Let Them Eat Soccer

By ELIO GASPARI

Published: June 25, 2013

SÃO PAULO, Brazil — SINCE early June, protests that began out of anger over public transit fare increases have spread across Brazil, filling the streets of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and dozens of other cities with hundreds of thousands of demonstrators. On June 13, the police cracked down violently and the protests mushroomed. Finally, after seven days, the government of President Dilma Rousseff pushed governors and mayors to cancel the fare increases they had presented as the inevitable price of a modern market economy.

Bratislav Milenkovic

The cost of public transportation for a family living in Rio or São Paulo is, proportionally, higher than in New York or Paris. Yet, the service delivered is humiliating. In 2009, security guards of a train company that services the Rio metropolitan area used whips on passengers during rush hour crowding. The mayor of Rio has proudly declared that during his tenure not a cent is being spent on subsidizing public transportation. Yet he was able to find $560 million of public money to spend on the renovation of the iconic Maracanã stadium to meet the requirements of next year’s FIFA World Cup.

At a time when federal, state and municipal taxes eat up 36 percent of Brazil’s gross domestic product without providing public services minimally compatible with what is expected from government, at least $13 billion is being poured into 12 soccer stadiums to host the World Cup. An additional $12 billion is being spent on projects to host the2016 Summer Olympics in Rio.

But delusionary modernism has its pitfalls. The same day the first protests started in São Paulo, the city’s mayor and the state’s governor happened to be in Paris trying to land yet another global mega event — the 2020 World’s Fair. A few days later, when the protesters were climbing atop the Congress building in Brasília, a landmark of Oscar Niemeyer’s architecture, the president of the House of Representatives was visiting Moscow.

The lavish lifestyle of high-ranking public servants (generous travel expenses, official cars with drivers, offensively large paychecks) has become a rallying point for the protests.

It is as if there are two Brazils. One is expected to shout — but only in stadiums. The other does as it pleases.

When Ms. Rousseff attended a Confederations Cup soccer match between Brazil and Japan last week, she was incensed when waiters started serving Champagne and caviar in the V.I.P. section. After she complained, popcorn soon materialized for the luminaries. Notwithstanding her protest, Ms. Rousseff was soundly booed by the rest of the crowd.

In today’s Brazil, there is too much caviar for the elite — and the people have noticed. That realization, along with outrage at widespread corruption, has helped the current outcry cross class, party and generational lines.

In 2005, the government of Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, then Brazil’s president, was caught in a vast cash-for-vote scandal. The plot, which became known as “mensalão,” because the bribe payments were made monthly, shattered expectations. Mr. da Silva’s government had been widely trusted to lead a fight against corruption. Suddenly, a former president of his Workers’ Party and his own chief of staff were caught up in a scandal.

Almost eight long years later, Brazil’s Supreme Court sentenced 25 of the accused. Their sentences ranged from 2 to 40 years in prison. But none are actually behind bars yet, and legal appeals could continue for another couple of years.

To grasp the significance of this, Americans need only contemplate their rage if the Watergate scandal had dragged on, enabling Richard M. Nixon to finish his second term, help elect a handpicked successor from his own party in 1976 and then watch all those indicted, tried and convicted walk free eight years later.

When the riot police in São Paulo fired rubber bullets and tear-gas bombs at protesters, they probably thought they were dealing with a couple of thousand worthless rioters. How could a national protest against bus-fare increases averaging less than 10 cents possibly be representative of modern Brazil, where people drive cars and, whenever possible, go shopping in Miami or New York?

But all who witnessed that very first act of police aggression know it was deliberate. It was gratuitous. And it was a colossal mistake.

In the face of growing protests, governors and mayors — who at first were intransigent — rushed to lower the transportation rates. Ms. Rousseff praised the shouting crowds, then conferred with Mr. da Silva and his spin doctors. Last week, in a much anticipated address to the nation, she declared that the voice of the streets was being heard and announced programs to promote better education and health care. On Monday, she took a more personal step, meeting with the leaders of the movement that triggered the protests. Her immediate aim is to survive the final week of the Confederations Cup without a major catastrophe in the streets.

As the protests have intensified, there have been cases of looting and vandalism. But the great majority of the protesters aren’t rioters, nor should the rioters be mistaken for protesters.

Indeed, it would be safe to assume that the percentage of violent troublemakers among the protesters is smaller than the number of thieves among the negotiators of government contracts.

Elio Gaspari, a columnist for the Brazilian newspapers O Globo and Folha de São Paulo, is the author of a multivolume history of Brazil’s military dictatorship.

The NY Times

Plebiscito no Uruguai contrário a lei do aborto não atinge participação mínima

Plebiscito no Uruguai contrário a lei do aborto não atinge participação mínima

24 de junho de 2013

Embora tenham votado todos os possíveis pré-candidatos a presidência da República,  a consulta popular no país só alcançou 8,65% (226.653 pessoas) dos votantes necessários para convocar o plebiscito. Segundo a Corte Eleitoral, são necessários, no mínimo 25% (655.000 pessoas) dos eleitores.

A oposição, especialmente o Partido Nacional e o Partido Colorado, queriam submeter ao plebiscito a desaprovação da Lei de Interrupção Voluntária da Gravidez (IVE, em espanhol). Pelo projeto a mulher pode abortar com até 12 semanas de gestação. O Uruguai foi o quarto país da América Latina e do Caribe a permitir o processo, depois de Cuba, Guiana e Guiana Francesa.

Antes da interromper a gravidez, a mulher passa por uma equipe de saúde multidisciplinar, que a informa sobre os riscos, as alternativas e os programas de apoio à maternidade e de adoção. Depois disso, a mulher tem um prazo de cinco dias para tomar uma decisão.

A lei também prevê a interrupção da gravidez até 14 semanas de gestação em alguns casos como quando há risco de saúde para a mulher, quando há má formação do feto que comprometa a vida após o nascimento, ou ainda quando a gravidez for decorrente de estupro.

A ONG feminista Mysu (“Mujer y Salud en Uruguay”), uma das promovedoras da IVE, comemorou o resultado do plebiscito no seu portal na internet. “Por não ter conseguido as adesões necessárias para habilitar o plebiscito indica claramente que a sociedade uruguaia está disposta a avançar”. A presidente da Frente Ampla, Monica Xavier, também comemorou o resultado das consulta. Todavia, quando questionado, o possível pré-candidato da FA Tabaré Vazquez, sobre seu posicionamento contrário a IVE, respondeu: “Há certas coisas que não se deve medir o custo político, essa é uma delas”.

Segundo o La Nacion, uma pesquisa realizada aponta que 46% são favoráveis a IVE, 38% contrários e 16% não tem opinião. A pesquisa está no site de Cifra, na internet, foi realizado telefonicamente a 1.008 entrevistados.

