Should the CCP target China’s richest 1 per cent?

17 May 2022

Author: Yvette To, CityU

Pursuing ‘common prosperity’ is one of the latest strategic goals of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This new initiative aims to reduce social inequality through primary income distribution, government-led redistribution efforts such as regulation, and social philanthropy. While the concept is not new, some of the necessary policies are.

Responding to an increasing urban–rural gap, former president Jiang Zemin emphasised the need to ‘raise the proportion of the middle-income group and increase the income of the low-income group’ to achieve common prosperity back in 2002. President Xi Jinping reinvoked the concept of common prosperity in August 2021. Some see the idea of common prosperity as embedded in China’s socialist ideology — but from a governance perspective, the new policy direction is considered timely and pragmatic as income and wealth gaps in China have worsened due to the pandemic.

So far, the CCP’s new initiative of reducing wealth gaps has put Chinese tech giants under the spotlight. These companies have become some of the fastest growing in China, with their founders among China’s richest.

When Xi stressed the need to ‘reasonably regulate excessively high incomes’ to narrow social inequality, China’s tech billionaires, one by one, pledged additional corporate and personal donations to common prosperity programmes. Alibaba and Tencent each pledged 100 billion RMB (US$15.5 billion) towards various social programmes. They were followed by Pinduoduo with a 10 billion RMB (US$1.5 billion) donation to help rural residents in China. Zhang Yiming, founder of Bytedance, donated 500 million RMB (US$77 million) to set up an education fund in his home city. Wang Xing, founder of Meituan, also donated US$370 million through his own charitable foundation.

Social philanthropy aids wealth distribution by encouraging the rich to return more to society. Over the past few years, social philanthropy in China had been led by domestic tech giants even before the latest government pressure set in. In addition to establishing dedicated charitable funds, internet companies offer their platforms for mass charitable events such as Tencent’s annual ‘99 Giving Day’. Jack Ma of Alibaba, Ma Huateng of Tencent and Zhang Yiming of ByteDance were among the top five philanthropists in China in 2011.

By international standards, Chinese tech companies do not trail their foreign counterparts in philanthropy efforts. Take their response to COVID-19 as an example. Statistics from Foundation Maps show that Bytedance, the parent company of TikTok, is second only to Alphabet/Google in philanthropic contributions to COVID-19 relief. In fact, Bytedance contributed a higher percentage (0.47 per cent) of company revenues during 2020–2021, compared with Alphabet/Google at 0.32 per cent. Alibaba, with combined revenues amounting to just one-third of Amazon’s, committed US$90 million more than Amazon to global programmes relating to the pandemic.

Now, under a new political environment, Chinese tech billionaires are pledging even more funds to alleviate poverty in China. For the CCP, putting pressure on tech companies and entrepreneurs to scale up donations is a convenient tactic for the time being, but this should not divert policymakers’ attention from other important measures that are critical to improving social equality.

What China needs is more than just a continuous flow of donations, but effective programmes that target new causes of wealth gaps.

For example, given that children in China are entitled to nine years of free education, access to primary education is less a problem now than access to quality education in rural areas. Poor resource allocation and management often hinders the delivery of quality education in villages. In this respect, Jack Ma’s Rural Teacher Award and Rural Principal Award — launched in 2015 and 2016 respectively — have contributed to reducing urban–rural inequality. The awards recognise outstanding teaching and school management in villages and provide funding to support ongoing professional development of rural teachers.

The proliferation of corporate-led common prosperity funds — in part a response to political pressure — is welcome. After all, it is the implementation of dedicated projects and an efficient allocation of funds to tackle real causes of inequality that will promise effective outcomes for poverty alleviation.

Still, relying on the goodwill of the wealthy will only partially contribute to social equality. Previous scandals of government-organised non-governmental organisations have, to some extent, undermined public confidence in charitable organisations. Increasing the transparency of these organisations to reduce public scepticism of social philanthropy is needed.

In the long run, China should address the fundamental causes of urban–rural disparities and wealth gaps. In addition to redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, policies that target primary income distribution, reform the tax system and broaden social benefits available to migrant workers will be necessary.

