Introducing The Wic Program: Fill & Download for Free

The Black Panther Party did not invent the WIC program, per se. What the Party did was develop and introduce to black and other poor and oppressed communities what Huey P. Newton coined as ‘survival programs.’ These programs included free breakfast, food, medical clinic, shoes, ambulance, liberation schools, and other programs directed at enhancing and ensuring survival or oppressed people. WIC simply co-opted key programs, as the free breakfast for schoolchildren program, in a strategic effort to neutralize and destroy the Party and its influence.

This is a fascinating question, honestly.As a background, the Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced in Congress in 1923, just four years after the suffragette movement succeeded in getting the Nineteenth Amendment ratified that gave women the constitutional right to vote. It didn’t get through Congress and to the states until 1971, and went through a fairly substantial set of changes from its initial conceptions to the final draft.The arguments in feminist movements over the Equal Rights Amendment have largely been around whether the benefits of equal treatment outweigh the benefits of equitable treatment.Understand that in the 1920’s, there was a belief in the idea of “separate spheres,” or that women and men occupied different domains. Men were the masters of the external sphere - the workers, the breadwinners, the labor and business, while women were the masters of the domestic sphere - the mothers and caregivers and heads of households.But also understand that at the time, there were numerous laws on the books in multiple states that legally made women the property of their husbands, prohibited them from owning property, and made divorce almost impossible for women to seek but allowed men to obtain one easily.Initially, the amendment was championed largely by middle-class women, who stood the most to gain from it. The amendment would end many of these laws around property, divorce, and employment that were barriers to women becoming successful and wealthy outside of marrying into it.Leaders of the women’s rights movement, such as Alice Paul of the National Woman’s Party, believed that the right to vote, while an important step, were concerned that even though they had the right to vote, it would be essentially meaningless if discriminatory practices against women continued.But there was pushback from working-class women right away. There was concern that if women were required to be treated equally to men that it would invalidate laws against making women do heavy lifting or maximum hour laws for working moms. If the amendment went through, it could abolish protections for women such as maternity laws. Eleanor Roosevelt lead New Deal Democrats in this view.The first attempts at equal treatment laws were passed in deeply progressive Wisconsin in 1921, and used a model for the proposal of a nationwide constitutional amendment expanding the concept. Wisconsin had always been quite progressive. It’s 1846 initial proposed state constitution included the explicit right for women to own property, a radical notion at the time, and fell just short of giving women the right to vote. These provisions ultimately failed before Wisconsin became an official State in 1848, but the traction they gained was remarkable for the time.The 1921 Wisconsin equal rights law sought to balance the concerns of the working-class women and the middle-class women by enshrining equal treatment on the basis of sex, except for "the special protection and privileges which they now enjoy for the general welfare."Similar language was later included in a rider to the Equal Rights Amendment proposed in Congress in 1950 and 1953 by Arizona Senator Carl Hayden, in an effort to make the ERA more appealing. However, the more hardline equality faction saw this as negating the whole purpose of the ERA in the first place, and so the amendment continued to fail in the House. Even the support of popular president Dwight Eisenhower and the adoption of the ERA as a plank of the Republican Party platform as early as 1940 was not enough to secure its passage through Congress.(As an aside, it’s almost a bit fascinating to consider that it was liberal Northern Democrats that opposed the idea and conservative Southern Democrats and moderate to conservative Republicans who championed it, isn’t it?)By the 1960’s and the women’s liberation movement, sentiment of the labor class began to change towards the ERA. President Kennedy came out in support of it and formed a blue ribbon commission to study the matter, appointing none other than Eleanor Roosevelt to run it. The commission concluded that the 14th Amendment was probably sufficient to cover the matter if the Supreme Court adopted sex as a “suspect classification.” However, the commission did manage to generate traction for an equal pay law, which was passed and signed into law in 1963.More protections for women were put into the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, especially under Title VII. However, women’s rights groups quickly were disenchanted with the law and felt that it was not well-enforced, and in 1966, the National Organization for Women, or NOW, was formed in protest of this.It was ultimately NOW and its political activism that finally got the Equal Rights Amendment out of committee and passed on the floor of the House in 1970, and after the 91st Congress failed to get it through the Senate, NOW pushed again in the 92nd Congress and won passage in both the House and the Senate in 1972.The major opposition to the ERA after its initial congressional passage was almost entirely led by a woman named Phyllis Schlafly.Schlafly herself is a fascinating and complicated figure. Born Phyllis Stewart, she was raised staunchly Catholic during the Great Depression. However, her father was a machinist and inventor, and faced significant unemployment challenges. Though he was not a shiftless layabout, and was granted a patent in 1944 for a rotary engine design, he was not able to support the family during the Depression. Rather, it was her mother, Odile Stewart, the daughter of a local prominent attorney, who kept the family from starving through the Depression.Phyllis’ mother and mother’s family highly valued education, and worked hard to encourage Phyllis and her sister to graduate high