Fonte:

La diaria (http://ladiaria.com.uy/articulo/2013/6/aborto/)

Opinions recap: Giant step for gay marriage

Giving tens of thousands of already married same-sex couples in a growing list of states fully equal access to all benefits that the federal  government provides for those who are wed, a closely divided Supreme Court struck down a 1996 law on the theory that it was aggressively anti-gay.  And, by a different combination of Justices, the Court came close to assuring that millions of still-single gays and lesbians in California will very soon be able to legally marry.

Even while the Court firmly insisted that it was not saying anything about the authority of states to deny marital rights to same-sex partners — as thirty states still do — the obvious practical and political impact of two five-to-four decisions was to advance the cause of equality for homosexuals everywhere in the country, perhaps further than it had ever gone in more than four decades of gay activism.

Justice Kennedy announces DOMA opinion (Art Lien)

In fact, the rulings were issued just two days short of the forty-fourth anniversary of the famous Stonewall riots, the first uprising of homosexuals to assert their claims to equality in America, outside a bar in New York’s Greenwich Village.  Those riots are regarded as the dawning of the gay rights movement.

And the decisions emerged exactly on the tenth anniversary of the Court’s historic decision in Lawrence v. Texas, declaring a constitutional right of privacy in the intimate relations of gays and lesbians — a decision that the Court majority cited on Wednesday in affirming the dignity of committed homosexual couples.

Here, in summary, is what the Court did — and did not do — on same-sex marriage on the final day of its 2012-13 Term:

** It ruled unconstitutional the Defense of Marriage Act’s Section 3, which defines marriage for purposes of one thousand federal laws and multitudes of official regulations as the union of one man and one woman only — a definition that excludes probably millions of already-married same-sex couples from any of those benefits or opportunities.  “DOMA,” the Court majority said caustically, ”writes inequality into the entire U.S. Code.”

** It decided that sponsors of California’s “Proposition 8,” adopted by the state’s voters in an election almost five years ago, did not have a legal right to be in the Supreme Court or in a federal appeals court to try to defend that measure from constitutional attack.  That is likely to have the early impact of putting into final effect a San Francisco federal judge’s 2010 decision striking down Proposition 8 under the U.S. Constitution.   Some 18,000 California same-sex couples already had been married when they had a brief chance to do so as the issue developed in that state, but now millions are likely to gain the right to marry when the judge’s ruling is implemented by state officials.  Happening perhaps in just a few weeks, that would make California the fourteenth — and largest — state to permit such marriages (along with Washington, D.C.).

** It declared, in quite explicit terms, that it was not deciding at this point whether the Constitution guarantees gays and lesbians a right to marry or whether the Constitution forbids states’ bans on such marriages.  That will leave the promoters of marriage equality to continue with their efforts, in state legislatures and in lower courts, to try to win the right one more state at a time.   The Court itself has a chance to take up that basic issue, as early as tomorrow, in a pair of new cases — from Arizona and Nevada — but it may not yet be ready to do so.

** And the Court did not spell out a new constitutional test for courts to use in judging new laws or other government actions that treat homosexuals less favorably than other people in similar settings and factual contexts.   Although DOMA’s benefits ban was nullified under the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of legal equality, the majority opinion did not sort out explicitly which level of judicial review — in escalating toughness — is supposed to be used in gay rights cases.  In fact, the test that was applied this time appeared to be notably indistinct.

With the demise of the Defense of Marriage Act’s benefits ban in Section 3, for legally married gays and lesbians, the Court immediately — even if inadvertently — gave rise to a situation in which couples living in states that will not allow them to marry because they are homosexuals will still be able to qualify for federal benefits, many of which are handed out or managed by state governments.

But the ruling did not do anything explicitly about another section of DOMA — Section 2, which gives the states the right to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states.  That thus raised the prospect that a same-sex couple married in one of the states now allowing such unions could face obstacles to their marital rights when they moved into states that still do not recognize their unions.  This might be a particular problem for already-married gay couples serving in the military, who often have to move from state to state.

Although Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., dissented from the ruling in the DOMA case, he went to special lengths in his opinion in that case to apply the states’ rights language that Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s majority opinion had employed in justifying the nullification of Section 3.

Roberts wrote, borrowing words from the Kennedy opinion: “While ‘the state’s power in defining the marital relation is of central relevance’ to the majority’s decision to strike down DOMA here, that power will come into play on the other side of the board in future cases about the constitutionality of state marriage definitions.  So too will be concerns for state diversity and sovereignty that weighs against DOMA’s constitutionality in this case.”

The Court, the Chief Justice added, “may in the future have to resolve challenges to state marriage definitions affecting same-sex couples.”  His remarks about the majority arguments on states’ rights in this field seemed to be telegraphing his views on the basic definition of marriage — and an implied suggestion that lower courts might be interested in following.

While much of the disagreement among the Justices played out most vividly in the ruling on DOMA, the dispute in the other decision on Wednesday was comparatively muted.  Even so, that decision — finding no right by backers of California’s “Proposition 8″ to be in court to defend it — did establish firmly a new principle of constitutional law.

That holding was that, when a state’s voters have approved new legislation or a new state constitutional amendment, and the state’s own officials refuse to defend it in court, the sponsors of the ballot measure will not be allowed to stand in for the state as the measure’s defenders.

The Chief Justice, who wrote the majority opinion in that five-to-four ruling, declared: “We have never before upheld the standing of a private party to defend the constitutionality of a state statute when state officials have chosen not to.  We decline to do so for the first time here.”

The lack of any defenders of “Proposition 8″ led the Court to order the Ninth Circuit Court (which had nullified the measure) to dismiss the appeal that the sponsors had pursued in the Circuit Court.  In procedural terms, that dismissal will start a series of steps in lower courts that will determine just when California’s large population of gays and lesbians could gain a full right to marry.

The case will first make a stop in the Ninth Circuit, which must obey the Court’s order to dismiss the backers’ appeal.  That would leave standing the August 2010 decision by now-retired U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker of San Francisco, striking down the measure on a broad constitutional premise of equality and due process.   Judge Walker’s order against enforcing “Proposition 8″ thus would appear to go into effect once the case physically landed back in the District Court where he had sat, unless the measure’s backers can find some legal method to try to narrow its scope.

Absent such a narrowing, the Walker decision would require the top officials in California — the governor and attorney general — to apply the decision and to order county clerks across the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.  While the order also applies only to two counties’ clerks — in Alameda and Los Angeles — all clerks in California are likely to get orders to grant such licenses.

One of the ironies of the demise of the defense of ”Proposition 8″ in the Supreme Court’s procedural ruling on “standing” was that this case had been put together explicitly to be an ultimate test of a constitutional right to equal marriage for homosexuals — a test that ultimately the Supreme Court would settle.   In the end, the Court did not pass upon that issue, but appeared to have cleared the way for gays and lesbians to marry in that state, when whatever legal maneuvering remains reaches its end.

