Schenken Suzanne O’Dea. From Suffrage to the Senate: An Encyclopedia of American Women in Politics (2 Volumes)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

This is bald censorship. The gag rule turns doctors into indoctrinators, and

patients into pawns. Planned Parenthood argued against the gag rule in the

Supreme Court last month. It remains to be seen if the Court will show common

sense and compassion, and overturn this obvious ploy to disrupt family planning

programs.

It’s frightening that the end of the 20th century so closely resembles the be-

ginning. Seventy-five years ago, the founders of the family planning movement

had to battle repressive crusades begun in the 19th century, crusades like that of

Anthony Comstock, the one-man vice squad who, in 1873, persuaded Congress

to label birth control “obscene.” In the first year the Comstock statute was in ef-

fect, Comstock himself confiscated 200,000 pictures and photos, 100,000 books,

5,000 decks of playing cards, 30,000 boxes of aphrodisiacs, and more than 60,000

of what were then referred to as “rubber articles.” I wonder how he fit all that into

his night table drawer!

Today, 120 years after his heyday, Comstock is back to haunt us, in the form

of Jesse Helms! In 18 years in the Senate, Mr. Helms has tried to erode personal

privacy almost as the Comstock statute did in 92 years!

The Supreme Court encouraged busybodies like Senator Helms. When it

handed down the Webster case, the court invited state legislators to make our pri-

vate decisions for us. The court declared that it doesn’t trust women with our own

choices. But legislators soon found themselves facing an angry American major-

ity, who want the government off the backs and out of the wombs of women! And

in case some politicians were still missing the point, pro-choice America spelled

it out for them last month on election day. Across the country, we remembered

who our friends are! We remembered to promote our values by voting our values,

the universal values of diversity, pluralism, and independence.

However proud we are of our election day victories, reproductive issues

should never make it to the ballot box in the first place. Abortion, contraception,

privacy, these are fundamental freedoms that should be off limits to lawmakers.

And we, the pro-choice majority, have the power to turn this debate around, to

remove it from the political arena. We must renew our determination to fight for

permanent protection for our freedoms, whatever it takes, for as long as it takes.

Your activism can help make that goal a reality. In fact, you can be more in-

fluential than many people, because you’re fortunate enough to work for a com-

pany that values activism. I was so impressed to learn about the policy on volun-

teerism here at Esprit. For an employer to take social change so seriously that they

encourage you to be activists on company time, that is truly extraordinary.

So I urge you, become activists on behalf of reproductive freedom, for your-

selves, for your loved ones, and for the millions of less fortunate women and men

who have no one else to speak on their behalf.

Now is the time to improve family communication about sexuality. Start

with your family! Now is the time to call for comprehensive sexuality education

in the schools, to help teach young people how to live healthy, responsible lives.

Now is the time to improve access to contraception for those who need it most,

the young and poor. Now is the time to insist on expanded research for better

birth control. The National Academy of Sciences reports that the U.S. lags

decades behind other nations in this area, with fewer options available, and no

concerted commitment to develop new ones.

Documents 799

Above all, now is the time to demand that our government leaders stay out

of our private matters. We must not rest until they recognize that the right to

make personal reproductive decisions is fundamental, inalienable, and non-ne-

gotiable. It is not contingent on age or circumstances or geography. It is not a

“single issue.” And it is not open to partisan debate!

America’s lawmakers must stop meddling in the lives of women and fami-

lies. Surely they have more important things to do, like housing the homeless,

feeding the hungry, and educating the ignorant. Like showing concern and com-

passion for the children already born. And like waging war on the root causes of

abortion, unintended pregnancy.

Reproductive freedom is in crisis. But realistic solutions are within our

reach, if we all work together. I know you may sometimes wonder how much dif-

ference one person’s efforts can make. Consider the phenomenon that meteorol-

ogists call the “Butterfly Effect”: A single butterfly stirs, deep in a forest. The mo-

tion of its wings makes tiny air currents. At just that moment, a passing swirl of

air happens to pick up those tiny currents, and they become a puff of breeze.

Then a momentary gust picks up that breeze and it becomes a gentle wind—and

so on, and so on, until, weeks later, the movement of that one butterfly at that one

moment changed the course of a tornado on the other side of the globe!