The 300 million migrant workers in China constitute a sizeable population of low-income individuals who are deprived of adequate social benefits. Reforming hukou — the Chinese household registration system — will have positive impacts on their social mobility. Extending the property tax scheme for luxury properties (a pilot scheme that is running in Shanghai and Chongqing) and introducing an inheritance tax (which is common in many advanced economies) will be further steps to reduce wealth gaps.

Yvette To is a Postdoc in the Department of Asian and International Studies at the City University of Hong Kong.

 Marcos victory in the Philippines reflects a new arc of old politics in Southeast Asia

16 May 2022

Author: Editorial Board, ANU

The last time a Marcos claimed victory in a Philippine presidential election, it was on the back of a victory so tainted by fraud it sparked a democratic revolution. Thirty-six years later, voters in Southeast Asia’s second-biggest democracy have delivered Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr to the presidential palace from which he fled along with his father into exile. Those who fought for democracy in the 1986 ‘people power’ revolution, and who fought to protect the achievements of the movement since then, are understandably shellshocked.

In our first lead article this week, Ronald Holmes writes that ‘Bongbong’s victory testifies to an effective rebranding of his persona’ that ‘glorified martial law and refuted narratives about [his] family’s ill-gotten wealth’. As Ferdinand Sr’s dictatorship recedes into history, many voters seem to have bought Ferdinand Jr’s line that it was a golden era of progress and stability.

Polls showed a pro-Marcos wave across the Philippines’ yawning social divides, with clear majorities of both rich and poor voters backing him.  Bongbong will be the first post-‘people power’ president to win with an outright majority of votes, meaning that ‘he takes on the presidency with an unequivocal mandate that even outgoing president Rodrigo Duterte did not have’, says Holmes.

Indeed, the result is also a vote for extending the Duterte agenda. Voters overwhelmingly told pollsters that they wanted continuity. With Duterte’s estranged vice president Leni Robredo the only viable vehicle for change, and former ally and boxing champ Manny Pacquiao having fallen out with the president’s camp, Marcos was the default choice for Duterte supporters.

Contemporary grievances and partisan loyalties explain the result as much as historical memories. But there is nonetheless an immense symbolism in the return of the Marcos family to the presidency in the Philippines, one that chimes with a politics of nostalgia — or perhaps amnesia — that’s bubbling up in other parts of Southeast Asia.

As Francis Hutchinson writes in our second lead article this week, while ‘long characterised by “stability” and excessive concentration of power, Malaysia’s politics have become fluid and unpredictable’ in the aftermath of the defeat of Najib Razak’s government amid a massive corruption scandal in 2018, and the collapse of the reformist Pakatan Harapan government that replaced it. ‘Political institutions have since been in flux’, says Hutchinson, and the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) — in which former prime minister Najib remains influential — ‘is hell-bent on returning to what it sees as its rightful position at the apex of national power’.

As Hutchinson sees it, Malaysia’s ‘grand old party is selling its old formula — Malay dominance and traditional patronage politics’. Mounting hip pocket concerns and weariness of elite infighting are embedding  a yearning among some voters for the stability and largesse of Najib’s leadership. The result is that the former prime minister, who’s appealing a conviction for corruption offences, is enjoying a resurgence in popularity.

In this there are echoes of the situation in Indonesia, where nostalgia for the Soeharto era — when corruption was kept out of sight, and policy mistakes were easier to paper over — is endemic though certainly not universal. That nostalgia has found an electoral outlet in the serial candidacies of Prabowo Subianto, who as a former army general defended his then-father in law’s regime to the bitter end, and who has appealed explicitly to disaffection with democracy. Prabowo remains a leading candidate in the upcoming race to succeed President Joko Widodo, who himself has subordinated human rights and institutional reform to stability and development.

A broad-brush analysis of these trends in Southeast Asia’s ‘big three’ electoral regimes suggests that the benign technocracy of a previous generation of leaders — exemplified by Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Benigno Aquino III and Abdullah Ahmad Badawi — is firmly out of fashion. In its place there is the growing prestige of what the sociologist Marco Garrido, writing about the Duterte-era Philippines, has called the ‘disciplinary state’, in which elected leaders honour the principle of electoral competition while ‘“disciplin[ing]” democracy by circumscribing its scope with respect to certain freedoms’.

In some ways this represents the rehabilitation of the Cold War-era bargain in which political freedom was foregone, or ostensibly delayed, for the sake of nation-building and economic growth. The difference now is that this ‘deal’ is not presented to a disenfranchised public as a fait accompli — it’s receiving endorsement at the ballot box and in opinion polls.

