Where was NOW for Tripp before she was convicted? Then, it was just as unproven as the murder charges against Yates.
I can easily come up with non-Clinton examples of NOW hypocrisy. However, they are, of course, slightly less recognizable (although on this Message Board, there is probably a high enough degree of informed-ness that it wouldn’t make much difference). The main point is that when it could conceivably threaten liberal political power, NOW is nowhere to be seen “being there for other women.”
Again, disclaimer. This is not the first time and will undoubtedly not be the last that I don’t precisely agree with something NOW has done, ardent libber though I have been since toddlerhood; one reason I’m not a member. I still think some points of this matter (not to mention intent) are being lost, however.
Cranky, I’m with you. I’d rather the money be going to further education in that regard. I will say, though, that having seen for myself just how cavalier the attitude of both the general public and the medical community is about some women’s health concerns (PPD being one of them), that my best guess is that NOW is hoping that this incident will force people to re-evaluate that attitude and do more to prevent a recurrence of this problem. Maybe they see it as an object lesson to which people will at least pay attention, if only because they’re interested about the case.
I will say that as a women’s rights activist group, NOW can and should be involved in trying to get public attention drawn to a woman’s health matter that is shamefully neglected – just as many gay rights groups do for AIDS. (I believe NOW does that too, btw.) The point they’re trying to make is that PPD is not just some figment of the ‘little woman’s’ imagination. Doctors need to recognize that; employers providing health care benefits (and pregnancy leave) need to recognize that, insurance companies which are all too intent on shoving a woman out the door as soon as the afterbirth has cleared need to recognize that and counselors of every stripe (including and especially religion-based ones) need to recognize that. They aren’t and they don’t.
It should be pointed out also (in the interest of fairness) that there is a clear distinction between Yates’ case and that of Susan Smith. Yates contends that her actions were as a result of a mental illness which solely affects women as a result of childbirth. Smith did not. Yates has a documented medical history of this particular problem. Smith did not. Nor did Yates go on national television and attempt to sell the world on the theory that her children had been kidnapped. Smith obviously did. Moreover, Yates had nothing, absolutely nothing, to gain from her actions. Smith demonstrably did (or hoped she would). Only the end result – tragically – was the same.
Again: I’m not defending Yates, believe it or not. I don’t agree with what she did, obviously. I will say that if I were on the jury, I’d at least give her plea a listen, (though probably would vote to have her committed for life and forcibly hysterectomized) whereas I’d’ve laughed a similar plea by Smith out the window and voted to hang her higher than Haman.
**
So, Lionors, you have no problem whatsoever with NOW’s “Let this be a lesson to us all” stance, given the fact that we don’t yet know that this incapacitated Yates to the point that she didn’t know what she was doing, and/or could not control her actions?
There is no conclusive evidence that Yates’ affliction led to her crime, and that she couldn’t help herself. For all we know, maybe her motivation was a lot damn closer to Smith’s than you think. Maybe she was depressed, hated her life and was sick of being a stay-at-home baby-making factory. We don’t know yet.
That NOW is shoving this case down the path that the poor woman’s post-partum depression, psychosis or whatever kept her from understanding what she was doing is an absolute abomination to the memories of her victims at this point.
NOW is jumping to a conclusion to champion a cause and play a political angle. It could not be more crass.
Just thought I’d point the accuracy of Miss Stoid’s psychic prediction (in one of the threads linked by dogsbody)
No matter how much NOW wants to educate people about PPD and PPP, paying for the defense of a woman who murdered her five children is not the best way to go about it. Yes, it’s a cause celebre, and yes, they’ll get some publicity, but in the process they’re making themselves look like ghouls feeding off a tragedy.
I absolutely agree that it was completely crass, although quite possibily unintentional, for the NOW spokesperson to say that some good can come of this tragedy. Obviously no good at all is going to come out of the murder of these children.
But I just don’t see how NOW is jumping to a conclusion. There will be a trial. At this trial, we will (hopefully) learn more about her motivation, her illness, her actions, and how they all relate. NOW is not raising money to break her out of jail, they’re raising money for her legal defense. Having a defense at a criminal trial is not exactly out of the ordinary. It wouldn’t make much sense for NOW to wait until after the trial to complain that she didn’t have adequate legal assistance.
I can see that one might question NOW’s judgment in giving funds to this particular woman. But an organization like NOW has to make some judgments about how to spend their money. I would be alarmed if I donated to an organization and then found out that they distributed the money completely at random. I expect that the folks in charge will evaluate how to best spend money in order to promote the goals of the organization. This situation seems to be meeting two important goals – first, to heighten awareness of PPD and PPP, and second, since the media is already very involved in this case, NOW’s concerns will be brought to a large audience. This will save money that might otherwise have been spent on publicity.
So if you’re saying that NOW made a poor choice, I understand your criticism (although I don’t agree with it). But I’m not understanding why you think NOW has made any sort of premature judgment. They are faciliating the trial process, not hindering it.
Milossarian, in the first paragraph of my last post I stated very clearly that I do not agree with NOW’s choices of action in this matter. (And again, that’s the reason I don’t belong – I generally can see some merit in their intentions, I just don’t always agree as to how they go about accomplishing said intentions.)
I took their intent to be that NOW wants to expand awareness and education about a mental health problem which is specific to childbearing women. I can’t fault that any more than I could fault the fact that even though I found the media circus of O.J. Simpson’s trial to be deplorable, I could not criticize those activist groups who managed to use the case to expand awareness of the problem of spousal abuse.
I have never had a child myself. As I’ve stated, my experience with PPD comes from observing the five or six friends and family members I’ve had who have had children and who have been hit by this stuff. While I’ve never had a friend murder her kids because of PPD, I can unequivocally state that some of the most level-headed people I know have gotten awfully irrational as a result of PPD. Yet when they tried to get help, their problems were pretty much brushed off by doctors, employers, health insurers and even their husbands. Therefore, from my experience, I have enough evidence available that I can agree that PPD is at least a health issue *specific to childbearing women * that deserves to be treated more seriously than it is. If greater awareness of this problem (not to mention others associated with pregnancy) ends with people making more informed choices about whether or not to have children, or how to deal with possible health risks of having children, I certainly can’t fault that result, either.
You are correct. We do not know. I don’t, and neither do you. Nor does NOW. In fact, NOW may well end up with egg on its face if she’s found guilty and her insanity defense is found invalid. (In fact, that’s the main reason why I don’t agree with their choice of action in this situation – it has the potential to really get PPD diminished in the eyes of the general public.]
However (again to be annoyingly fair and look at both sides of the issue) it’s not as if Yates doesn’t have a well-documented history of PPD. Further, it’s not supposed to be illogical in this country to assume that a defendant’s defense is valid until it is proven otherwise by the prosecution. Ingenuous, perhaps, but not illogical.
As far as asking why they didn’t defend other women – from what I can tell, NOW’s concern is really with the ramifications of PPD as a women’s health issue. I don’t believe they’re defending Yates simply because she’s a woman, but because she is claiming as a defense a mental health problem which is specific to childbearing women.
Hope that provides some clarification as to my point of view here.