All of us in the universe are linked, over time, and over distance. One but-

terfly, one person, can make a difference. A big difference. So take wing, today.

And remember what Queen Victoria once said: “We are not interested in the pos-

sibilities of defeat!”

Delivered to an audience of 200–250 employees of Esprit de Corp, San Fran-

cisco, California, December 11, 1990. Reprinted by permission.

Abortion and Women’s Rights, Frederica Mathewes-Green

The abortion debate seems like an unresolvable conflict of rights: the right of

women to control their own bodies, the right of children to be born. Can one

both support women’s rights and oppose abortion?

Truly supporting women’s rights must involve telling the truth about abor-

tion and working for it to cease. Many years ago I felt differently; in college I ad-

vocated the repeal of abortion laws, and supported my friends who traveled for

out-of-state abortions. In those early days of feminism, women faced daunting

obstacles. The typical woman was thought to be charmingly silly, prone to having

parking lot fender-benders and then consoling herself with a new hat. Certainly

not someone who should run a corporation—perhaps someone who should not

even vote.

But the hurdles were not only political; we felt physically vulnerable, as rape

statistics rose and women’s bodies were exploited in advertising and entertain-

ment. The external world’s disparagement of our abilities was compounded by

the extra cruelty that our bodies were at risk as well, from violence without and

invasion within. For an unplanned pregnancy felt like an invader, an evil alien

bent on colonizing one’s body and destroying one’s plans. The first right must be

to keep one’s body safe, private, and healthy: without that, all other rights are

meaningless.

It is because I still believe so strongly in the right of a woman to protect her

body that I now oppose abortion. That right must begin when her body begins,

800 Documents

and it must be hers no matter where she lives—even if she lives in her mother’s

womb. The same holds true for her brother.

The average woman does not gain, but loses, when she has an abortion. She

loses, first, the hundreds of dollars in cash she must pay to receive the surgery.

Secondly, she must undergo a humiliating procedure, an invasion deeper than

rape, as the interior of her uterus is crudely vacuumed to remove every scrap of

life. Thirdly, she can lose her health. A woman’s body is a delicately balanced ecol-

ogy, not meant to have its natural, healthy processes disrupted by invasive

machinery.

The most devastating loss of all is the loss of her own child. Abortion rhet-

oric paints the unborn as a parasite, a lump. But it is in fact her own child, as

much like her as any child she will ever have, sharing her appearance, talents, and

family tree. In abortion, she offers her own child as a sacrifice for the right to con-

tinue her life, and it is a sacrifice that will haunt her. Many women grieve silently

after abortion, their sorrow ignored by a society that expects them to be grateful

for the “freedom’ to abort. A man who saw his wife gradually disintegrate after

her abortion asks, “What kind of trade-off is that: gain control of your body, lose

control of your mind?”

For all these losses, women gain nothing but the right to run in place. Abor-

tion doesn’t cure any illness; it doesn’t win any woman a raise. But in a culture

that treats pregnancy and child-rearing as impediments, it surgically adapts the

woman to fit in. If women are an oppressed group, they are the only such group

to require surgery in order to be equal. In Greek mythology, Procrustes was an ex-

acting host: if you were the wrong size for his bed, he would stretch or chop you

to fit. The abortion table is modern feminism’s Procrustean bed, one that, in a

hideous twist, the victims actually march in the streets to demand.

If we were to imagine a society that supports and respects women, we would

have to begin with preventing these unplanned pregnancies. Contraceptives fail,

and half of all aborting women admit they weren’t using them anyway. Thus, pre-

venting unplanned pregnancies will involve a return to sexual responsibility. This

means either avoiding sex in situations where a child cannot be welcomed, or be-

ing willing to be responsible for lives unintentionally conceived, perhaps by mak-

ing an adoption plan, entering a marriage, or making faithful child-support pay-

ments. Using contraceptives is no substitute for this responsibility, any more than

wearing a seat belt entitles one to speed.

Secondly, we need to make continuing a pregnancy and raising a child less

of a burden. Most agree that women should play a part in the public life of our

society; their talents and abilities are as valuable as men’s, and there is no reason

to restrict them from the employment sphere. But during the years that her chil-

dren are young, mother and child usually prefer to be together. If women are to

be free to take off these years in the middle of a career, they must have faithful,

responsible men who will support them. Both parents can also benefit from more

flexibility in the workplace: allowing parents of school-age children to set their

hours to coincide with the school day, for example, or enabling more workers to

escape the expenses of office, commute, and child care by working from home.