The principle of legitimation through free and fair elections has been entrenched. But it is increasingly decoupled from anti-corruption policy agendas (as voters shrug at the graft incidental to delivering the public goods they demand) and regard for the liberal rights that form the ‘soft tissue’ of democracy (as these instead come to be seen as vectors for the illegitimate influence of special interests).

By leaving institutional reforms unaddressed, this kind of politics contains the seeds of its own future crisis. In the Philippines, strengthening the central government’s capacity to deliver public goods, at the expense of local powerbrokers’ ability to direct state resources for their own political ends, is a critical development challenge. Indonesia’s endemic corruption is a major barrier to achieving the growth required to create jobs for the young people entering the workforce. And Malaysia will underachieve economically until it winds back the system of race-based affirmative action that politicians use as a conduit for clientelist politics.

In any case, Western leaders who have invested heavily in the rhetoric of democracy as a plank of the ‘rules-based order’ need to have a plan for dealing with the growing crop of leaders in Southeast Asia and elsewhere in the Asia Pacific, who don’t fit neatly into the categories of dictator or democrat.

The EAF Editorial Board is located in the Crawford School of Public Policy, College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University.

Despite huge victory, Bongbong underwhelms

15 May 2022

Author: Ronald D Holmes, De La Salle University

A Philippine commentator described Ferdinand ‘Bongbong’ Marcos Jr’s victory as overwhelming. This is apt based on the current vote count. Bongbong will be the first president after the 1986 political transition to be elected by a majority of voters in a plurality electoral system. He takes on the presidency with an unequivocal mandate that even outgoing president Rodrigo Duterte did not have.

Bongbong’s victory testifies to an effective rebranding of his persona. The rebranding was actively prosecuted on social media and started with stories in various social media platforms that glorified martial law and refuted narratives about the family’s ill-gotten wealth. The rebranding was abetted by Duterte’s decision to bury Bongbong’s father — the late dictator — in the National Heroes’ Cemetery. This affirmed the imagined heroism of the dead despot, a historical distortion Marcos Sr peddled in the early 1960s as he prepared to vie for the presidency in 1965.

Bongbong successfully projected himself as an anti-populist with his oft-repeated message of unity that inspired hope among a public that hankered for a recovery after a debilitating pandemic.

The alliance between the Dutertes and the Marcoses could also be credited for the Bongbong landslide. While Duterte called Bongbong a weak leader and spoiled child in November 2016, the scathing critique did not dent Bongbong’s voting support as he was already paired up at the time with his running mate Sara Duterte, Rodrigo’s daughter. Bongbong’s pre-election support reached majority in December 2021.

Bongbong’s support significantly increased across all sub-national areas, but the largest increase was in the major island that is regarded as Duterte country — Mindanao. From 8 per cent of Mindanawon voters expressing support for him in September 2021; that soared to 64 per cent in December 2021. Bongbong’s partnership with Sara proved extremely beneficial, as he was able to sustain such level of support in Mindanao until election day, and even in the Bisayan-speaking Central Visayas region where the Duterte name continues to draw substantial support.

Bongbong and Sara’s victory can be attributed to the weakness of the opposition. The weakness of the opposition, and Bongbong’s main challenger outgoing vice president Leni Robredo, were partly Duterte’s doing. The populist Duterte constantly hit on the alleged deficiencies and abuses of the immediate past administration of the late president, Benigno S Aquino III. Duterte called Robredo incompetent and unfit to be president. Robredo herself has been the main target of disinformation across her term and in the months leading up to the election.

The unwillingness of the opposition to counter false narratives contributed to the decline in the support for it. Robredo’s approval and trust ratings incrementally declined within her term due to the attacks from Duterte and his legion of social media influencers. Robredo admitted this herself first in 2019, and most recently when she said: ‘When I started my term, I was too naive about how powerful social media was or how powerful social media was going to be, that I did not do enough’.

But the biggest failure of the mainstream opposition was its inability to pass institutional reforms when they had the chance, in particular under Aquino III. Such reforms include the legislation of a freedom of information act, the political party development act and the decriminalisation of libel.

