How Safe are Abortion Providers in Blue States?
  December 17, 2024 Darling Meteor readers, Way back in February, I started baking my own bread at home because the closest supermarket was charging $6 a boule, and that just felt criminal. I swore up, down, and around, however, that I would not do sourdough—too complicated. I’m sure you see where this is going. I’m now two days into making my own sourdough starter and this gloopy substance has become my fourth child (after my two dogs and one human). If any of you bread masters have guidance, step forward. In today’s newsletter, we’re untangling the complexities of an anti-abortion lawsuit out of Texas. Plus, some updates in the sports world. My starter runneth over, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONThe abortion battle to come: Last week, as you may have heard, the state of Texas filed a lawsuit against Margaret Daley Carpenter, M.D., a New York-based doctor and co-founder of the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine, alleging that Dr. Carpenter had mailed abortion pills to a patient in Texas. Texas, of course, has a total abortion ban, but New York has a “shield law” meant to protect doctors who help out-of-state patients. Which law supersedes the other? Well, it’s complicated. The shield law protects providers from out-of-state criminal investigations or prosecution (among other things). But Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is not pursuing a criminal case against Dr. Carpenter; instead, he wants to hit her with a $250,000 fine for practicing medicine without a Texas license and violating the state’s abortion ban. The New York shield law does address civil liability protection—specifically, it gives doctors a right to “protection against application of another state’s law in New York State court” and a “claw back lawsuit” option to reclaim any monetary damages incurred while fighting a charge brought for providing healthcare that is lawful in New York. But the suit is being filed in Texas, meaning that that first provision may not help Dr. Carpenter if this goes to trial. Texas’ legal code also states that a doctor cannot provide telehealth services to Texas residents without a license to practice medicine in the state. So, on the surface, it would seem that Texas has a slam dunk on its hands. Not entirely. Even if Texas wins the suit, experts don’t see a clear path for the state to enforce the judgment. But it’s not just about the money. There’s a wrinkle in this case that gives a hint of Paxton’s long game: Texas’s petition includes details about the man who impregnated the patient (we’ll call him John Doe). According to the petition, he only found out she was pregnant after he had driven her to the hospital to treat severe bleeding. Upon being told she had been nine weeks pregnant, John Doe “concluded” that the woman “intentionally withheld information from him regarding her pregnancy” and assumed she had done something to abort the pregnancy. He returned to the woman’s residence and found packaging for mifepristone and misoprostol. As law professor Mary Ziegler explains in Slate, this first-of-its-kind lawsuit may be trying to lay the groundwork for more cases involving male partners:
Are you following? Anti-abortion groups hope that men will sue over the “wrongful death” of fetuses they had a hand in creating. And in repeatedly referring to John Doe as the “biological father of the unborn child,” Texas may be trying to establish a legal precedent for those rights. To be clear, it’s not specified in the petition whether or not John Doe himself turned his partner in; he’s also not filing a wrongful death suit, and in the event Dr. Carpenter is made to pay a fine, John Doe would not be legally entitled to any of it. Still, a win here could signal to anti-abortion men that they now have the power to do something to gum up the works of telemedicine by telling Big Brother what their girlfriends are getting in the mail. And that will cost doctors, patients, and pregnant people in need a lot more than $250,000. AND:
 IMAGE VIA THE DEBT COLLECTIVE INSTAGRAM (PHOTO BY JULIAN THOMAS)
 LOCKER ROOM TALK 🏀 🏀 ⚽A fun safe space for our fellow women's sports fanatics
 Hey! If you've read this far you must really like us. We really like you too! So much that we want to know what you think. Please consider filling out this survey to let us know how we can better support The Meteor community. FOLLOW THE METEOR     Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
She Called Journalists "Monsters"and Liars
  December 12, 2024 Hey there, Meteor readers, We are entering that special time of the year I like to call The Vortex, where time is meaningless and we are all just hauling ourselves across various finish lines. But before we fully get sucked in, I’ve got a special request. Please consider taking a few minutes to fill out this survey so we at The Meteor can better serve you. We want to continue building this community, and we can’t do that without you. Our suggestion box is fully open! In today’s newsletter, we turn to Trump’s latest hire. Plus, your weekend reading list. With appreciation, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONAnother one: Yes, we are talking about yet another questionable Trump appointee, but this one hits uncomfortably close to home for those of us who work in media. Yesterday, Donald Trump announced that he’d nominated former news anchor, election denier, and known hater of the free press Kari Lake to be the new head of Voice of America. A little refresher on VOA: It’s a federally funded international news provider that reaches more than 300 million people. Congress gives VOA $300 million a year, a sum Kari Lake would be responsible for managing despite her calls in 2022 to defund the media. The entire mission of VOA is to provide unbiased, fact-forward news and the organization even has a “firewall” rule which “prohibits interference by any U.S. government official in the objective, independent reporting of news.”  