We also must welcome women back into the work force when they want to re-

turn, accounting their years at home as valuable training in management, educa-

tion, and negotiation skills.

Documents 801

Women’s rights are not in conflict with their own children’s rights; the ap-

pearance of such a conflict is a sign that something is wrong in society. When

women have the sexual respect and employment flexibility they need, they will no

longer seek as a substitute the bloody injustice of abortion.

From Sisterlife, the magazine of Feminists for Life. Reprinted by permission.

Statement to Feminists for Life of America, Rep. Helen Chenoweth, 1997

Thank you for inviting me to the 25th anniversary of Feminists for Life of Amer-

ica. This truly is a special evening.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate this group for their ef-

forts to seek true equality for all human beings. Your mission has been clear and

consistent and your voice is critical in our communities.

Twenty-three years ago, the Supreme Court removed a God-given, unalien-

able right from unborn babies, a right it has the duty to secure and protect. In do-

ing so, it elevated a “judge-made” right, the right of a person’s privacy, above the

God-given right to life.

It has always been my belief that unborn children should be cherished, and

abortion for the convenience of the mother is contrary to convictions that mean

a great deal. I believe the life of an unborn child is to be respected as truly as the

life of a new born.

As you know, our system of laws is based on the idea that people have cer-

tain God-given rights. Those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Those rights existed before laws were established. We must never forget this.

I believe that if the Supreme Court continues to uphold the wrong decision

made in Roe v. Wade, Congress should enact laws that would disallow abortion,

except in very extreme circumstances. At the very least, Congress should prohibit

the government from funding abortion. However, before we can pass laws for-

bidding abortion, we must change the dynamic of the debate by educating the

American public to favor the protection of life at its natural beginning—the point

of conception. I think that when all Americans, including many women who are

confused about this issue, begin to realize the serious ramifications of abortion,

they will strongly support the need to protect the sanctity of life.

I am happy to report that the House passed and I supported H.R. 1122, legis-

lation to ban a specific abortion procedure used in the second and third trimesters

of pregnancy. The vote to ban so-called partial-birth abortions was 295–136—

more than the two-thirds needed to override a promised veto from President Clin-

ton, and more than the bill garnered in three separate votes in 1995 and 1996. H.R.

1122 has exposed to the general public just what abortion is all about—the blatant

disregard and brutal destruction of human life—and it’s now up to the Senate.

Partial-birth abortion is cold, grizzly murder. This type of procedure has

been used on babies who are four-and-a-half months in the womb.

Partial-birth is not a legitimate medical procedure. Doctors at the Metro-

politan Medical clinic in New Jersey say that only a minuscule amount of the

1,500 partial-birth abortions they perform are for medical reasons.

As you may know leading abortion-rights advocates lied during debate over

“partial-birth abortions.” Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the Na-

tional Coalition of Abortion Providers, intentionally misled the public. He ad-

mittedly “lied through his teeth” in a November 1995 interview for ABC’s “Night-

802 Documents

line.” Ron Fitzsimmons felt that the truth about this gruesome procedure would

hinder the abortion rights campaign.

Since 1993, abortion supporters and opponents have been engaged in a vi-

cious public relations war over the procedure, with abortion foes using grisly il-

lustrations to tap Americans’ general discomfort with late term abortions.

My position in representing the people of Idaho has been guided by the

conviction that abortion is wrong and should only be considered in cases of crim-

inal rape, incest, or when the mother’s life is in imminent danger. I am commit-

ted do all I can to protect our unborn children.

We must continue to stand firm and ensure justice and equality for all hu-

man beings.

Again, thank you for this opportunity. This truly is an honor for me to be

here with you all this evening.

Address to the Feminists for Life of America 25th anniversary conference, April

26, 1997. Reprinted by permission.

So Much We Can Do: A Nation of Leaders, Gloria Feldt, 1998

“So much we can do” is today’s theme. I’ve subtitled my remarks: “A nation of

leaders,” because leaders are what we must be. All of us.

What is a leader?

Years ago, when I was in my first grown-up leadership role, a mentor of

mine defined the concept for me. She told me that a leader is anyone who gets

things done. All of us are leaders—each in our own way—if we get things done.

