to: protect the boarder, improve the economy, repeal and replace Obamacare, and use any means necessary to combat radical Islamic terrorism.
Trump has been quoted, "Planned Parenthood has done wonderful things". Furthermore, I personally do not suspect that Ivanka would ever let him get away with alienating the women of America any further by cutting off access to family planning tools, including abortion. Seriously.
The convergence of Roe v. Wade, the inauguration of President Trump, and the Women's March speak volumes about what is happening in big picture: America is and will continue to be a force for democracy around the world. The peaceful transition of power that occurred on Friday, January 20th, the peaceful yet powerful protests that were held on Saturday, and the anniversary commemorating perhaps one of the most fundamental moments for women in America show that our country is the beacon of hope for other nations to look up to.
Whether or not you agree with any of the three events that occurred over this past weekend, the reality is that they are of a higher standard of freedom than most of the world. We are extremely lucky to be living in a place where any of this is happening in the first place. The same cannot be said for the women (and men) in countries like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran, Kenya, Russia, China, the list goes on and on and on. Our civil liberties are already great, but it is up to the people to continuously exercise them in hopes of creating a better, more perfect union.
