Returning to Patriarchy - White, Male, Christian

In 1957 at the age of 22 Gloria Steinem found herself in London, pregnant and alone. She prevailed on a London physician, Dr. Sharpe, to give her an abortion. He agreed at considerable personal risk, asking only: “You must promise me two things. First, you will not tell anyone my name. Second, you will do what you want to do with your life.” In her 2022 memoir Steinem wrote this “Dear Dr. Sharpe, I believe you, who knew the law was unjust, would not mind if I

say this so long after your death: I’ve done the best I could with my life.”

As Jill Filopovic writes in her encomium to Gloria Steinem, it’s the countless women who deserve the chance Gloria Steinem had, to “shape their lives according to their own desires.

That is fundamentally what the feminist movement, and the reproductive rights movement, fights for.” Gloria Steinem helped launch the movement to fight for those rights. To read about her life and accomplishments, click below.

Click Here For More

It’s already clear that iconic MAGA patriarchs resent and want to eliminate the power that science has over the United States decision makers. Look at RFK, jr. deleting or ignoring what peer-reviewed science has to say about the relationship vaccines have with autism (no relationship, research says). Or look at Secretary of “War” Pete Hegseth, who believes that manly men and their massive and expensive weapons “trump” the expertly engineered drones developed by Ukraine – small and inexpensive -- that are defeating the Russian military.

So, it’s not surprising to learn that the administration, in the person of the Project 2025 author Rusell Vought, now head of the Office of Management and Budget, has proposed a new rule for federal financial assistance that would have a huge impact on American scientific research (and many other areas). The proposed rule would require that “a political appointee...review every discretionary grant to ensure it advances the president’s policy priorities....The proposal would also let the federal government terminate a grant at any time if it no longer advances federal agency priorities.” According to Rep. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, “subjecting research grants to a political loyalty test, rather than awarding funding based on true scientific merit, functionally eliminates this nation’s capacity to produce gold-standard independent research.” The Boston Globe concludes: “At a time when public trust in science is already low, increasing political interference will only further undermine confidence in the system, while eroding America’s scientific prowess in the world.” (1)

Federal rules give citizens a chance to express opposition to proposed rules. Go to the Events Calendar to take action. For more information about the dangers posed by this rule, and reasons why your comment is important, click the link below.

1. https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/06/26/opinion/scientific-grants-politics/

Click Here for more information