Of course, some leaders stand out.

Time magazine recently named Planned Parenthood founder Margaret

Sanger one of the 20 revolutionary leaders of the century.

What made Sanger a

revolutionary was her vision that women should have the opportunity to shape

the course and quality of their lives by choosing when and if they become parents.

Some Americans weren’t ready for Sanger’s vision.

Philosopher Arnold Schopenhauer observed that all truth goes through

three stages: First, it’s ridiculed, then it’s violently opposed, then it’s accepted as a

given. Sound familiar?

Today, 90 percent of American voters support family planning—it has be-

come one of our most cherished and supported ideals.

Sanger pioneered a rev-

olution in reproductive health care. It’s time for the revolution to surge into the

new millennium.

We must be the leaders who will raise awareness that reproductive health is

fundamental to women’s health, and that women’s health is essential to the health

of families, communities, even nations. I want to talk about barriers to that

awareness, highlighting approaches that enhance women’s health in the U.S. and

worldwide.

Why the emphasis on women’s health? Women are more than half the pop-

ulation; they’re the nation’s largest consumers of health care; and they spend 68

percent more in out-of-pocket health expenses than men do, primarily for repro-

ductive health care—such as birth control—that isn’t covered by their insurance

plans. Yet women traditionally have been marginalized by the legal, political, as

well as medical mainstream.

Such institutional neglect poses significant health risks to women—and by

Documents 803

extension, to millions of children and families who rely on women as primary

caregivers.

In contrast, Planned Parenthood and most institutional providers of repro-

ductive health care have always taken a more holistic, patient-centered approach

to women’s health. We’re guided by the belief that women’s health is determined

by the social, political, and economic context of their lives.

Certainly this belief was behind Sanger’s initial efforts to legalize birth con-

trol. And we’ve all reaped the benefits—a sharp reduction in pregnancy related

deaths in the U.S. and substantially lowered rates of maternal and infant mortal-

ity wherever people have access to family planning.

Moreover, the field of reproductive health has served as a harbinger of what

would occur in health care. Indeed, today’s vision of managed care—a system

that would provide coordinated care and emphasize prevention, self-care, educa-

tion, and consistent quality—is what reproductive health centers have been prac-

ticing since their inception.

In the search for new cost-effective health care, the lessons learned from

Sanger and our movement can help us to identify the barriers to a better future

and further define what we can do to overcome them.

Barrier 1: Politics

Put simply, women’s health cannot be separated from its political context.

Despite the legal right to make childbearing choices, women still confront leg-

islative barriers to exercising that right. Mandatory delays, restrictions on minors’

access—these restrictions are most devastating for those least able to fight back:

The young and the poor;

The geographically isolated;

Those uneducated about family planning;

And those whose local hospital just merged with the Catholic-run system

and no longer provides family planning or abortion.

If health care leaders and elected officials are serious about improving

women’s health, they must become more public in their support of reproductive

freedom. They must affirm—in unison and individually—the importance of

family planning, sex education, and reproductive choice. Their mission state-

ments, policies, and procedures must say so. Most of all, they must say so as pro-

fessionals who know what they’re talking about, and as responsible citizens.

Barrier 2: Censorship

The media bombards us with sex, yet most television stations refuse to air

contraceptive advertisements. Legislators champion “abstinence-only” programs,

but deny adequate funding for responsible, age-appropriate sex education. Even

some health care providers are reluctant to openly discuss sexual health issues

with their patients.

Young people, especially, suffer the consequences of these mixed messages.

They learn from popular culture that it’s glamorous to have sex. They aren’t

learning that it’s smart to plan for sex. PPFA has developed a remarkable video kit

for parents called “Talking About Sex.” It’s won a dozen national and even inter-

national awards. But it’s being subtly censored—not a single major catalogue or

video store will carry it.

804 Documents

No wonder the U.S. has the highest rates of teen pregnancy and sexually

transmitted infections in the developed world.

Educators, providers, and politicians need to take a leadership role in pro-

moting open and honest discussions about sexual issues. We must stop censoring

ourselves because we fear controversy. What are we afraid of? Honest, responsible

sex education in schools is supported by 82 percent of American voters.