This won’t be the first time a Trump loyalist has been given power over VOA. In 2020, Trump put one of his cronies, Michael Pack, in charge of the U.S. Agency for Global Media, which oversees VOA, and a judge found that he’d violated the First Amendment rights of VOA journalists and employees by attempting to censor and retaliate against those he deemed “insufficiently supportive of President Trump.” This time, we’ve got a woman who knowingly spreads disinformation and refers to journalists as “monsters,” a Republican-controlled Congress, and a news organization that relies on both journalists and Congress to function. What could possibly go wrong? Well, in the absolute worst-case scenario: You could end up with government-funded media that is loyal not to facts, but to one man’s agenda of revenge. That leaves the door open for worsening levels of misinformation that could border on propaganda. I hate to throw around that P word, but it’s gravely concerning that someone with such disdain for the truth could be given this much power over the telling of it. AND:
 WEEKEND READING 📚On a growing movement: No one thought Puerto Rico’s Alliance coalition could win the election. But more than a hundred years of history points to exactly why their candidate, Juan Dalmau, came so close. (Truthout) On the other property brothers: Three brothers, two of whom were luxury real estate brokers, were arrested for their roles in a 14-year-long sex trafficking scheme. Their story is so heinous, it reads like an implausible horror film. (New York Times) On money and menopause: Millennial women are entering perimenopause in droves, and a new wave of health-adjacent companies are taking notice. In Retrospect co-host Jessica Bennett dives into what’s real and what’s a scam. (The Cut)  FOLLOW THE METEOR     Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Could Trump End Birthright Citizenship?
  December 10, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, My child recently learned the words to “Jingle Bells,” and while she cannot fully pronounce all of them, I’ve now heard that song more times than “All I Want for Christmas Is You.” Send earmuffs. In today’s newsletter, we take a look at the latest news on what’s ahead for migrants. Plus, actress and playwright Danai Gurira on the backlash to women’s rights on the African continent. Changing the station, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONA semblance of a plan: When the news broke that Donald Trump had won re-election, I reached out to my mentor, Julianne Escobedo Shepherd, and asked, “Did they tell you what time your group is getting deported? I’m in group C.” We laughed. After all, if the end is nigh, you cannot spend all your time suffering about suffering. But beneath the jokes, the memes, and the exhaustion, there is still a big question: Can Trump do all the things he wants to do? When it comes to immigration, it certainly seems like he’s going to try—and fast. Over the weekend in a “Meet the Press” interview, Trump reaffirmed his commitment to mass deportation, stating he would “absolutely” end birthright citizenship. “I don’t want to be breaking up families,” he said. (Really?) “So the only way you don’t break up the family is you keep them together and you have to send them all back, even kids who are here legally.” Because of the 14th Amendment—which does a few things including granting citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil—Trump cannot make good on his threat by himself, but that doesn’t mean it’s an impossibility. As reporter Isabela Dias explains in Mother Jones, Trump and his allies could “resort to the far-fetched claim that large migrant flows to the US-Mexico border constitute an ‘invasion’ of the United States and, therefore, the children of unauthorized immigrants should be excluded from the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship.” That idea might seem implausible, especially when even Republicans are divided on mass deportation (as demonstrated by today’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearings). But we are living in implausible times. If the president thinks the 14th Amendment is up for debate—and let me remind you that the amendment’s equal protection clause is literally being debated before SCOTUS—there’s no telling how far he’ll go to get his way. And when the “them” he’s targeting starts to look like everyone, what will be the line in the sand? AND:
  FOLLOW THE METEOR     Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Revisiting the Timeless Wisdom of Black Women Writers
Rebecca Carroll’s 1994 anthology is re-released for a new generation.
In the summer of 1992, three books by Black women writers–Toni Morrison, Alice Walker, and Terry McMillan—made the New York Times bestseller list at the same time. I knew it had to be a first (it was), and to me, a recent college graduate and aspiring writer, it felt like a divine intervention. Two years later, inspired by that moment, I published a collection of interviews called I Know What the Red Clay Looks Like: The Voice and Vision of Black Women Writers. The book featured established writers like Nikki Giovanni and Rita Dove, as well as then-emerging voices like Lorene Cary and Tina McElroy Ansa.