SCOTUSblog

Facebook likes organ donors

by Xavier Symons | 23 Jun 2013 | US researchers have published a paper documenting the merits of Facebook in promoting organ donation. The study indicated that the addition of an 'organ donor status' to the Facebook profile page  gave a 21-fold boost to the number of people who registered themselves as organ donors in a single day. Facebook introduced its organ donor status program last May and the response was dramatic. Researchers looked at data from online motor vehicle registration websites and Facebook on May 1, 2012, the day Facebook enabled the organ donation option. In total, 57,451 updated their profiles to include their organ donor status. There were 13,012 new online organ registrations across the US, meaning there was a 21-fold increase from the average 616 daily registrations the first day of the program. Over the next 12 days, the number of registrations decreased slightly, but it was still two times higher than the average daily rate by the end of the study period. The study comes just days after a Sarah Murnaghan successfully sued to be fast-tracked on the lung transplant waiting list. This story brought the organ crisis back into the national spotlight. Slate columnist Will Oremus commented on the reasons for the success of the Facebook initiative: "Organ donation is something that people know they ought to do for the good of others, but there’s little individual incentive. The frisson of good feeling that comes from having all your Facebook friends see and like your good deed can help fill that gap." site bioedge

Surrogacy children face more developmental difficulties

by Michael Cook | 23 Jun 2013 | “Fears about the impact of surrogacy on the well-being of children and families appear to be unfounded, according to findings from the world's first controlled, systematic investigation of surrogate families.” Well, actually, that is from a 2002 press release about the first results of a longitudinal study headed by British researcher Susan Golombok. The latest results, reported in the June issue of Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, tell a different story. The article says: “Surrogacy children showed higher levels of adjustment problems than children conceived by gamete donation at age 7, suggesting that the absence of a gestational connection between parents and their child may be more problematic for children than the absence of a genetic relationship.” “Signs of adjustment problems could be behaviour problems, such as aggressive or antisocial behaviour, or emotional problems, such as anxiety or depression,” Dr Golombok told NBC Today. The researchers were more positive about other types of assisted reproduction, including IVF with donated eggs and sperm. The study was carried out by the Centre for Family Research at the University of Cambridge. The researchers followed 30 families who had used a surrogate, 31 who had used egg donation, 35 who had used donor sperm, and 53 who had conceived naturally. The researchers acknowledged that the results had some limitations because of its relatively small size. It was also possible that reproductive donation mothers might have skimmed over some of their children’s difficulties. The study found that candour and openness did not necessarily make the children’s lives easier, at least at age 7. “In fact, contrary to expectations, it was children who were aware of the circumstances of their birth and whose mothers were distressed who showed greater adjustment difficulties, conceivably because they felt less secure when faced with their mother’s emotional problems.” This is particularly relevant to surrogacy children, as it is almost impossible to conceal their origins. Because of this, the study may be relevant to the on-going debate over same-sex marriage and gay adoption. from the site bioedge

Role Of Jesse Jackson In Civil Rights Movement

Jesse Jackson is a famous Civil Rights leader, often considered to be one of the greatest. He believes that African Americans should get more political power. He fought for that power by being the second black American to run for President (the first was Congresswomen Shirley Chisholm in 1972 but wasn't a factor in the election). He was the first African-American to be a contender in a presidential election. Throughout the Civil Rights Movement he was always known as the man that TOOK action with what was given to him.
Jesse Jackson was born Jesse Louis Burns in 1941 in Greenville, South Carolina. He was born to the parents of Helen Burns and Noah Robinson. His mother remarried two years later to a man named Charles Jackson (Jesse later in life changed his name to Jesse Louis Jackson because of his stepfather). He graduated from Sterling High School and received a football scholarship to the University of Illinois. During his first year, he became dissatisfied with his treatment on the campus and on the field. He was told that as a black he could not expect to play quarterback. Less than a year later, Jesse decided to finish his college years in the south, thus transferring to North Carolina Agricultural and Technical College in Greensboro, North Carolina.
Jackson first became involved in the Civil Rights movement while a student at North Carolina A&T. There at NC A&T he joined the Greensboro chapter of the Council on Racial Equality (CORE), an organization that had led early sit-ins to protest segregated lunch counters. In early 1963 Jackson organized numerous marches, sit-ins, and mass arrests to press for the desegregation of local restaurants and theaters (Frady 23). His leadership in these events earned him recognition within the regional movement. He was chosen president of the North Carolina Intercollegiate Council on Human Rights, field director of CORE's southeastern operations, and in 1964 served as delegate to the Young Democrats National Convention. There he became active in sit-ins with other students at the college.
In June of 1963, he graduated from college just as massive civil rights demonstrations gripped Birmingham, Alabama, and other Southern cities. As a leader of the campus chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality, Jackson had declared his willingness to go to jail or to the chain gang if necessary. He led 278 civil rights demonstrators who were arrested in Greensboro (Frady 36).
By this time, Jesse was torn between a desire to prepare for the ministry and a determination to be at the Civil Rights Movement's front lines. He soon enrolled for study at Chicago Theological Seminary. In 1965 he enlisted in the voting rights campaign of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) in Selma, Alabama, where he first met Martin Luther King, Jr. Afterwards, Jackson returned to Chicago to play an important role in its civil rights campaign. From 1966 to 1971, he directed SCLC's Operation Breadbasket, which encouraged private industries to end employment discrimination and sought contracts for black businesses with the threat of an economic boycott (Frady 67). As an SCLC staff member (head of Chicago's Operation Breadbasket) Jackson was very young and ambitious. When the SCLC launched the Chicago Freedom movement of 1966, Jackson was there to put his knowledge of the city and contacts within the black community to work for King. He was inspired by that of Dr. Martin Luther King jr., often found to be by his side very frequently and taking in all the knowledge that Martin would give him. He was at the Lorraine Motel in Memphis when King was assassinated, but his claim to have cradled the fallen leader when he was shot and his wearing a shirt with King's blood on it for days after the assassination irritated many SCLC insiders as crass exploitation of the tragedy. He would later be removed from the SCLC in 1971 (Timmerman 123).
After the fall-out with the SCLC, Jesse went on to find his own organization, PUSH (People United to Save Humanity), which would continue to work for improving African-Americans' lives in a variety of fronts and combat against racism. Through PUSH Jackson continued to pursue the economic objectives of Operation Breadbasket and expand into areas of social and political development for blacks in Chicago and across the nation(Frady 139). The ‘70s saw direct action campaigns, weekly radio broadcasts, and awards through which Jackson protected black homeowners, workers, and businesses, and honored prominent blacks in the U.S. and abroad. He also promoted education through PUSH-Excel, a spin-off program that focused on keeping inner-city youths in school and providing them with job placement.
Jesse Jackson is still alive today, and since the civil rights movement he has had his hands in a share of things. He has run for president, founded the Wall Street Project, and has been a prominent figure in international diplomacy (Stanford 57). In 2000, along with his son, he published It's About the Money!: How You Can Get Out of Debt, Build Wealth, and Achieve Your Financial Dreams! The book is a hot-to guide for financial independence and security(Timmerman 323).
Although Jackson was viewed by some as the potential successor to Martin Luther King as the leader in the struggle for rights, he never quite gained the full support of all elements of the black community. However, Jesse Jackson has become the leading spokesman for Americans forgotten by the power brokers of the political process, especially blacks. He will be remembered from the Civil Rights Movement as a powerful voice that enforced action while others TALKED of it.

do site helpme.com

How to Cite this Page

MLA Citation:
"Role Of Jesse Jackson In Civil Rights Movement." 123HelpMe.com. 19 Jun 2013
    <http://www.123HelpMe.com/view.asp?id=157622>.