school and attend higher education.Phyllis was a bright child, and a hardworking one. She put herself through St. Louis’ Washington University and later Harvard’s sister institution Radcliffe College for a master’s degree, earning her graduate degree at just 22 years old. While attending college and graduate school during World War II, she earned money by testing machine guns, working as ballistics gunner and technician at an ammunition factory. After the war, she returned to a more traditional women’s role as a teacher at a private St. Louis all-girls school.After she graduated from Radcliffe, Phyllis found a job with the American Enterprise Institution and later joined the successful congressional campaign of Claude Bakewell.Likely through her church and mother’s family, Phyllis met Fred Schlafly, Jr., a successful corporate attorney from a prominent local St. Louis family. They were married in 1949.It almost seems ironic that given her experiences as a child with a breadwinning mother and her education and opportunities Phyllis was given that she would favor conservative and restrictive policies towards women. However, Phyllis’ conservative Catholic upbringing and family strongly valued strict gender roles.Phyllis became heavily involved in Republican politics through the 1950’s and brought a conservative Catholic perspective to her participation. She billed herself as a “moral conservative,” and was bitterly opposed to liberal Republicans such as Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon.But Phyllis also fought for segregation and continued racial discrimination, praised the John Birch Society, believed that communism was a national security threat and supported Senator Joseph McCarthy’s investigations in Congress, and described atomic weapons as “a marvelous gift given to our country by a wise God.” She believed that men were supposed to dominate women and that marital rape did not exist because, and I quote, “that’s what marriage is all about, I don’t know if maybe these girls missed sex ed.”After the defeat of Barry Goldwater in the 1964 presidential election, Phyllis became convinced that conservatives didn’t lose elections because their views were unpopular, but rather because of “secret kingmakers,” pro-business Republicans and globalists who were corrupt and controlled the world through corrupt deals to advance a liberal agenda.In various books, a syndicated newspaper column, three unsuccessful campaigns for Congress, a monthly newsletter she edited, and as a regular speaker at conservative rallies, Schlafly championed a return to traditional gender roles and the idea of those separate spheres. She berated the idea of the “liberated woman,” and denounced the progressive reforms for women’s rights.Yet, she herself was hardly the model of the traditional housewife. Though she had six children, Phyllis was incredibly active politically and earned a law degree in 1978 from Washington University School of Law.Schlafly was vocally opposed to the Equal Rights Amendment and cited several reasons.First, she reasoned, it would allow women to be drafted into the military. This was perhaps the single most impactful argument to popular sentiment. The public overwhelmingly believed that women should be exempted from the draft, and the suggestion that the ERA would force them into war was shocking to most.Second, Schlafly adopted the earlier feminist criticism that it would end many privileges women enjoyed, such as dependent wife status for Social Security, separate bathrooms, and suggested that it would force women into the workplace rather than allowing it to be a choice, while simultaneously undermining workplace protections specific to women. She argued that the ERA would force women’s-only colleges to admit men. In Schlafly’s view, it was far better for women to not be treated equally, because they were in fact treated better than men.The third prong of Schlafly’s attack on the ERA was that it would destroy the heterosexual nuclear family and that this would destroy the moral fabric of society. She argued that it would end alimony in divorces, a particularly hot-button issue as states were adopting no-fault divorce and ending the presumption that children remain with their mothers in divorce unless they were unfit. She also argued that it would open the door to same-sex marriage, also a deeply unpopular idea at the time.Lastly, Schlafly’s conservative Catholic stance on abortion became her final basis for opposing the Equal Rights Amendment. She argued that because it required men and women to be treated equally, it would enshrine Roe v. Wade forever, create universal abortion rights, and mandate the government to provide and pay for abortions.People found these arguments compelling. Middle-class women started to abandon the ERA because of the arguments that they would lose various privileges, particularly in divorce, Social Security, education, and homemaker expectations as a social role. Working-class women picked up their earlier criticism that the ERA would erode workplace protections specific to women. Religious conservatives, particularly conservative Catholics, evangelicals, and Mormons, rallied to the anti-abortion arguments. Many remaining holdouts were convinced by the draft argument.By the 1982 deadline for ratification, Schlafly convinced five states that had already ratified the Equal Rights Amendment to rescind their ratification, and by the deadline for its approval by the states, only thirty-five had done so, short of the required 3/4ths majority necessary.Today, many of these same arguments still stand.Chiefly in favor of the ERA are the arguments that women are still underpaid compared to men and face discrimination on the basis of gender even with Supreme Court precedents holding gender to be a suspect classification subject to intermediate scrutiny.Proponents of the ERA also argue that without the ERA, there is no explicit prohibition on sex discrimination in the Constitution and it’s really just a matter of the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause to cover it. The Court could theoretically undo the entire framework around protected classifications or decide to no longer apply heightened scrutiny to gender-discrimination issues whenever it chooses. Adoption of the ERA would make it more difficult for those trying to undo the progress of the 20th century to do so through