Thirty years later, Red Clay is being re-released. And after an election that could have given us the first Black woman president but didn’t, this collection of intergenerational Black women and nonbinary voices feels like a necessary balm. In the new edition, I invited a younger writer to re-introduce the work of each original writer featured. In the excerpt below, New York Times Magazine staff writer J. Wortham explains what poet June Jordan’s work means to them, and to our world right now. And then, June Jordan speaks for herself.
—Rebecca Carroll
J. Wortham on June Jordan: “It is June Jordan’s time on the world clock again.”
June Jordan was an author, a professor, an activist, a poet, a parent. She was also a horologist. What I mean by that is she kept time. And time could be kept by her. When she wrote “Like a lot of Black women, I have always had to invent the power my freedom requires” in her 1985 essay collection, On Call, that was her way of calling for solidarity with the uprising in Nicaragua and drawing throughlines between the communities there and the American South, between her West Indian upbringing and our own ongoing liberation struggles.
The first time I read those lines, I gasped. I was gifted a collection of her prolific writings (including the essay with that searing line) called Some of Us Did Not Die and marveled at the breadth of her cultural criticism. She vivisected pop culture, Clarence Thomas, South African apartheid, motherhood, the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr., with equal ease. She wrote toward the future while keeping the present accountable, even when it was considered unfavorable. June identified as a bisexual and often wrote about the Palestinian freedom struggle, including the oft-Instagrammed lines “I was born a Black woman and now I am become a Palestinian.”
…Her legacy has been dimmer than what she righteously deserves, despite being as firm a literary figure as Alice Walker or Toni Morrison, in community with Ralph Ellison and Malcolm X, and calling Fannie Lou Hamer a friend. But it is June Jordan’s time on the world clock again. “I mean to be fully and freely all that I am,” she wrote in a keynote speech delivered at Stanford University in April 1991. Even now, she is.
June Jordan on clarity: “I don’t even like to use the word racist”
I’m not concerned about missing anybody with my writing. I think that there is a racist, patronizing point of view around understanding certain ideas where black folks are concerned that I do not embrace. Most everything I write, I test out. Big audiences. Live. And that’s poetry as well as essays. So, it’s not too hypothetical to me whether it’s gonna hit or not. If it hits, I know. If it doesn’t hit, I know….
…A pivotal event for me as a writer and a poet happened during the sixties. It was a great big poetry reading down in Jackson, Mississippi. It was all black women poets—Sonia Sanchez, Audre Lorde, Mari Evans, I mean, you know, everybody at that time. It was held in a huge auditorium. I just thought I was the baaaadest poet in the world with my baaaad Brooklyn self. I got down there and was blown away. The place was packed, and folks was all dressed up, families and children and deacons. And all my poetry had profanity in it, and I was like, “Oh shit, I can’t read anything!” And Sonia said, “See? I told you so!” I mean, it was like church. Everybody was on time—in black Mississippi folks was on time! And I would never have presumed to imagine that being a poet merited that sort of respect. And trust. At that moment, I realized that as a black writer, people were looking to us/to me for vision, leadership, and most of all, people were looking to us/to me for The Word.
I think as long as you try to be clear, and I always try to be clear, people will get it. I may have a word in my writing that somebody may not know, but that’s just a word, and that’s it. I think mostly my language is extremely straightforward, and I have worked on it quite a bit. It is not academic. And it is not common. You’ll never see the word feminist in my work, or patriarchal, or any of that—I just don’t use words like that. I’m not writing for the academy. I don’t give a shit about the academy. I’m writing for people who read. Mainly I try to reach college students, which is a huge, heterogeneous, and important audience to reach.
Academic language includes a lot of stupid words. I don’t even like to use the word racist. If I do use it, I have to really try and use it in a way that is still fresh, so it still hits and stings, so that people understand that “I’m here to kill you because of this.” You know what I mean? I’m not saying, “Well that was a racist incident,” no, I don’t mean it was a racist incident, no, I mean, “I’m gonna kill you cause that was racist!” How you rest that word in any usage, to give it the power that it originally had, is important. For example, in the context of Rodney King, some people call that a racist episode, which makes the word racist sound tepid—you know, it was pleasant, unpleasant, racist, casual, and so on. All those words sound the same. I try to use words, whether in prose or poetry, that people can understand, that make them feel in an intense way. I’m a writer, that’s what I do.
Want to read more? Three June Jordan works to start with:
An essay: The Difficult Miracle of Black Poetry in America
A young-adult novel (her only): His Own Where
And, of course, poetry: The Essential June Jordan
Rebecca Carroll is a writer, cultural critic, and podcast creator/host. Her writing has been published widely, and she is the author of several books, including her recent memoir, Surviving the White Gaze. Rebecca is Editor at Large for The Meteor.