Refém do corpo

Mesmo sob risco de morte, jovem salvadorenha não pôde fazer aborto seguro no tempo certo

Debora Diniz *

A ligação não era um convite, mas uma intimação. "Você precisa embarcar imediatamente. Beatriz corre risco de morte e tentaremos convencer a Corte Suprema de El Salvador a mudar a decisão contrária ao aborto." Até então, Beatriz era uma mulher sem rosto cuja história me mobilizava pelo sofrimento; naquele instante, passou a ser parte de minha vida. Imaginei sua solidão em uma cama de hospital, longe do marido e do filho de 1 ano - o lúpus ameaçava a sobrevida de seu corpo grávido, os rins anunciavam falhar. A voz ao telefone era gentil, mas se postulava como uma ordem: especialistas falariam aos juízes da Corte Suprema no julgamento dali a dois dias. Eu deveria me manter em silêncio sobre a viagem. Sob a credencial de especialista em bioética, meu dever era traduzir o óbvio em argumentos éticos. Ao final da ligação, uma pergunta me perturbava: no que acreditavam os que sentenciavam Beatriz à morte?


Juan Carlos Hidalgo/Efe
Salvadorenha não pôde fazer aborto seguro
Saí à procura de seus argumentos. O primeiro que encontrei como porta-voz dos direitos do feto foi o arcebispo de São Salvador, José Luis Escobar. Sua voz recitava o mantra do medo: "Nos preocupa que o caso dessa jovem seja a porta para legalizar o aborto em El Salvador". O aborto é um absoluto moral segundo a Constituição Federal daquele país, um dos cinco da América Latina com leis tão restritivas, após uma reforma conservadora em 1999. A prática é proibida em todas as circunstâncias. A morte ou o parto seria o destino daquela mulher confinada ao hospital.

Encontrei um país dividido: ou se estava do lado da Igreja Católica ou contra ela. A excomunhão era uma ameaça franca ao burburinho político. Não sei se por prudência ou por arrogância, a corte indeferiu a participação dos especialistas. Isso foi no dia 10 de maio. Somente no dia 3 de junho Beatriz se submeteria à cesárea para não morrer grávida.

A peregrinação de Beatriz pelas autoridades teve início quando ainda estava com 13 semanas de gestação, logo após ter recebido o diagnóstico da malformação letal no feto. Nessa fase da gravidez, o aborto teria sido um procedimento médico de baixo risco para sua saúde e, possivelmente, realizado com medicamentos. Entre as vozes internacionais a pressionar El Salvador estava Juan Méndez, relator da ONU sobre tortura, que declarou a urgência de o país rever a legislação de aborto.

O caso perdeu-se pelas cortes locais e alcançou a Corte Interamericana de Direitos Humanos, que optou por um caminho ambíguo no pronunciamento - sustentou que El Salvador deveria evitar danos irreparáveis à vida e à saúde de Beatriz, mas evitou afirmar o direito ao aborto como medida para salvar sua vida. A espera foi torturante para Beatriz, mas um alento para um país amedrontado pelo dogma. A mesma ciência incapaz de acalmar os espíritos que acreditam que células recém-fecundadas são uma vida inviolável é que demarca a fronteira entre aborto e parto. Beatriz não soube como resistiu à espera sem sentido; era preciso superar a barreira das 20 semanas de gestação para o procedimento médico mudar de nome. Com 27 semanas, submeteu-se a uma cesárea e a uma ligadura tubária. O feto sobreviveu cinco horas fora de seu útero.

Não conheci Beatriz. Nunca vi o seu rosto, só ouvi sua voz. Beatriz gravou um depoimento emocionado em que choramingava "eu quero viver pelo meu outro filho". Era um pedido de socorro de uma mulher desesperada e desencarnada pela maternidade: ser mãe era o que a animava a viver, mas também o que justificava a sentença de morte imposta pelo Estado. Beatriz nem sequer se imaginava digna de viver por si mesma - seu pedido de socorro era pelo filho. Imagino-a uma mulher refém do próprio corpo, estrangeira no país que já a marginalizava pela pobreza. Agora, é mártir de uma história que não escolheu viver em um corpo doente, marcado pela lei e pelo pecado. Perturba-me imaginar como será a vida de Beatriz após sua saída do hospital.

Os grupos religiosos a descrevem como uma mulher mãe de dois filhos: o que espera seu acolhimento e o que foi enterrado como atestado da inutilidade da espera. Nessa longa jornada até a cesárea, planejou-se levar Beatriz para o México ou Espanha, países que a acolheriam como refugiada em procura da sobrevivência por um aborto seguro. A vida concreta de Beatriz é o que existe antes e depois dessa triste história. Imagino que ela esteja se preparando para voltar à vida comum de uma mulher pobre do interior de El Salvador, um dos países mais miseráveis da América Central - casa, família e trabalho voltarão a ser sua rotina. A mártir nacional, a mulher que acendeu a ameaça da excomunhão, será esquecida por quem se lançou no seu caminho como defensor da vida do feto. Mas Beatriz não é um dogma, é uma mulher concreta. Beatriz não é uma assassina, apenas queria manter-se viva. Ela sentiu medo, suplicou pela vida e esperou. Aos 22 anos, é uma sobrevivente.

