Blog Post 5: Taxation without Representation?

Evan Vucci                

Here in this photo, a moment is forever memorialized in which the President of the United States signs into effect the ‘global gag rule’, which places a threat on the head of every medical facility in the world that receives funding from the USA, that if they so much as mention the word ‘abortion’, they will lose their funding. There is a heavy irony in the fact that our male president is signing into effect a document which solely will affect women’s rights to their own bodies, while sitting in a room of (smirking) men. Although, with only four women on his cabinet, it's easy to explain why he is so often photographed only with men.

This event is reminiscent of an issue that set America on its path to freedom and independence. Every American child has heard the phrase ‘taxation without representation’ in their history class. They’ve heard tales of heroic soldiers revolting, and tearing themselves from the control of the tyrannical Great Britain, because they weren’t being allowed proper representation within the government. Systemic sexism is real, and despite the fact that legally women are allowed to be elected as representative figures, there is a tangible barrier preventing the ascension of powerful women in our society. Just observe the treatment of Hillary Clinton in this past presidential election and compare it with the treatment of her male colleagues. If we were to pay closer attention to other American elections, maybe we would see similar patterns arise as an explanation for the fact that 80% of congress is male, while only 50% of the country is male.

The interests of humans that live in the same area should not differ greatly by gender and race, but it has become apparent that what benefits one group of citizens greatly harms another. In this particular situation, it's hard to find a rational benefit that these men receive by stripping women of their reproductive healthcare. When you consider who this executive order satisfies, there is only one main group; religious people. Which is amusing, because is there not a section of our constitution that states that there must be separation between our church and state? No matter the motivation behind this executive order, the issue with our government is clear. Our representative government is out of balance, and something needs to be done to fix that.