Iran Temporarily Releases Narges Mohammadi
  December 5, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, It’s the least wonderful time of the year—and by that, of course, I mean Spotify Wrapped season. We get it, you’ve got great* taste in music. (*Editor’s note: This does not apply to all of you.) In today’s newsletter, we stand in awe of Narges Mohammadi and catch up with the Court’s big day yesterday. Plus, your weekend reading list. Wrap literally anything else, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONNobel laureate and Iranian human rights activist Narges Mohammadi has been given a three-week medical release from prison in Tehran. Mohammadi has been in and out of prison for decades and, since 2021, has been serving a 13-year sentence on charges of “spreading anti-state propaganda” for her work in Iran’s women’s rights movement. As she was being wheeled out of an ambulance on a stretcher after her release, without the required head covering, Mohammadi shouted the movement’s slogan: “Woman, Life, Freedom!” Mohammadi has suffered several health issues during her imprisonment, including multiple heart attacks and, most recently, an emergency surgery to remove a cancerous tumor. After her leave, the state expects her to continue her imprisonment in Evin Prison. Mohammadi’s lawyers and the international community all believe that her continued imprisonment is inhumane and a violation of Mohammadi’s rights.  MOHAMMADI AFTER HER RELEASE HOLDING A PHOTO OF MAHSA AMINI. WRITTEN ON HER HAND IS "END GENDER APARTHEID" IN FARSI. (IMAGE VIA INSTAGRAM) Despite the severe crackdowns on public gatherings since the Mahsa Amini protests shook the nation two years ago, Iranian women have continued the fight against their theocratic government, which has in turn intensified punishments against them. Iran's Hijab and Chastity bill—which will punish both women and men for “improper dress” by issuing fines, blocking country exit permits, and, in some extreme cases, imprisonment—will go into effect next week. As Mohammadi recovers at home and continues to speak out for Iranian women, we are reminded of the words she wrote while still imprisoned: “Victory is not easy, but it is certain.” AND:
  WEEKEND READING 📚On challenging the norm: For the last 50 years, one feminist magazine you may have never heard of has been pushing back on Mormon tradition. And it’s written by Mormon feminists. (High Country News) On asking and telling: Trump’s return to office has stirred up concerns about the resurgence of anti-LGBTQ+ “witch hunts” in the military. (The War Horse) On paying up for postpartum care: Retreats for new moms, which have long been the norm in parts of Europe and Asia, are popping up in the U.S. But at an astonishing $1,000 per night, are moms and babies getting what they’re paying for? (The Cut) On your speakers: The latest episode of America, Who Hurt You? dives into the lesser-known history of Muslims in America. (Apple podcasts)  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
This Law Could Run for President. It's That Bad.
  December 3, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, So as your inbox has probably told you quite a few times today, it’s Giving Tuesday. We promise not to bombard you, but should you be in a particularly giving mood today, we hope you will consider supporting our nonprofit project The Meteor Fund. It hosts regular community events on everything from abortion access to climate change, and supports The Meteor’s journalism, including projects like United States of Abortion and The A Files. We know you have many places to give. We also know that in a time of disinformation, it’s never been more important to support independent media that unapologetically centers the interests of all women. In today’s newsletter, we take a look at the transgender rights case making its way to the Supreme Court. Plus, we’re reclaiming locker room talk. Grateful for you all, The Meteor Team  WHAT'S GOING ONA high-stakes SCOTUS case: ACLU attorney Chase Strangio will make history this week as the first openly transgender person to argue before the Supreme Court. The case at hand? United States v. Skrmetti, which will broach the question of whether or not Tennessee’s anti-trans law is a violation of the 14th Amendment. Let’s put that in plain speak for my non-Suits watchers out there. Tennessee SB1 prohibits any medical personnel in the state from providing care that enables “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex.” Translation: It bans any and all gender-affirming care specifically for transgender minors. It does not however stop, say, a cis-gendered teenage girl from receiving estrogen for any reason because, that form of gender-affirming care is not “inconsistent” with the patient’s sex assigned at birth. This bill is so loudly and staunchly anti-trans, it could run for president and probably win. Lawyers representing Tennessee are citing the court’s 2022 Dobbs decision, which eliminated the right to legal abortion, as grounds for upholding SB1, saying that it is not discriminatory but merely “an even-handed regulation of medical procedure.” The use of Dobbs as precedent is part of what makes bringing this case to a wildly conservative court such a gamble: The way they rationalize it, Dobbs didn’t discriminate based on sex; it merely regulated how abortions can be administered in this country. 