* DEBORA DINIZ É ANTROPÓLOGA, PROFESSORA DA UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASÍLIA E PESQUISADORA DA ANIS - INSTITUTO DE BIOÉTICA, DIREITOS HUMANOS E GÊNERO

  do site do Estadão e Anis

Sites de Pesquisa em Bioética

ACGT - Advice to Research Ethics Committees Anis - Instituto de Bioética, Direitos Humanos e Gênero Bioethics Discussion Pages - M. Bernstein, Los Angeles (US) Bioethical Issues - Woodrow Wilson/Program in Biology '92 Bioethics.net - The American Journal of Bioethics Online Bioethics Online Service, including a searchable collection of journal abstracts & other documents - Center for the Study of Bioethics, Medical College of Wisconsin Bioethics Resources on the Web - via J&R Kennedy Inst of Ethics, Georgetown Univ. (US) Bioetica.org Biotechnology: Science, Engineering, and Ethical Challenges for the 21st Century (1996) - Nat'l Academies Press CHB - Centre for Human Bioethics - Monash (AU) Concil of Europe European Database on Medical Ethics ELSI - Elsi Program (ethical, legal and social issue) ELSI - Ethical, Legal, and Social Implications of Human Genetics Research - NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE ELSI - Ethical, Legal and Social Issues - Lawrence Berkeley Nat'l Laboratory (US) Ética e Tecnociência: uma abordagem segundo o princípio da responsabilidade de Hans Jonas - por José Eduardo de Siqueira Joint Centre for Bioethics - U of Toronto (CA) National Bioethics Advisory Commission NCBI - Bioethics Resources on the Web, National Institutes of Health Novas tecnologias reprodutivas e genéticas, ética e feminismo: A celebração do temor - Resumo da Tese de Doutoramento em Ciências de Alejandra Ana Rotania de Pozziem defendida em março de 1998 no programa de Engenharia de Produção da Coordenação dos Programas de Pós-graduação em Engenharia da Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brasil COPPE/UFRJ NRCBL - The National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature NIB - Núcleo Interinstitucional de Bioética / HCPA - UFRGS UNESCO - United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization SIBI - Sociedad Internacional de Bioética The Nuffield - The Nuffield Council on Bioethics The US Nat'l Bioethics Advisory Commission Rede Saúde - Dossiê Bioética e as Mulheres Bioética nas questões da vida e da morte - Instituto de Psicologia - USP (Universidade de São Paulo) Virtual Mentor - American Medical Association do site ghetne.org