We must help parents fulfill their role as the primary sex educators for their

children. People of all ages who seek reproductive health care should be encour-

aged to ask questions and should expect honest answers.

Barrier 3: Access

For too many Americans, access to reproductive health options is subject to

gender, age, income, and geography. Here too, there is so much we can do.

Through our services and our advocacy, we can ensure greater access to all

reproductive health options. We can create and promote new options that will

improve the health and well being of women, men, and their families. The health

care community can demonstrate its unified support for the nation’s family

planning program, Title X, without debilitating amendments.

Each year, Title X funding helps to prevent 1.3 million pregnancies and

more than 600,000 abortions.

And it saves money to boot! But year after year, Ti-

tle X is a favorite target of anti-choice forces that work relentlessly to eliminate it.

We can promote emergency contraception. Widespread use of emergency

contraception could prevent up to 2.5 million unintended pregnancies and a mil-

lion abortions each year.

But many women don’t know enough about emergency

contraception to request it. Practitioners are unfamiliar with it and do not discuss it

with their patients. Your committed advocacy and service provision can change that.

We can advocate for increased funding for reproductive health-related re-

search and clinical trials, including those for new methods of contraception. Re-

search funding for women’s health is generally inadequate, but funding for re-

productive health is abysmal. Indeed, despite bipartisan support in Congress for

doubling funding to the National Institutes of Health, NIH funding for contra-

ceptive research has remained flat, at $8 million, for a decade. By way of compar-

ison, of NIH’s current budget of more than $15 billion, more than $300 million

goes to diabetes research, more than $850 million is allocated for research on

heart disease, and $50 million is being spent to study alternative medicine.

We can educate health care providers about early medical and early surgical

abortion procedures and encourage greater use of them. These procedures can

give women more privacy and control over their decision, and they can be safer

and less stress-inducing experiences for women who choose to terminate an un-

intended pregnancy.

But access to services depends on the availability of providers, which brings

me to …

Barrier 4: Training

Many primary caregivers do not receive adequate training in the prevention or

management of unintended pregnancies and other reproductive health care needs:

Only 12 percent of ob/gyn residency programs routinely provide training

for first-trimester abortions.

Documents 805

86 percent of U.S. counties have no abortion services at all.

As older abortion providers retire—the average age is 60—the pool of

younger physicians to replace them becomes smaller and smaller.

The training gap extends to patient education services. One-third of women

at risk for an unplanned pregnancy say that their doctors never mentioned birth

control during their most recent visit. And half the women polled in a recent sur-

vey assume that they’re screened for sexually transmitted infections, when in fact

testing is optional and must be requested.

Clearly, what’s needed is better training for practitioners, with curricula that

emphasize all facets of reproductive health care. At the same time, practicing

health care providers must have opportunities to update their skills.

Politics. Censorship. Access. Training. There’s so much we can do to over-

come each of these barriers. But there’s a fifth barrier that encompasses all the

others … I alluded to it at the start of my talk.

Barrier 5

The stubborn perception of women as a “special population” when it comes

to health care. This distinction only contributes to segregation and diminish-

ment. It must be abandoned! Doing so will require a major attitude shift in the

way the American people think about, treat, and value women and children.

The health care community can take the first step by acknowledging that

women’s leadership can improve the way we provide health care in this country,

just as Sanger did so many years ago.

We need more women appointed to positions of authority. Women com-

prise more than 40 percent of all medical school students, less than 5 percent of

academic chairs. And only one-fourth of all medical school faculty are women.

We can further bolster women’s empowerment by encouraging their full

participation in decisions about their reproductive health. Providing girls espe-

cially with the information they need to make their own decisions and live their

own lives will help develop the next generation of women leaders.

Each of you leaders can facilitate the process by working toward a world in

which reproductive health care needs of all women and their families are met.

Together, we can overcome the five barriers. And we can use them as op-

portunities for building a world in which all women are acknowledged as moral

decision-makers for their reproductive choices. A world in which all women and

men have access to the reproductive health care they need to make healthy, re-

sponsible choices. And in which all children are welcomed joyfully by parents

prepared to care for them.

This was the world that birth control revolutionary Margaret Sanger envi-

sioned. The final transformation of that vision into reality is our challenge as a

nation of leaders in reproductive health. Let it also be our destiny.

Thank you.