Several days after the 9 May 2022 elections, attention has focused on the decisions that the presumptive president, Bongbong will take. So far, he has announced that his running mate Sara has accepted the education portfolio, even though she preferred to be appointed defence secretary.

In his conversation with US President Joe Biden, Bongbong assured him that the Philippines would always hold the United States in ‘high regard as friend, an ally and a partner’. While the congratulatory message of Chinese president Xi Jinping was hand-delivered by the Chinese ambassador, Bongbong has yet to respond publicly.

Unlike his running mate Sara, who has urged her supporters to reach out to those who backed her opponents, Bongbong has not uttered a word that affirms his commitment to fulfill his campaign message of unity. The delay in constituting his cabinet and in issuing key policy pronouncements reflects how unprepared Bongbong is to lead the country. Despite an overwhelming victory, Bongbong underwhelms.

Ronald D Holmes is Professor of Political Science and Development Studies at De La Salle University and President of Pulse Asia Research Inc. The views expressed in this article are solely the views of the author and the author alone.

UFOs: US Congress to hold first public hearing into phenomena in decades

14 May, 2022 06:00 PM

UFO sightings have for many decades been dismissed as the preserve of conspiracy theorists and crackpots. Photo / Getty Images

Daily Telegraph UK

By Nick Allen

Congress is to hold the first public hearing in decades into UFO sightings next week in the latest serious attempt by the US government to establish the origins of the phenomena.

Pentagon intelligence officials will be grilled on what they know in the first session of its kind in more than half a century.

Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff, chairman of the House intelligence committee, said: "This will give the public an opportunity to hear directly from subject matter experts, and leaders in the intelligence community, on one of the greatest mysteries of our time."

He said the UFO hearing would "break the cycle of excessive secrecy and speculation with truth and transparency".

Last year, Avril Haines, the director of national intelligence who oversees President Joe Biden's daily intelligence briefing, released a much-anticipated report into UFOs.

It examined 144 instances of "unidentified aerial phenomena" since 2004, some reported by US military pilots, but could only explain one of them with confidence. The report did not rule out the potential that China or Russia had developed super-advanced technology or extraterrestrial origins. It did confirm that the sightings were not linked to clandestine US military tests.

UFO sightings have for many decades been dismissed as the preserve of conspiracy theorists and crackpots.

But the issue is being taken increasingly seriously by politicians and the Pentagon, particularly in relation to sightings by military personnel, and near training bases.

In 2017 it was revealed that the Pentagon had been running a secret UFO unit, funded with US$22 million (NZ$35 million) in "black ops money" from Congress. At the time, Luis Elizondo, the intelligence officer who ran it, told The Sunday Telegraph: "It's pretty clear this is not us [the US]."

In the wake of last year's inconclusive report, the Pentagon has now established a new team called the Airborne Object Identification and Management Synchronisation Group (AOIMSG).

The witnesses at the hearing will include the intelligence official overseeing the new task force, Ronald Moultrie, who is Biden's Under Secretary of Defence for Intelligence and Security.

Also giving evidence will be Scott Bray, the deputy director of naval intelligence.

They will be questioned by the House intelligence committee's subcommittee on counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and counterproliferation.

Congressman Andre Carson, the Democrat chairman of the subcommittee, said: "The American people expect and deserve their leaders in government and intelligence to seriously evaluate and respond to any potential national security risks, especially those we do not fully understand."

It will be the first congressional hearing on UFOs since 1969 when the "Project Blue Book" investigation into the phenomena ended.

John Kirby, the Pentagon spokesman, said it was a "very important matter" and added: "We are absolutely committed to being as transparent as we can with the American people."

He said: "We're going to try to make sure we have a better process for identifying these phenomena, analysing that information in a more proactive, coordinated way than it's been done in the past.

"And we also are doing what we need to do to mitigate any safety issues, as many of these phenomena have been sighted in training ranges and in training environments. And so, we're very much concerned about safety of flight."

He added: "It's been sort of ad hoc in the past, in terms of a pilot here and a pilot there seeing something, and the reporting procedures haven't been consistent. So, what we're trying to do with this group [AOIMSG] is get together a process here."

Read More

• UFO sighting: US officials tried to stop Australians ...
• UFO chaser claims photo taken from International Space ...
• Declassified documents: UFO sightings over Kaikoura ...
• Mystery remains 50 years after Hawke's Bay UFO visit ...
• Pentagon UFO report: US unable to explain more than ...
• Australian brothers say they witnessed two UFOs in ...

