Women’s rights

September 9, 2018

At first blush, there would seem to be no connection between the disastrous end of the U.S. Open Women’s Final and the confirmation hearing of Bret Kavanaugh last week, but both illuminated something powerful and frightening – the determination of far too many men to deny women respect, equality or our very bodily autonomy.

Everyone knows that the historic matchup between Serena Williams and Naomi Osaka was marred by the Chair Umpire’s actions.  His decision to penalize Serena’s rule violations by awarding first a point, and then a game, to Naomi Osaka, permanently tainted a victory that Osaka seemed on track to win anyway. Much of the media coverage has described Serena as having a “temper tantrum” or the “mother of all meltdowns.”  Reaction has broken down along gender lines, with many men saying that Serena should have controlled herself; blaming her for not clamming up over what she saw as an unjust penalty that impugned her integrity.  Washington Post columnist, Sally Jenkins, handily refutes that argument, pointing out that the issue was not whether Serena lost her temper (she did), but whether the chair umpire insinuated himself in an unseemly power play to put Serena in her place.

We cannot divorce Serena’s punishment yesterday, or her reaction to it, from the context of how the tennis establishment has consistently treated her.  Serena Williams is indisputably one of the greatest athletes of all time, on par with Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan.  She and Venus have been an inspiration to the next generation of women tennis players and inspired countless young Black women to take up the sport, including Naomi Osaka and Madison Keys.  Serena’s presence in the finals of a Grand Slam is a boon to television ratings.  Yet Serena has had to endure disrespect and outsized scrutiny throughout her career.  She is drug tested more than any other player and “more than twice as much” as any other woman (Source:  “Serena Williams may be singled out for drug testing.  The question is why,” by Kevin B. Blackstone, The Washington Post, 7/27/18).  If we are being honest, we know that Serena was punished for demanding the respect that she has earned and the latitude that would have been afforded to any man in a high pressure Grand Slam final.  The chair umpire’s vindictive overreaction was a forceful reminder to Serena, and by extension to all women players, that no matter how great they are, they are still subordinate to men.

That same determination to subordinate women is evident in the views of Brett Kavanaugh that were exposed in his confirmation hearings last week.  Commentators have focused, rightly, on his views on Roe v. Wade, and whether he will vote to overturn it.  The discovery of an e-mail in which Kavanaugh pointed out that the “settled law” of Roe can be overturned by a majority of the Supreme Court merely pointed out a truism that any first year law student knows and was hardly a smoking gun.  Kavanaugh’s false description of birth control as “abortion inducing drugs” and his response to Senator Kamala Harris’ line of questioning on unenumerated rights is actually much more revealing.

As students of Constitutional law know, the 9th Amendment states that “the enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  The seminal case interpreting “unenumerated rights,” is Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), which established a right to “marital privacy,” and held that a Connecticut law outlawing the sale of contraceptives was unconstitutional.  Griswold was not only a key precedent cited in Roe v. Wade, but has also been applied to establish essential rights for LGBT people.  Griswold was cited in Lawrence v. Kansas, the 2003 case striking down “sodomy” laws and in Obergefell v. Hodges, which established the right to same-sex marriage.  When Senator Harris asked Kavanaugh his view on unenumerated rights, he “dodged the question by describing the caselaw,” (Source:  “Brett Kavanaugh Dodges Question About the 9th Amendment and Unenumerated Rights,” by Damon Root, Reason.com, 9/6/18).

     Kavanaugh’s disparaging and untrue characterization of birth control, along with his evasive answers on the 9th Amendment is a tell.  For Kavanaugh at least, the real target is Griswold, not Roe.  Overturning Griswold would pave the way not only for outlawing abortion, but for outlawing or restricting access to contraception as well.  For radical fundamentalists, there is the added bonus that it would provide a means of eliminating marriage equality and re-criminalizing homosexuality.  Overturning Griswold would mean nothing less than consigning women and LGBT people to permanent second class citizenship.

The forces in this country that would deny women full equality and autonomy flex their power in large ways and small. We must be unafraid to challenge them at every turn, because much more than a tennis match is at stake.

#KavaNAH!

#Womensrightsarehumanrights