the courts.There is some legitimate concern here; the present Supreme Court is more conservative and has signaled that it is willing to chip away at a number of the progressive decisions of the Warren and Burger courts of the mid-20th century. However, there’s also question as to whether the ERA as currently drafted would enshrine the protections that are presently in place.Lastly, supporters of the ERA argue that it would bring the United States in line with the rest of the international community when it comes to human rights. The right to be free of discrimination on the basis of sex is enshrined in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, and most developed nations include legal protections against sex discrimination. While this may not be a particularly substantive argument, it’s not meaningless.Additionally, twenty-five states have adopted state constitutional amendments that are similar to the Equal Rights Amendments, and others have adopted stronger equal pay laws or civil rights laws that include prohibitions on sex discrimination. The adoption of the ERA would provide a uniform floor for protections and bring the states in line with each other, avoiding the current patchwork of laws from state to state.Chiefly against the ERA are many of the same arguments that Phyllis Schlafly made since the 1970’s.Opponents argue that the ERA would prohibit any differences in the law between men and women, even when it would make sense to do so based on biological differences. Opponents of the ERA are often vague on specifically what laws make sense based on biological differences, however, that do not essentially hearken back to an era where women were considered unable to own property or make decisions because they were inherently, biologically irrational. Thus, there seems to be something of a benevolent paternalism bias to this argument more than actual data.Opponents argue that it would create universal abortion rights and mandate government sponsorship of abortion.This is a mixed bag. There are several states that have adopted language similar or identical to the ERA that do not have state-provided or funded abortion and their state courts have upheld this. There are others which have. It’s difficult to see the present federal Supreme Court finding that the language of the ERA, if ratified, provides an affirmative right to an abortion or mandates government funding of abortion.Opponents argue that it would end a number of beneficial programs for women, particularly maternity and pregnancy accommodations, the WIC program, and exemption from the draft.This is also a mixed bag, but probably less likely than the Eagle Forum would suggest. Maternity and pregnancy protections would not likely violate equal treatment because if men were subject to the same conditions, they would be treated the same. That men by nature of biology may not be subject to the same conditions may be relevant, but with advances in how gender is physiologically treated, this may change. If a person’s sex is determined solely by birth, which conservatives that oppose the ERA generally believe, then the present framework could potentially exclude a transgender woman who, by nature of a possible uterine transplant, could become pregnant. A child was born to a woman who received a uterine transplant in 2018 in a remarkable display of medical science, so it’s not an absurd notion.Additionally, the WIC program is already available to foster parents and single fathers, so this is a non-issue.Significantly, per the draft, the ERA says that equality of rights under the law cannot be denied on the basis of sex. Whether or not this applies to the draft is an open question right now, and a Texas district court judge recently ruled that a male-only draft violates the 14th Amendment. I have a feeling that the Supreme Court is probably not going to accept that judge’s reasoning, actually. The Supreme Court has said it doesn’t violate the 5th Amendment on due process, but specifically determined that men and women are not similarly situated. Given how the ERA is set forth, I don’t see their analysis on equal rights being different.More pragmatically, since the 1980’s, the military has gone to a fully professional, all-volunteer basis, that does admit women. Also, just because a woman is drafted would not automatically decide in what capacity that woman might serve. There is no guarantee that a woman, if drafted, will be automatically shoved up to the front.Because of this, the concerns about the ERA putting women in harm’s way are probably unfounded, even setting aside the benevolent paternalism of this concern.Opponents also argue that the ERA would transfer legislative power from the states to the federal government on a range of issues ranging from incarceration of prisoners to family law issues to sex crime laws to insurance, because Section 2 grants Congress the power to enforce the amendment by necessary legislation.This argument is absolutely wrong and bullshit. There are several amendments that provide this specific language and have to because of a Supreme Court decision that basically says if those magic words are not in there, Congress is not empowered to act. Nobody would argue that this precise language in the 13th, 14th, or 15th Amendments has rendered the states powerless in any of these areas because the 14th Amendment’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of race.Opponents argue that it would prohibit separate-gendered bathrooms, locker rooms, jails, hospital rooms, etc. This argument suggests that based on Brown v. Board of Education, separate is inherently unequal and therefore where people must be treated equally, separate accommodations are against the Constitution.On the surface, this appears to be one of the more compelling legal arguments. There is a case working its way through the federal court system right now that could determine the legality of separate bathrooms and bathroom bills. However, no court has so far, under the existing equal protection framework which does take into account gender, ordered an end to gender-segregated facilities.However, more than that, this argument is also built on a fair amount of fear, Victorian sexualization, and heterodoxy.Proponents of strict gender construction often favor segregated bathrooms and strict adherence to these based on the fear that a man (seemingly always a man) will “pretend” to be transgender in order to use a bathroom to sexually assault women. In reality, a transgender person is more likely to be assaulted for using the “wrong” facilities.Proponents of strict gender construction also seem to have a complete fascination with sexualizing many daily activities, and then creating a strict moral code to them. This is, in fact, not a longstanding human tradition. Taboos on nudity are not universal, and in many cases, fairly recent. There were scores of co-ed swimming programs, including at the YMCA and even in public schools, well into the 20th century that had men and women swimming together naked. And yet, the moral fabric of society did not break down. Unisex bathrooms have been present for decades and the world has not collapsed.Gender-segregated locker rooms are predicated on a uniform belief in heterosexuality and that sexual assaults only occur between males and females. Yet, as many victims of sexual assault can tell you, this is incredibly dangerous thinking. Sexual assault in the military, particularly the Navy, is by no means heterosexual only, and heterodoxy around sexual assault led to a long history of ignoring serious and ongoing assaults until recently.Even if the ERA would actually prohibit gender-segregated facilities, which there is only a thin argument that it would do, it would probably simply make much more sense (and be substantially healthier to children) if we normalized respectful behaviors in those situations, rather than assuming that gender-segregation alone solves any of these problems (as it clearly doesn’t.)The final argument that is generally put forward by opponents of the ERA is an old one: that women would be subject to disadvantages in family law cases through the loss of presumptions that they should be the custodial parent of joint children, a presumption of alimony paid from the former husband, a presumption of child support, and others.This argument really no longer can hold any water. Since the 1970’s, virtually every state has adopted a no-fault divorce and updated its presumptions to provide more gender equality and the sky has not fallen. A single father is now presumed just as fit as a single mother, and this is a good thing. The prior framework was very much based around a benevolent paternalism and often screwed men over; see the landmark film (and case it was based on,) Kramer v. Kramer. An objective framework for child and spousal support based on parenting time and number of overnights, ability to pay, relative incomes, and more is simply more equitable across the board for both genders. The ERA would do nothing to change the existing family law framework other than to perhaps get some states that are dragging their heels on this kind of reform up to date with modern legal understanding.There are two arguments that likely do have significant merit to them.First, the ERA’s deadline has come and gone and that ratification would have at best to be approved by Congress again.As for the deadline for passage, the Constitution is silent on this issue. It’s possible the Supreme Court could find that Congress can put those contingencies in place. It’s equally possible it might not. This one is really legally up in the air.But second, there is the argument that it’s redundant. This is perhaps one of the most meritorious, actually. I’ll let Ainsley Hayes explain.This is a valid criticism, I believe. I would argue in response that because the Supreme Court could undo the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to cover discrimination based on sex (it’s not specifically in there,) it’s probably a good idea to have some backup here, but under our present framework, I concede that it would be redundant.So, there you have it, the history and arguments behind the Equal Rights Amendment.Mostly Standard Addendum and Disclaimer: read this before you comment.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, et cetera and BNBR violation and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Doing the same to others will result in the same treatment.Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.Getting cute with me about my commenting rules and how my answer doesn’t follow my rules and blah, blah, whine, blah is getting old. Stay on topic or you’ll get to watch the debate from the outside.Same with whining about these rules and something something free speech and censorship.If you want to argue and you’re not sure how to not be a dick about it, just post a picture of a cute baby animal instead, all right? Your displeasure and disagreement will be duly noted. Pinkie swear.If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes. I’ll just delete your comment and probably block you, and frankly, I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.Debate responsibly.

A baby should not have cereals or other solid foods until at least four months of age with the ideal current recommendation to introduce solids being at age six months. The infant’s pediatrician will provide guidance on what is best.Introducing cereal too early presents many risks, such as allergies, choking, stomach problems and malnutrition from the infant not eating enough breast milk or formula because he or she has filled up with the less nutritious solid foods.The most affordable way to feed a baby is to breastfeed, but if this is not possible or simply for individual reasons not the mother’s choice, the expense will be for formula, not for the small amount of solids the baby will eat each day once solids start. Fortunately fancy, expensive baby foods are not necessary and the baby can eat small amounts of mashed up foods that can be prepared at home, once the doctor gives the go-ahead. Usually, these foods are introduced in tiny amounts, one food at a time, and if the baby tolerates them, after a few days a new food is tried. So we are talking about a tablespoon or a quarter of a cup of food to start with a day, not likely to be a major expense even if you buy the best rice cereal out there.Formula is expensive. In the United States the WIC program and food stamps are available to help purchase formula. It is important that the baby have a special formula until the age of one-year if not breastfeeding, so the concern should be about providing this vital food.Of course, if the mother is breastfeeding, then what matters most is getting the right food in her body.