When dolphins played with a snake

Why were Bolivian river dolphins swimming around with a large predatory snake in their mouths? 'There are so many questions,' one researcher said


PUBLISHED : 15 MAY 2022 
NEWSPAPER SECTION: SUNDAY SPOTLIGHT
WRITER: CAROLYN  WILKE

A photo of Bolivian river dolphins toying with a Beni anaconda in August 2021. 

OMAR M. ENTIAUSPE NETO et al viA NYT

In August 2021, a research team was documenting biodiversity near the Tijamuchi River in Bolivia when they saw some animals that are typically difficult to observe: Bolivian river dolphins.

Just seeing them with their heads above the river was extraordinary, said Steffen Reichle, a biologist at the Noel Kempff Mercado Museum of Natural History in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, and a member of the team. Researchers knew something was up and started snapping photos.

Only after scrolling through the images the team captured did the researchers realise the dolphins were dangling an anaconda around as they swam.

The researchers described what they saw in the journal Ecology last month. While dolphins in captivity and the wild are known for being playful, the surprising behaviour of the Bolivian cetaceans seems like a new frontier in frolicking among the aquatic mammals, and some scientists still aren't sure what to think about what the team observed.

Mr Reichle said Bolivian river dolphins usually swim below the surface, and sightings often catch only a fin or a tail. But some of the six animals they saw kept their heads above the turbid water for an unusually long time.

At one point, two male dolphins seemingly swam in sync, a snake held by the animals' mouths. Anacondas are semiaquatic and can hold their breaths for some time. But because the snake was handled for at least seven minutes, much of this submerged, it probably perished.

"I don't think that the snake had a very good time," Mr Reichle said.

Because of how long this interaction went on, the team suspects play -- not predation. Bolivia's native Beni anacondas are apex predators. Other than a single case of cannibalism, researchers haven't documented the serpents being eaten. In this case, the team did not see where the snake ended up.

With how lively dolphins are, "playing seems like a pretty good answer", said Omar Entiauspe-Neto, one of the paper's authors and a taxonomist at Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil.

Some of the dolphins gathered were juveniles, which could suggest another dimension of the interaction: The adults may have been teaching the youngsters about anacondas or showing them a hunting technique.

But Sonja Wild, a behavioural ecologist at the Max Planck Institute of Animal Behaviour in Germany, who was not part of the study, was sceptical that the interaction was purposely instructive. It's more plausible the juveniles were observing because they were curious, she said.

And because anacondas are strong, Ms Wild wondered if the snake was injured or dead before the dolphins got to it. Of all the things one could pick up, "this seems a little extraordinary", she said.

"This is the first time I've heard of dolphins playing with a large snake," added Ms Wild, who has observed bottlenose dolphins using shells as tools.

Something else from the photos was notable -- the male dolphins' erect penises.

"It could have been sexually stimulating for them," said Diana Reiss, a marine mammal scientist and cognitive psychologist at Hunter College in New York who was not involved with the study. "It could have been something to rub on."

The aroused males could have been having a sexual romp with each other before the snake became entangled.

Researchers who study dolphins are well aware of the animals' sexual proclivities, such as rubbing their genitals on toys or inserting their penises into objects, animate and inanimate. They often use their penises for tactile interactions, Prof Reiss said. She has even observed male bottlenose dolphins trying to penetrate the blowhole of a rescued pilot whale in an aquarium. It's possible, she added, that the males tried to insert their penises into the snake.

"There are so many questions," Mr Entiauspe-Neto said.

A lot more is known about ocean-dwelling dolphins than riverine ones, in part because it's harder to see what's going on when river water is muddy. Even though they're limited in nature, "these observations are always valuable", Prof Reiss said. "It's giving us another glimpse of the lives of these animals, particularly in the wild."

Whatever happened in this animal encounter, it's not the stuff of children's storybooks.

Healthcare Unions Must Take Up the Fight for Abortion Rights

Healthcare unions must take up the fight to make sure everyone has a right to free, safe, legal abortion on demand. Abortion is healthcare and healthcare is a human right.