Address to the Planned Parenthood of Maryland Women’s Health Conference,

printed by permission.

Isaacson, W. “Our Century and the Next One.” Time Magazine, April 13, 1998. p.70.

Lake Sosin Perry poll conducted for Planned Parenthood Federation of America,

Inc. 1996.

806 Documents

Lake Sosin Perry poll conducted for Planned Parenthood Federation of America,

Inc. 1997.

Kaeser, L. “Title X and the U.S. Family Planning Effort.” Issues in Brief, The Alan

Guttmacher Institute, 1997.

Glasier, A. & Baird, D. “The Effects of Self-Administering Emergency Contracep-

tion.” The New England Journal of Medicine 359, no. 1, July 2, 1998, p.1–4.

Havemann, J., “Crusading for Cash; Patient Groups Compete for Bigger Shares of

NIH’s Research Funding.” Washington Post, Dec. 15, 1998, p.Z10; Recer, Z.“Which Diseases

Get Studied? Report Suggests Vocal Interest Groups Get Funding.” Houston Chronicle, July

9, 1998. p. 4.

MacKay, H.T. & Mackay,A.P.“Abortion Training in Obstetrics and Gynecology Res-

idency Programs, in the United States.” Family Planning Perspectives 27, no. 3, May/June

1995, pp.112–115.

Henshaw, S.K. “Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States.” Family Plan-

ning Perspectives 30, no. 6, Nov./Dec. 1998, pp.263–270 & 287.

American Academy of Medical Colleges. “Increasing Women’s Leadership in Acad-

emic Medicine.” Academic Medicine 71, no. 7, 1996, pp.799–811.

Documents 807

Perspectives on Family and Community

Women’s roles as wives and mothers and the limits those roles placed on pursuing ca-

reers and other opportunities emerged as one of the issues that women began ques-

tioning in the 1960s. Betty Friedan identified the frustration many women felt and

labeled it “The Problem That Has No Name” in her 1963 book The Feminine Mys-

tique. Many women, including Friedan, argued that women should not have to

choose between having a family and having a career and that married partners could

share parenting responsibilities and support each other as they developed their work

lives.

Some women have not had the luxury of making the choices that suburban

housewives have had. Instead, cultural, economic, or other constraints have limited

their options and have demanded other decisions. The workshop resolutions of the

first National Chicana Conference articulate the limits that have been placed on

Chicanas by religious dogma and by the roles assigned to Chicana women within

their families and their communities. The resolutions call for a greater recognition of

Chicana’s full humanity as sexual beings, as partners in marriage, and as partici-

pants in the community.

African American Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children’s Defense

Fund, has been one of the most outspoken and respected advocates for children since

the 1970s. Her leadership has contributed to the passage of federal legislation to ben-

efit children and to the development of private programs for them. She believes that

the African American community must support its families and children, as she ex-

plained in her 1987 speech to the Congressional Black Caucus.

For the balance of the twentieth century, women’s roles in their families have

been an issue for both feminists and conservatives. Conservative leaders in the

1980s and 1990s sought to define the American family as a married man and

woman and their children, assigning responsibility for the family’s financial sup-

port to the husband and the sustenance of the family to the wife. As the result of di-

vorce, economic necessity, and other factors, fewer and fewer families fit conserva-

tives’ definition of family. One group of families in particular does not conform to

the definition: same sex partnerships with children. Gay couples and lesbian cou-

ples with children seek to have their partnerships and the families they create rec-

ognized, respected, and honored in the same ways that other kinds of families are.

Kate Kendall explains the ways her family and others like it are changing the defi-

nition of family.

The Problem That Has No Name, Betty Friedan, 1963

The problem lay buried, unspoken, for many years in the minds of American

women. It was a strange stirring, a sense of dissatisfaction, a yearning that women

suffered in the middle of the twentieth century in the United States. Each subur-

ban wife struggled with it alone. As she made the beds, shopped for groceries,

matched slipcover material, ate peanut butter sandwiches with her children,

chauffeured Cub Scouts and Brownies, lay beside her husband at night—she was

afraid to ask even of herself the silent question—“Is this all?”

For over fifteen years there was no word of this yearning in the millions of

words written about women, for women, in all the columns, books and articles by

experts telling women their role was to seek fulfillment as wives and mothers.

808 Documents