🙄 The ACLU’s argument, on the other hand, is more attuned to the reality of what these laws are trying to achieve: the eradication of transgender people. “Laws like Tennessee’s are not benign regulations of medical care,” Strangio said in a statement. “They are discriminatory efforts to exclude transgender people from the protections of the Constitution.” Or, as Ria Tabacco Mar, director of the ACLU’s Women’s Rights Project, put it: “There is no ‘transgender’ exception to the U.S. Constitution.” There’s a lot riding on whether the justices agree. If SB1 is allowed to stand uncontested, the decision would embolden more states to pass more anti-trans legislation. (Twenty-six have banned gender-affirming care already.) If, on the other hand, SCOTUS rules favorably, the outcome could grind anti-trans legislation to a halt nationwide, and establish important limits on how state law can dictate an individual’s health care. There are, of course, many hitches in this giddyup, the largest one being the “U.S.” in “U.S. vs. Skrmetti.” Right now the Biden administration is the “U.S.”—Biden’s DOJ brought the lawsuit along with three trans minors and their families. But when he leaves office in January, the Trump administration might switch to supporting Tennessee. Should that happen, experts say there is a possibility that SCOTUS could request a new hearing to decide whether it should accept the ACLU’s petition at all. Regardless, Strangio and the ACLU are focused on the real people at the heart of the suit. “This is Tennessee displacing the loving, reasoned, painstaking decisions of parents who are trying to do right by their children,” Strangio explained to Dahlia Lithwick on the Amicus podcast. “Children who were in anguish, and are now doing better, because of the health care Tennessee now bans.” AND:
 PROTESTORS OUTSIDE OF THE INC-5 CONFERENCE IN BUSAN, SOUTH KOREA. (VIA UNEP)
 LOCKER ROOM TALK 🏀 🏉 🏃♀️A fun safe space for our fellow women's sports fanatics
 SCREENSHOT OF MY BESTIE VIA INSTAGRAM  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
How to Fight Autocracy, From the Activists Who've Done It
BY MEGAN CARPENTIER
When Donald Trump vowed in December 2023 to be a dictator “on day one,” his aides later clarified that he “was simply trying to trigger the left and the media.” Nonetheless, exit polls showed that half of voters “said they were ‘very concerned’ that another Trump presidency would bring the U.S. closer to authoritarianism,” even though some voted for him anyway.
In the weeks since the election, democracy advocates have raised the alarm about the possibility that, after nearly 250 years, the American system of constitutional governance may be compromised. Many people are worried that Trump will try to hold onto office illegally in 2029; he’s told voters, special interest groups, and House Republicans he’s considering an unconstitutional third term. Critics note his hostility to the free press, his early demands that all his appointments skip confirmation hearings (to which Senate Republicans currently seem unlikely to acquiesce), and his promises to use the Department of Justice to go after perceived political enemies.
Looking at history, the worry that Trump could destroy some of the fundamental guarantees of democracy are not without precedent: All around the world, voters in democratic countries have elected leaders who then undermined the very systems that brought them into power—including the 20th century’s most infamous authoritarian, Adolf Hitler.
How does that happen? What lessons can—and should—Americans learn from other countries which have recent experience with authoritarian rule? Given that scholars have repeatedly found that authoritarian countries are worse for women’s equality, this guidance feels more needed than ever.
So we asked the advice of a few activists from across the globe who know what it’s like when authoritarianism comes your way.
“People exchange their freedoms without actually realizing the consequences for everybody.”
—Génesis Dávila, founder and president of Defiende Venezuela. In Venezuela, current president Nicolás Maduro—handpicked successor of autocrat Hugo Chávez—presides over an authoritarian regime, and recently declared victory in an election he is accused of rigging.
“Something that we couldn't learn on time in Venezuela is that polarization is a poison for the entire society. When we had Chávez and then Maduro in power, they targeted the opposition as enemies and, when they did that, then the opposition also targeted them and their supporters as enemies. The opposition would say Chávez supporters were not smart people, that their values were against the country’s.
“It worked in favor of Chávez and Maduro. I would not want to support someone who is attacking me. I would not want to support someone who believes that I'm not smart. I would not want to support someone who thinks that my values are wrong and their values are right.
“Chávez came to power with the support of the people [but]...he took control of the judiciary and the legislative branch. He announced limitations on freedom of speech; he announced the reform of the Constitution. At the end, he was pretty much able to do whatever he wanted without any resistance. He had 100 percent impunity. [And under Chávez and then Maduro], we moved from being a strong democracy with a strong economy to one of the poorest countries in our region.
“We cannot perceive our fellow citizens as our enemies. We have different perspectives, different values, but we must be willing to find common ground. We need to create bridges, and we need to help them to walk to the other side—but we cannot push them, and we cannot attack them.”