Mike Pappas May 12, 2022
Luigi Morris

The recent leak of a draft Supreme Court decision confirmed what many have expected for some time: the Supreme Court plans to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Democrats, meanwhile, have proven time and time again they will not protect the right to abortion. As a healthcare worker who previously worked in a primary care clinic providing abortion care, I know that abortion care is life-saving health care, and it should be available to all as a human right.

The only way to protect this right is by mobilizing in the streets and in our workplaces. Healthcare worker unions throughout the country must mobilize their members to fight back against this decision.

As we have written,


This monumental decision will make abortion illegal or all but illegal in dozens of states across the country as soon as it is announced, making access to an abortion almost impossible for tens of millions of people overnight. This decision is an attack on all people who can get pregnant; in many states they will be forced into illegal and unsafe abortions, expensive trips out of state, or be forced to give birth. Working people, working people of color, and poor people in particular, who often do not have the means to travel several hundred miles to reach a clinic willing to perform an abortion will be most affected.

“Abortion is healthcare and healthcare is a human right!” This refrain, chanted in the streets just last week, cannot be more accurate. As healthcare workers who strive to protect the heath of our patients, a threat to abortion rights is a threat to patient health, especially to the health of the poor and oppressed.

However, while some unions, like Starbucks Workers United, have put out statements condemning the leaked decision, healthcare worker unions — many of whom literally provide abortions — have been silent. Unions like National Nurses United (NNU) — the largest nurses union in the nation — or the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) — the largest union of healthcare workers — have been silent on this issue. The union I was previously part of, the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR), which represents thousands of resident physicians around the country, has also been largely silent. There has not been so much as a statement condemning the recently leaked decision — just a single retweet from the SEIU account — and certainly not even close to any call for members of these unions to act.

It is absolutely inexcusable that the largest healthcare unions in the U.S. have been completely absent. High school students are walking out of classrooms and actions are being called by various organizations because they all understand the threat that overturning Roe v. Wade poses. So why have the major institutions of labor in healthcare not come to the same conclusion?

While unions in the U.S. have historically focused on issues restricted to their workplaces, such as increased wages, shorter work hours, or improved working conditions, labor organizations have helped to win the right to abortion internationally. Polish workers went on strike in 2016 pressuring the government to vote down an abortion ban. Unions in Ireland launched a coalition in 2016 to help win the right to abortion and same-sex marriage in 2019. Rank-and-file union members organized actions as part of the “green wave” in Argentina to help win the right to abortion in 2020. Workers organizations have been at the forefront internationally to win these rights. We should be seeing similar mobilizations in the U.S.

As Left Voice member Olivia Wood wrote in October,


Because of its controversial nature, the bureaucrats in union leadership are unlikely to take up this fight without pressure from the rank and file, and even then, they will likely work to contain the militancy of their members. This makes it even more important for workers to take matters into their own hands, remember that we are the union, and stick up for our fellow workers, both in our own workplaces and across the country. “Workers of the world unite” is not simply a slogan: it’s a call to action and a strategic imperative.

Since the leaderships of the healthcare unions clearly won’t take these steps, rank-and-file healthcare workers should force their unions to mobilize. To be clear, unions using their power to fight for the right to abortion would not mean giving a donation here or there toward a “pro-choice” politician’s campaign or calling members to “vote next cycle.” It means using the vast resources these unions possess to actually mobilize and support members who take action.

It also means workers potentially calling for work actions or strikes to protect the right to abortion, and healthcare workers organizing workplace committees to discuss how to protect abortion rights. For example, each healthcare center could have committees discussing and organizing around how healthcare workers could take tangible steps to defend the right to abortion. In states where abortion would be immediately outlawed as a result of this decision, it would also mean healthcare workers actively defying abortion ban laws and keeping clinics open. It would be crucial for healthcare worker unions to support and back these efforts in whatever ways possible.

Mobilizations obviously should not be limited to healthcare sectors. Healthcare worker unions should fight across labor sectors with, for example, teachers’ unions and other labor unions. As workers, we make the world run and our power lies in our workplaces and our power to shut shit down. This is how fighting labor institutions could take a role in tangibly interevening to protect the right to abortion — as part of a mass movement to protect abortion rights.

Winning the right to safe, legal abortion on demand will come from the streets and workplaces — not the offices of capitalist politicians. Healthcare labor institutions have so far been quiet, but they should take up this fight head on today.