História da Bioética

Marlene Braz Fermin Roland Schramm José Luiz Telles Sérgio Tavares de Almeida Rego Marisa Palácios Algumas datas e acontecimentos: 1900 - Primeiro documento que estabelecia explicitamente os princípios éticos da experimentação em humanos, formulado pelo Ministério da Saúde da Prússia (Land ou “região” do então Reich alemão), a saber: a integridade moral do experimentador e o consentimento explicito do sujeito pesquisado, após ter tido a informação pertinente sobre as possíveis conseqüências adversas resultantes da pesquisa. As repercussões do documento não ultrapassaram os limites daquele Land, pois, em outra região da própria Alemanha, foi realizado, em 1930, um teste com vacina BCG em 100 crianças sem a obtenção do consentimento de seus responsáveis para a participação na pesquisa. Este teste levou à morte 75 das crianças no transcurso do projeto, sendo este fato conhecido como o “desastre de Lübeck”. 1931 – Devido aos abusos anteriores e à limitada repercussão do documento de 1900, o Ministro do Interior da Alemanha estabeleceu as 14 “diretrizes para novas terapêuticas e a pesquisa em seres humanos” (Richtlinien für neuartige Heilbehandlung und für die Vornahme wissenschaftlicher Versuche am Menschen). Tais diretrizes determinavam de maneira muito mais precisa e restritiva os padrões técnicos e éticos da pesquisa, incluindo, além das exigências do documento de 1900, a justificativa documentada sobre as mudanças em relação ao projeto inicial de pesquisa; a análise sobre possíveis riscos e benefícios prováveis; a justificativa cogente para fazer pesquisas em pacientes morais particularmente vulneráveis, como crianças, e a obrigação de manter documentação escrita relativa às pesquisas. Mas, tampouco esta regulamentação, que, para alguns historiadores (como Michael Grodin), era mais precisa e ampla do que a própria Declaração de Helsinque, foi suficiente para impedir as experiências que serão realizadas na Alemanha durante o período nazista. 1933-1945 – Período nazista e 2a Guerra Mundial. Neste período, acontecem três fatos importantes que irão incluir progressivamente as instituições médicas na formulação e realização de políticas públicas “eugenistas” e racistas, formuladas desde 1924 por Hitler em seu livro-propaganda Mein Kampf: 1) a lei de 14 de julho de 1933 sobre a esterilização – “ Lei para a prevenção contra uma descendência hereditariamente doente” (Gesetz zur Verhütung erbkranken Nachwuchses) -, que estabelece uma ligação estreita entre médicos e magistrados através de um “tribunal de saúde hereditária” (Erbgesundheitsgericht) e será completada, em 1935, pelas leis de Nuremberg - “lei da cidadania do Reich” e “lei para a proteção do sangue e da honra alemães” – relativas sobretudo a populações judias e ciganas e à interdição de casamento entre pessoas de “raças diferentes” ; 2) a circular de outubro de 1939 sobre a eutanásia de doentes considerados incuráveis, isto é de “vidas que não valiam a pena de serem vividas”, que criava seis institutos para a prática da eutanásia por injeção de morfina-escopolamina ou, quando julgada ineficaz, por sufocamento em câmaras de gás por meio de monóxido de carbono e o inseticida Zyklon B (que será amplamente utilizado em Auschwitz a partir de 1941), decidido e controlado por médicos; 3) a criação, a partir de 1941, dos campos de extermínio, organizados e controlados pelos mesmos responsáveis do programa de morte por eutanásia. Outros fatos importantes a serem sublinhados são 4) a participação de médicos e juristas tanto no planejamento como na execução desses programas, o que garantia a “legitimidade” científica e moral das ações desse Estado totalitário mas, simultaneamente, violava o princípio do consentimento voluntário das pessoas contido nas Diretrizes de 1900 e 1931; e 5) a utilização de recursos públicos destinados à pesquisa científica, como forma de responder à demanda governamental por pesquisas específicas envolvendo indivíduos não portadores das enfermidades que iriam ser investigadas. Assim, contrariamente às práticas anteriores, a partir de 1933 as práticas de pesquisa consistiam em provocar a doença no indivíduo para que pudesse ser investigada, e os indivíduos que a ela eram submetidos estavam, muitas vezes, internados em hospitais psiquiátricos, asilos ou penitenciárias. (Fonte: Palácios M; Rego S & Schramm FR. 2002. A Regulamentação Brasileira em Ética em Pesquisa Envolvendo Seres Humanos). 1945 – Fim da 2ª Guerra Mundial e das atrocidades cometidas pelos nazistas contra os seres humanos. 1946 – Julgamento de Nüremberg – Tribunal de Guerra 19 de Agosto de 1947 - Julgamento de Médicos Nazistas no Tribunal de Nüremberg Neste Tribunal, 20 médicos e 3 administradores foram julgados por “assassinatos, torturas e outras atrocidades cometidas em nome da ciência médica”, como também foram levantadas questões éticas sobre experimentação em seres humanos que a nova ciência médica iria cada vez mais se defrontar 1947 – Código de Nüremberg (em anexo) 1948 – Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos – ONU (em anexo) 1964 – Declaração de Helsinki – Assembléia Médica Mundial e posteriores versões (1975, 1983, 1989, 1996, 1999 e 2000).(em anexo) 25 de Abril de 1953 - A Estrutura do DNA é descoberta e a biologia molecular abre as perspectivas aplicadas da engenharia genética e do controle e transformação dos sistemas e processos vivos, levantando questões éticas até então impensadas. 23 de Dezembro de 1954 – Primeiro Transplante Renal, realizado pelo Dr. Joseph E. Murray, entre dois irmãos gêmeos univitelinos. O irmão que recebeu o rim só veio a morrer oito anos após a cirurgia por problemas coronarianos. Novas questões éticas e legais são também levantadas com as possibilidades de transplantes de órgãos. (arrumar graficamente) 0 9 de Março de 1960 - Comitê de Seleção de Diálise de Seattle (God Commission) A máquina de hemodiálise e o shunt arteriovenoso (fístula arteriovenosa) possibilitaram o tratamento de pacientes com falência renal. Surge o primeiro problema ético, historicamente conhecido como “bioético”: O Seattle Artificial Kidney Center tinha capacidade para 9 leitos e a diálise era um tratamento raro em muitos Estados americanos. O custo do tratamento girava em torno de $10,000/ano e as Companhias de Seguro resistiam em pagar um tratamento experimental. A solução encontrada foi a criação de um Comitê de Seleção de Diálise de Seattle. Este Comitê era composto por 7 pessoas de diferentes formações que analisavam caso-a-caso tendo por referência critérios de mérito social (sexo, idade, status conjugal, nº de dependentes, escolaridade, ocupação, potencial futuro). A idéia de transferir uma decisão médica de salvar vidas para um comitê de leigos abalou a tradicional confiança na relação médico-paciente. Maio de 1960 - A Pílula Anticoncepcional A Food and Drug Administration (FDA) aprova o Enovid, primeiro contraceptivo oral eficaz (uma combinação de dois esteróides sintéticos - progesterona e estrogênio). A vida sexual e social ocidental foi revolucionada pelo uso generalizado da pílula anticoncepcional possibilitando a emergência de uma Bioética Feminista, sobre a autonomia da mulher em gerir seu corpo. Seguiram-se debates sobre a questão do aborto. 1966 – Um artigo de Henry Beecher, publicado no New England Journal of Medicine dunciou inúmeros casos de artigos científicos publicados com inadequações éticas. 03 de Dezembro de 1967 – Ocorre o Primeiro transplante de coração realizado pelo Dr. Christian Barnard na África do Sul. Emerge a questão da definição de morte uma vez que é necessário que o coração ainda esteja batendo para ser transplantado 05 de Agosto de 1968 - Definição de Morte Cerebral O NEJM publica “A Definition of Irreversible Coma: Report of the Ad Hoc Committee at Harvard Medical School to Examine the Definition of Brain Death”. Duas razões para a necessidade de uma definição clara, ou supostamente tal: – Discussão sobre os danos para as pessoas com morte cerebral mantidas por medidas artificiais. Abrem-se discussões sobre eutanásia e distanásia; – O critério de morte, até então aceito, de parada cardiorrespiratória, torna-se obsoleto e o novo critério de morte cerebral trouxe controvérsias para a obtenção de órgãos para transplantes 1969/1970 – É fundado o Hastings Center em Nova York por DanielCallahan, católico com formação em teologia e filosofia, mas aberto a posições seculares. Reunião de grupos com o objetivo de desenvolver soluções éticas (regras, normas) para problemas específicos. Este Centro continua publicando recomendações e políticas que visam influir nas respostas do Governo americano em relação às controvérsias que emergem com o avanço das biotecnologias, de forma direta ou indireta. 1970 - Potter cria o neologismo bioethics 1971 – Fundado o Instituto Kennedy de Ética na Universidade de Georgetown pelo neonatologista André Hellegers. Trata-se do primeiro Centro Nacional para a Literatura de Bioética e do primeiro programa de pós-graduação em Bioética do mundo. Um dos colaboradores, Warren Reich, teólogo católico, será editor da Enciclopédia de Bioética. 1971 – Publicação do livro “Bioethics – Bridge to the Future” de V.R. Potter 1932-1972 - Três casos mobilizaram a opinião pública americana: a) em 1963, no Hospital Israelita de Doenças Crônica, em Nova York, foram injetadas células cancerosas vivas em idosos doentes; b) entre 1950 e 1970, no Hospital Estadual de Willowbrook, em Nova York, injetaram o vírus da hepatite em crianças com deficiência mental; c) Em 1932, no Estado do Alabama, no que foi conhecido como o caso Tuskegee, 400 negros com sífilis foram recrutados para participarem de uma pesquisa de história natural da doença e foram deixados sem tratamento. Em 1972 a pesquisa foi interrompida após denúncia no The New York Times. Restaram 74 pessoas vivas sem tratamento. 1974 –1978 – Relatório Belmont Numa reação institucional ao escândalo causado pelos fatos acima descritos, o Governo e o Congresso norte-americano constituíram, em 1974, a National Comission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Foi estabelecido, como objetivo principal da Comissão, identificar os princípios éticos “básicos” que deveriam conduzir a experimentação em seres humanos, o que ficou conhecido com Belmont Report. O Relatório Belmont apresenta os princípios éticos, considerados básicos, que deveriam nortear a pesquisa biomédica com seres humanos: a) o princípio do respeito às pessoas; b) o princípio da beneficência; c) o princípio da justiça. 22 de Janeiro de 1973 - Caso Roe vs Wade A Suprema Corte dos EUA deu ganho de causa a uma mulher do Texas que recorreu contra a lei que proibia o aborto, datada do século XIX. Estabeleceu que nenhuma lei estadual poderia restringir o direito de uma mulher, de acordo com seu médico, de se submeter ao aborto no 1º trimestre de gravidez. 14 de abril de 1975- Caso Karen Ann Quinlan No dia 31 de março de 1976 a Suprema Corte do estado de New Jersey deu ganho de causa aos pais de Karen que queriam o desligamento do respirador artificial e obrigou os médicos a retirarem esse suporte, o que ocorreu no dia 20 de maio de 1976. 1978 – Publicação da Encyclopedia of Bioethics, coordenada por W. Reich 25 de Julho de 1978 - Nascimento de Louise Brown, o primeiro bebê de proveta, que abriu novas possibilidades de tratamento médico para casais com problemas de fertilidade. Novas questões éticas e legais começam a surgir pela prática generalizada da fertilização medicamente assistida. 1979 – Livro Principles of Biomedical Ethics de T. Beauchamp & J. Childress, considerado o texto de referência da corrente bioética conhecida como principlism (“principialismo”), que é, de fato, especificação da ética contida no Relatório Belmont e que se baseia nos quatro princípios prima facie (isto é, “não absolutos”) seguintes: 1) princípio do respeito da autonomia; 2) princípio da não-maleficência; 3) princípio da beneficência; 4) princípio da justiça. O principialismo ou bioética dos princípios tenta buscar soluções para os problemas e as controvérsias éticas a partir de uma perspectiva negociável e aceitável pelo conjunto das pessoas envolvidas no processo por meio dos princípios selecionados. No entanto, a partir dos anos 90, o principialismo vem sendo criticado por supostamente não ser congruente com outras teoria éticas nem com o modo de apreciar o que é bom ou ruim para cada agente moral do mundo contemporâneo. (arrumar graficamente) 1982 – Baby Doe 1. Em 9 de abril de 1982 nasceu em Bloomington, Indiana, um menino com síndrome do Down e fístula traqueoesofágica. Os pais recusaram a correção cirúrgica do defeito.O caso foi levado aos tribunais e os juizes deliberaram a favor dos pais. No dia seguinte se fez recurso da sentença ao Tribunal Supremo, mas o menino morreu neste mesmo dia 1983 - Baby Doe 2. Em 11 de outubro de 1983 nasceu uma menina em Smithtown, New York, com mal formações. Os pais recusaram a cirurgia corretiva pelo recém nascido portar múltiplas malformações que incluíam: mielomeningocele (espinha bífida), hidrocefalia. Com a cirurgia o prognóstico era que podia viver até os vinte anos com severo retardo mental, epilepsia e paralisia e que, provavelmente, viveria em cima de uma cama, com um constante cuidado do trato genitourinário e sujeito a graves infecções. O Departamento de Justiça do Governo Reagan julgou que não fazer a cirurgia constituiria discriminação contra o recém nascido deficiente. O bebê morreu em 15 de abril. A partir deste dois casos surge intenso debate ético/legal sobre as medidas neonatais e a participação dos pais em decisões que afetem a vida de seus filhos. 27 de Fevereiro de 1997 - Nasce a Ovelha Dolly - O primeiro mamífero clonado por transferência nuclear (utilização como matéria-prima de células embrionárias ou células somáticas. Células somáticas são todas as existentes com exceção das reprodutivas. É retirado o núcleo com o material genético desta célula que é introduzido num óvulo enucleado) é anunciado em março de 1997 na Revista Nature pela equipe do Roslin Institute. Abre-se o debate sobre a clonagem humana, já que a técnica é a mesma. 2000 - O Genoma Humano - O primeiro rascunho, com 97% da seqüência do genoma humano, foi anunciado pelo presidente dos Estados Unidos, Bill Clinton, pelo primeiro-ministro da Inglaterra, Tony Blair, acompanhados pelo presidente da empresa Celera Genomics, o geneticista Craig Venter e o chefe do Projeto Genoma Humano, o cientista molecular Francis Collins. Novas possibilidades se colocam tanto no diagnóstico das doenças genéticas como na terapia gênica A partir destes dois últimos eventos, as controvérsias giram em torno da clonagem reprodutiva e terapêutica. (discussão no site) do site ghente.org/