“You can't protect democracy if you're not offering a really inclusive social and economic agenda.”
—Gábor Scheiring, Assistant Professor of Comparative Politics at Georgetown University in Qatar and a former member of the National Assembly in Hungary, where Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has ushered in what the European Parliament has denounced as an “electoral autocracy.”
“I'm a huge supporter of liberal democracy and institutions, but you can't really protect those cherished liberal institutions by just talking about how important it is to have a constitutional court and how important media pluralism is. The overwhelming majority of people don't really think in these terms. They are concerned about inflation and real wages and unemployment and inequality, and that's where you need credibility if you're trying to represent those masses.
“So, the old elitist ways of doing progressive politics will not help you. You can’t just continue talking about the values of democracy, as opposed to talking about issues that matter to people. That's just not working. It's not helpful.
“You need to convey a message of significant change, and do that in a credible way….Beyond that, in the U.S., if you have any friends who have a lot of money and can use it to support significant, large, liberally-oriented media outlets, I think that's super important….If we’re frank, conservative billionaires, they invest in conservative media, even if it doesn't pay out immediately. Liberal billionaires in Hungary, they just did not really care to help sustain non-right-wing media. And I think that's a huge, huge problem.”
“As long as people remain organized, there is hope.”
—Halil Yenigun, Associate Director, Stanford University’s Sohaib and Sara Abbasii Program in Islamic Studies, and former professor in Turkey, where President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s time in office has generally been characterized as a movement away from democracy.
“There are a few basic differences between the Turkish government and the American one today that favor American democracy.
“One is that the U.S. judiciary is still a lot more independent than Turkey’s ever was. So even when Trump transgresses certain limits, some conservative justices still stand up against him, like they did with the election fraud claims. The second one is that the U.S. is a federal government, and federalism still creates some kind of counter-force to a centralized, authoritarian government. Don’t take the institutions for granted. Don't take checks and balances for granted.
“Another institutional mechanism [in both the U.S. and Turkey] is the opposition party organization. Turkey had a multiparty democracy before President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was first elected, and, even after, the opposition party organizations did not give up….Each and every election, they just continued fighting back.
“Even though in Turkey, we did not have the same kind of strong civil society as in the U.S.—we don’t have as many NGOs—civil society proved to be a very important channel for people to remain organized. There are still these openings to express opposition to the regime, like Pride Day and especially the women's movement and the annual Women’s March. [That] movement might seem as though it is about a single issue like women's rights, but it serves as a channel for people to vent their resentment against repression.
“These pockets of resistance are very important, I think, to prove that people can still fight back.”
“We realized that we needed to inform people what human rights are.”
—Cristina Palabay, secretary general of the human-rights organization Karapatan in the Philippines, where former president Rodrigo Duterte’s term from 2016 to 2022 was characterized by extrajudicial killings, human rights abuses, efforts to change the country’s constitution, and more.
“How Duterte spoke about human rights was, ‘OK drug addicts are not humans, They are animals.’ This was the dehumanization in which the administration was engaging.
“We realized that we needed to go back to basics, to inform people what human rights are. We had to explain that human rights are more than what is written in the Constitution—more than just legal rights. Human rights are the right to a dignified life, the right to food, the right to just wages, the right to live at all. People can have a basic understanding of human rights when it is spoken about in a way that is easily understandable to them.
“But, as we were educating people, the situation kept getting worse. When kids started to get killed in the drug war, that's when people started to think, OK, so, this is not just about drug addicts. And then, of course, he went after the human rights defenders and he took a militarist approach during the pandemic.
“Based on this education, people started to question the dehumanization of people. And that’s when we realized that Duterte’s propaganda was not as widespread a success.
“It became a defining moment for many of us—civil society, social movements, journalists, even artists—to all come together to mount some kind of pushback, including online. And we did that.”
Megan Carpentier is a freelance writer and editor. She is an alumna of NBC News, The Guardian, Talking Points Memo, and Jezebel, among others, and her byline has appeared in Foreign Policy, Ms. Magazine, Rolling Stone, Esquire, Glamour, and The New Republic.