Mike Pappas is an activist and medical doctor working in New York City.

'I'm outraged': Thousands support abortion rights protests across the US

MAY 15, 2022 

 

Share on TwitterShare on Facebook

• Share via emailShare on ReddiShare on Linked In

Thousands of abortion rights supporters are protesting across the United States today, starting what organisers said would be "a summer of rage" if the US Supreme Court overturns the Roe vs Wade case that legalised abortion nationwide.

Abortion rights activists march on Constitution Avenue to the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, today. Photo: Supplied/ AFP - Jose Luis Magana

Here are some voices from the rallies in New York, Washington DC, Atlanta and Los Angeles:

Gabriela Fraga, 35, held a "pregnant by choice" sign at New York's rally. Fraga, who was born and raised in a Catholic family in Peru, is 32 weeks pregnant and said she has always been very pro-choice.

"I believe in the fundamental right of all people who are able of bearing children to make decisions. That belief has only further solidified going through pregnancy myself," she said.

"I only became pregnant when I became pregnant because I had the conditions - material, emotional, psychological - to allow for a good life for this child that I'm very excited to have."

Jillian Larussa, 27, said the right to abortion should be made into law, rather than resting on the legal precedent set by the decision in the 1973 Roe vs Wade case: "because this is healthcare."

"This isn't the end," she said as she marched over the Brooklyn Bridge. "This is gonna happen for gay marriage, it's gonna happen for contraceptives, so it's important we hit the streets and we fight against it before we lose rights."

What you need to know: Why US abortion laws could be changed by Supreme Court ruling

Elizabeth Leek, a 75-year-old massage therapist, was holding a sign that read "Grandma says respect women's choices" and wearing a flower crown at the "Bans Off Our Bodies" rally in front of the Washington Monument.

Leek said she almost died from an unsafe abortion when she was 18, before Roe vs Wade. Now she feels "outrage" and is scared for her six grandchildren. She said she is fighting for them to have healthcare and bodily autonomy.

"It breaks my heart," she said of the court's draft opinion. But she still felt buoyed by the crowd of people, old and young, who were out to protest on Saturday.

"It's momentum," she said.

Brita Van Rossum, a 62-year-old landscape designer, had come to the Washington DC protest from her home in the suburbs of Philadelphia.

She said it was her first time protesting specifically for abortion rights.

"I'm outraged," she said. "If you can't choose whether you want to have a baby, if that's not a fundamental right, then I don't know what is."

Patricia Fulton, a 52-year-old graphic designer from the Atlanta suburb of Roswell, said, "I am angry and I'm going to stay angry."

Fulton, who was at the rally across from Georgia's statehouse, said the US Democratic Party needed to be stronger if Roe vs Wade were to be defended.

"There's public outrage, but we need more leadership from those who can do something," Fulton said.

Malcolm DeCesare, 34, an intensive care nurse from New York who was at the rally across from Los Angeles' City Hall, said that, as a healthcare worker, "I understand and believe very strongly that we are only ever able to ban safe abortions.

"By banning abortion, or even proposing to ban abortion, we are relegating a whole population of women to the Dark Ages - we are putting them at great risk," he said.

Shannon Flaherty, a 52-year-old who was studying nursing after years as a homemaker, was attending the Los Angeles protest with her 16-year-old daughter Piper and two of her daughter's friends.

She said she and her own mother "have lived with men making decisions for our bodies and our lives for a long, long time and it's got to end.'"

Piper said the draft decision was a sign that history was moving in reverse.

"It just makes me really angry that people want to control this, especially when there are so many other things that people could be doing to save people's lives like overturning the death penalty or providing free healthcare," she said.

-Reuters

Workers and Labor Groups Stand Up for Abortion Rights

Workers turned out for abortion rights across the country on a national day of action. We need a large, organized labor movement in support of the fight for reproductive justice.

Left Voice May 14, 2022

Image: Luigi Morris

Today, workers and unions across the country turned out for a national day of action in support of abortion. Representing UFT, HCT, Starbucks Workers United, RWDSU, NYSNA, and others, workers marched in protests across the country carrying signs of reproductive rights and cross-industry solidarity.

We need a large, mass movement of the working class to rise up for the right to free, safe abortion on the demand. These groups of organized workers are just the beginning.