Racial History of American Swimming Pools

May 06, 2008

Clear water, muddy issue: There's a lot to say about race and swimming.


A new study says 58 percent of African-American children can't swim. Offering perspective on America's strange relationship with water and chlorine is Jeff Wiltse, author of Contested Waters: A Social History of Swimming Pools in America.


RACHEL MARTIN, host:

So there was a study released last week that caught my eye. According to USA Swimming, over 58 percent of African-American children can't swim. That's almost double the rate of white children. And African-American children drown at nearly three times the overall rate. That got us here at the BPP asking questions about, well, race and swimming. And it turns out there's a lot to say about the topic.

Swimming pools offer their own history lesson, of sorts, about how the U.S. has or hasn't dealt with racial tensions over the years, and much of that history is chronicled in a book by Jeff Wiltse. He's the author of "Contested Waters," which is pretty much the entire canon of swimming pool history out there. And Jeff joins me on the line now. Hey, Jeff.

Dr. JEFF WILTSE (U.S. History, University of Montana; Author, "Contested Waters: A Social History of Swimming Pools in America"): Hello.

MARTIN: Hey, thanks for joining us.

Dr. WILTSE: Oh, it's my pleasure.

MARTIN: So, Jeff, you wrote that, in the late 19th century and early 20th, municipal pools, city pools, weren't built, just weren't built in African-American neighborhoods in the same way, or at the same rate that they were in other neighborhoods. Then things seemed to shift in the '20s and '30s. Pools were segregated, but separate-but-equal wasn't really equal. Right? Talk about how those pools varied. What were the differences?

Dr. WILTSE: OK, well, first let me address what you brought up initially, which is that, during the late 19th and early 20th century, cities throughout the northern United States built lots of pools in poor, immigrant, working-class-white neighborhoods, but conspicuously avoided building pools in neighborhoods inhabited predominately by black Americans.

And then in the 1920s and 1930s, there was a pool-building spree in the United States. And there were thousands, literally thousands and thousands of pools that were opened up in the 1920s and 1930s, and many of them were large, leisure-resort pools. They were - some of them - larger than football fields. They were surrounded by grassy lawns, and concrete sundecks, and they attracted literally millions and millions of swimmers.

And yet, it was at that point in time that cities began to racially segregate pools throughout the north, and it then extended, obviously, all throughout the United States. And black Americans were typically relegated, if a pool was provided at all, to a small indoor pool that wasn't nearly as appealing as the large, outdoor resort pools that were provided for whites.

And so, take the city of St. Louis. In St. Louis, black Americans represented 15 percent of the population in the mid-1930s. But they only took one-and-a-half percent of the number of swims because they were only allocated one small indoor pool, whereas white residents of St. Louis had access to nine pools. Two of them were the large resort pools that I've been describing.

MARTIN: Hm. And you have written about some specific instances where there was some real violence surrounding these swimming pools, when black people would try to access these white pools. Can you tell us about some of those incidents, specifically in Highland Park?

Dr. WILTSE: Yeah, sure. So, there were two ways in which communities racially-segregated pools at the time. One was through official segregation, and so police officers and city officials would prevent black Americans from entering pools that had been earmarked for whites. The other way of segregating pools was through violence.

And so, a city like Pittsburgh, it did not pass an official policy of racial segregation at its pools. But rather, the police and the city officials allowed, and in some cases encouraged, white swimmers to literally beat black swimmers out of the water, as a means of segregating pools, as a means of intimidating them from trying to access pools. And so there was an instance, well, there was a series of instances over two summers in Highland Park pool, when it was first opened in 1931...

MARTIN: In Chicago, we should say.

Dr. WILTSE: So Highland Park pool is actually in Pittsburgh.

MARTIN: Oh, in Pittsburgh, I'm sorry.

Dr. WILTSE: Yeah, Highland Park pool is in Pittsburgh. And so young black men, typically, between, say, 16 and 20, tried to access the pool, and if they made it into the water, they were oftentimes beat and dunked and punched in the water.