The Pros and Cons of Making Wegovy More Accessible
  November 26, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, It recently came to my attention that I have an “odd” choice of stuffing for my turkey. I am curious to know what y’all are putting in yours, and I need a solid explanation as to why the answer is not ground beef, which is what is in my bird. This is a question of national importance. In today’s newsletter, we’re talking about a potentially game-changing proposal for weight-loss drugs and the banner year women’s soccer just had. Plus, a little weekend reading to get you through the holiday. Where’s the beef (if not in the turkey), Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONWegovy for all?: Today, the Biden administration proposed that Medicaid and Medicare cover weight-loss drugs like Wegovy and Zepbound. If the proposal becomes official, seven million more Medicaid and Medicare patients deemed “obese” would have access to these drugs. (Both plans already cover drugs like Ozempic for treating type 2 diabetes, but prohibit coverage for medications designed specifically for weight loss.) The proposal’s fate is far from certain; Trump’s pick for health secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is against use of the drugs. But the proposal itself shows just how much these weight-loss drugs have penetrated American life. At this point, roughly six percent of all American adults (that's about 15 million people) have used these medications—the majority of them women. If the drugs become more affordable thanks to this coverage, those numbers will almost certainly grow. That accessibility, of course, is a good thing: Everyone deserves equal access to medicine, period. But the widespread use of these particular medicines raises other issues, too—like the threat of “Ozempic coercion,” as fat activist Virgie Tovar put it to Samhita Mukhopadhyay in The Meteor last May, in which weight-loss drugs become yet another tool women feel pressured to take in order to change their bodies. And of course, if this or any other administration wanted to do one simple thing to improve the health of citizens, hey, there’s always universal healthcare! Even before Trump The Sequel was on the horizon, it was clear that that was not gonna happen anytime soon, but let’s not lose sight of it as a long-term goal—way more effective, Tovar notes in that interview, than all the weight-loss drugs in the world. Soccer’s huge year: The 2024 NWSL season has officially come to a close, with the Orlando Pride bringing home the big trophy for the first time in club history. But aside from the win and this beautiful moment between Pride star Marta and her mother, the championship caps off a breakthrough year for women’s soccer. The NWSL championship was held in the newly opened CPKC Stadium, the world’s first stadium built specifically for women’s soccer. And 2024 is also the year of Michelle Kang’s record-shattering investment in the sport—the three-team owner gifted U.S. Soccer $30 million over the next five years. According to U.S. Soccer, that’s the largest philanthropic investment made to women's and girls’ soccer programs in the organization’s 111-year history. So not only is everyone watching women’s soccer, but everyone’s investing in it. Took them long enough.  MAY WE ALL FIND SOMEONE WHO LOOKS AT US THE WAY MARTA IS LOOKING AT THIS TROPHY. (VIA GETTY IMAGES) AND:
 WEEKEND READING (because the weekend starts tomorrow) 📚On “the happiest ending possible”: A horrifying mix-up during IVF created lasting trauma—but also an unshakeable bond between two families. (New York Times magazine) On exhaustion: After this year’s election, a large number of Black women organizers are thinking of taking a step back from their work. That could have unexpected consequences for the American political system. (NPR) On courage: When 12-year-old Taylor Cadle told police she was being sexually abused, they didn’t believe her. So she took the investigation into her own hands. (Mother Jones)  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Sarah McBride Will "Follow the Rules." Girl, Why?
  November 21, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, It’s been a difficult week for anyone following the news cycle. That could apply to every week this year, but these last few days have really had some extra bad umph in them. Please do something this weekend to catch your breath. In today’s newsletter, Bailey Wayne Hundl walks us through the ongoing bathroom battle between Rep. Sarah McBride and her GOP colleagues. Plus more trouble brewing in the land of Trump appointees and your weekend reading list. Inhaling and exhaling, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONYou gotta fight for your rights: As you may have heard, Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) announced a new policy yesterday: On Capitol Hill, only some women will be allowed to use the women’s restroom. The announcement follows the introduction by Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) of a bathroom bill targeting Sarah McBride, the first openly transgender person elected to serve in Congress. McBride responded to the policy on social media, writing, “I’m not here to fight about bathrooms…I will follow the rules as outlined by Speaker Johnson, even if I disagree with them.” And as a trans person reading this, I guess I’m just wondering…girl, why? Some have interpreted Rep. McBride’s response as a strategic refusal to be baited into a time-wasting debate. But I happen to believe that the fight for trans people to participate in public life is one that should be faced head-on. I used to work in churches; I’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of bullshit policies. And even if they only affected me, I always fought like hell against them—because I knew that if transphobes scored a win against me, they had a chance to do the same to anyone who came after me. Rep. McBride is not just accepting a loss for herself here. Every trans staffer on the Hill just lost the ability to use the restroom at work, and in fact, Rep. Mace has already filed a bill extending the policy to all bathrooms in federal buildings across the country. I want to be so clear: The people who should be fighting against this the hardest are McBride’s allies, on her behalf. And to their (middling) credit, several Democrats have spoken out against the policy—but, unlike the Republicans, they’re not doing anything. “But Bailey, what can they even do?” Something! Anything! McBride could use the women’s restroom anyway. Her allies could use the wrong bathroom in solidarity. Perhaps easiest of all, McBride or her allies could make a public announcement that their private office bathroom is open for any trans staffers to use. This is more important than ever at a time when Democratic leadership is considering dialing down their support for trans people (and some already have). I’m so sick of the learned helplessness Democrats seem to have adopted in the face of rising, unchecked hatred. The day after the election, I wrote about McBride’s win, saying, “It is nice to know that the next time a legislator in a room full of people suggests ‘hey, let’s kill the transes,’ someone will be in that room to say no.” It didn’t occur to me the strategy might be instead: “I may disagree with you killing us, but I will do nothing to stop it.” —Bailey Wayne Hundl AND:
 WEEKEND READING 📚On motherhood: Sometimes it's feral! Filmmaker Marielle Heller and her film Nightbitch give moms permission to lean into their inner animal. (The New Yorker) On survival: A new and painful word has entered the villa. “Broligarchy” is the collection of bros preparing to run the U.S. for the next four years. Here are some tips to make it through. (The Power, on Substack) On the hunger of belonging: An Armenian writer reflects on the kaleidoscopic meaning of her family’s mulukhiyah recipes. (Longreads)  FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
Is It a Privilege to Pee?
  November 19, 2024 Greetings, Meteor readers, Remember last week when I said we would be doing a special photos-only send of my Christmas sweater once I finished making it? Well, guess what? We are totally not doing that because we are serious news people and these are serious times, but if you want a little holly in your jolly, you may or may not find it here. In today’s newsletter, we’re talking about bathroom bullies in Congress, Matt Gaetz, and a win in Wyoming. Seriously serious, Shannon Melero  WHAT'S GOING ONIt’s a privilege to pee (apparently): When I first heard that Delaware lawmaker Sarah McBride had won her election, making her the first openly transgender person to serve in Congress, I turned to my roommate and said, “How long do you think we have until Republicans completely lose their shit?” As it turns out, not long at all. On Monday, South Carolina congresswoman Nancy Mace (R) introduced a resolution banning any members of Congress or House employees from “using single-sex facilities other than those corresponding to their biological sex.” When asked by reporters if the bill was targeting McBride specifically, she responded, “Yes and absolutely, and then some… I’m absolutely 100% gonna stand in the way of any man [sic] who wants to be in a women’s restroom, in our locker rooms, in our changing rooms.”  MCBRIDE AT THE CAPITOL (VIA GETTY) There’s been much ado lately about whether or not all women should be allowed in women’s restrooms, women’s locker rooms, women’s sports. But this conversation has never really been about restrooms. We are witnessing a debate on whether or not trans people should be allowed to exist in public life. If we were all in agreement on that point—if this public panic was truly about women’s safety or the sanctity of your 8th grade daughter’s Little League team—then this conversation would be a logistical one. Those in opposition would propose alternate solutions. They’d have an answer (any answer at all!) for where a grown-ass man with a full beard and a vagina should pee. But they’re not even considering the question. Nancy, if you really want women in Congress to be safer, I’d start focusing your energy on…well, just read the next item. —Bailey Wayne Hundl About that (alleged) abuser: Ever since last week’s bombshell that Matt Gaetz is Trump’s pick for Attorney General, the media has been asking why, exactly, anyone (even Trump) would nominate him. As a refresher: Not only is Gaetz patently unqualified for the job, deeply disliked by his Republican colleagues, and primed to carry out the retribution Trump has been threatening, he’s also been the subject of a House Ethics Committee investigation amid various accusations including sex trafficking and bribery. (Some details from that investigation have already leaked; WaPo reports that two women testified they were paid to have sex with Gaetz.) According to the New York Times, even Trump himself privately acknowledges Gaetz’s uphill struggle in winning the nomination. So the question remains: Why did he nominate this creep in the first place? We have to presume he knew what was in the House investigation and doesn’t care. But analysts suggest there may be something more nefarious at play: The kerfuffle around Gaetz draws attention away from Trump’s other dangerous choices, like anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., accused sex offender Pete Hegseth, or Putin darling Tulsi Gabbard. Gaetz makes them all seem less clownish in comparison. The plan may be to lower the bar for nominees, presenting so many extreme choices that the Senate can’t block all of them. So although it’s good news that Gaetz is far from a shoe-in, it’s unsettling that he might help pave the way for some equally abysmal government officials. (And if you too are unsettled, keep calling.) —Nona Willis Aronowitz AND:
 FOLLOW THE METEOR Thank you for reading The Meteor! Got this from a friend? Subscribe using their share code or sign up for your own copy, sent Tuesdays and Thursdays. |