Eventually, whites set up, essentially, sentinel guards at the entrance to the pool, and when black swimmers tried to come in and access them, they were beaten up, sometimes with clubs. They were punched to the ground. They were kicked on the ground. In my book, I have some pictures of black Americans who literally sort of lie still on the ground with bloody heads from being pummeled to the ground, just for trying to access a swimming pool.

MIKE PESCA, host:

And this fear of segregated - or integrated swimming pools comes up so often. In 1968, Strom Thurmond, who was running as president as a Dixiecrat, he said, there's not enough troops in the Army to force the southern people to break down segregation - I'll omit a word he said - and admit - essentially, he was saying black people - into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches. It was always top-of-mind in racist America.

MARTIN: What is it about the swimming pool, Jeff, that was such as flashpoint for these racial tensions?

Dr. WILTSE: Yeah, there - excuse me. There are two things. One is, well, I mean, basically it boils down to swimming polls being very intimate spaces, both physically intimate and also visually intimate. And so physically intimate, in the sense that you're sharing the same water. And there has always been fears, in terms of using swimming pools, about being exposed to the dirt and the disease of other swimmers.

And back during the 1920s and 1930s, and it really continuing on even further up from there, there were racist assumptions that black Americans were dirtier than whites, that they were more likely to be infected by communicable diseases. And so, in part, the push for racial segregation and racial exclusion was for white swimmers to avoid being infected by the supposed "dirtiness" of black Americans.

But I argue that the primary and the most crucial cause for racial segregation was gender integration, that most whites did not want black men, in particular, to be able to have access to white women at such an intimate public space...

MARTIN: So because - and this is important because pools used to be gender-segregated as well, right?

Dr. WILTSE: Yeah, absolutely. So in the late 19th and early 20th century, swimming pools were almost always universally-segregated along gender lines. And so, racial segregation at pools in the North arose during the 1920s and 1930s, at the precise time that cities started to gender-segregate pools. And so in case after case after case, racial segregation occurred at the exact moment that gender integration occurred.

And the concern was the black Americans, black men, would take advantage of the pool environment, to brush up against white women, to touch them in the water, to visually consume them, as they were wearing, you know, relatively-tight-fitting, relatively-revealing swimsuits. And this sort of played into a psychology of needing to separate black men from white women.

MARTIN: So when desegregation happened, '40s and '50s, they were - swimming pools were integrated, then you write about what was called "white flight," essentially, from municipal pools. People started - white people started building their own private pools or individual, in family homes, even. Can you talk about the legacy of that phenomenon?

Dr. WILTSE: Yeah, sure. So, municipal pools, in at least the northern and western United States, were racially-desegregated in the late 1940s and the 1950s. And what I found is that in city after city after city, when a municipal pool became racially-desegregated, and so a court would order that the pool has to be open to blacks and whites without discrimination, what I found was that the overall attendance to the pool would plummet, and that, literally, the majority of whites who had been using the pool previously stopped using the municipal pools.

They abandoned them, but they didn't stop swimming. What they did is they then retreated to private pools. They built private club pools, which were able to continue to legally discriminate against black Americans. Or they build at-home residential pools, so they could really enclose themselves off from the larger public and truly exercise control over who they were swimming with.

PESCA: Did you find that there was white flight more from public pools than other public institutions, like public transportation or the public schools?

Dr. WILTSE: I didn't study those other institutions, but based upon what I know of scholarship that has studied those, the answer is yes, that the impact that desegregation had upon swimming pools was much more profound than on other spaces, even residential neighborhoods. The term "white flight" has typically been used to describe the phenomenon of when a residential neighborhood would become racially-integrated.

That a black family would move into a neighborhood that had previously been all white, that large numbers of white families would then move out of that neighborhood. And that's typically what "white flight" has been referred to. But I think the phenomenon was even more pronounced at swimming pools, precisely because it's such an intimate public space.

MARTIN: Lastly, Jeff, what's the situation now? I mean, we pegged this to the study that was released giving some startling numbers about swimming rates among African-American children. Have you looked at what the role of swimming pools is today? Is it any better?

Dr. WILTSE: Yeah. No, the problem is that swimming pools today, municipal swimming pools today, are not nearly as high of a public priority as they were back in pretty much any time during the 20th century. I mean, during the early 20th century, especially during the 1920s, '30s and '40s, that pools were a very high public priority.

Right now, they're not, and so most people who want to gain access to swimming pools have to gain access to private pools. And so that clearly is - works to the advantage, or enables, middle- and upper-class Americans to gain access to pools, because they're having to gain access to private pools.

Whereas municipal pools are being closed down at an alarming rate and they're not being replaced by new pools. And so relatively poor people, especially people living in large inner cities, have much less access to swimming pools than Americans have at any time during the last, say, hundred years.

MARTIN: Well, it's a fascinating topic, a really interesting lens with which to view history and racial relations in the U.S. Jeff Wiltse is the author of a book called "Contested Waters." Hey, Jeff, thanks very much for being on the BPP. We appreciate it.

Dr. WILTSE: Oh. It's my pleasure.

MARTIN: You take care.

Dr. WILTSE: You, too.

From NPR.ORG

Obama’s Pen May Shape Scope of Marriage Ruling

By MICHAEL D. SHEAR
Published: June 13, 2013

WASHINGTON — A Supreme Court ruling this month that could overturn the ban on federal benefits for same-sex couples is presenting the Obama administration with a series of complicated and politically sensitive decisions: how aggressively to overhaul references to marriage throughout the many volumes that lay out the laws of the United States.

The decisions could affect Social Security checks, immigration laws and military benefits for same-sex couples, among other issues, with the outcomes based on whether the couples live in a state that allows them to marry.

Gay rights advocates, aware that a Supreme Court ruling that overturns the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act would be the beginning of their push to have the federal government recognize same-sex marriage, are urging White House officials to plan to modify hundreds of mentions of marriage throughout federal statutes and regulations. Many legal analysts say there is a substantial chance that the Supreme Court will strike down the 1996 law, which in defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman denies federal benefits to same-sex couples.

“We’re going to fight to ensure that legally married gay couples have access to all federal benefits and protections, irrespective of state borders,” said Fred Sainz, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights organization in Washington. “When it comes to federal benefits, it shouldn’t matter what side of a state border you live on.”

The court is expected to rule in the next two weeks. Based on the justices’ questions at oral arguments, legal analysts predict that the justices will overturn the law on the grounds that marriage is a matter for the states.

If the justices do strike it down, they will sweep aside a law that has for years prohibited gay couples from receiving a vast array of federal benefits that married couples take for granted. But whether gay couples actually get those benefits would depend on where they live — and how vigorously President Obama seeks to change the legal language that determines whether a couple is married in the eyes of the federal government.

For Mr. Obama, who appears eager to have his legacy defined in part by the advancement of civil rights for gay Americans, his administration’s actions after the ruling may be as important as the ruling itself. A spokesman for the president declined to comment on the issue but hinted that the administration might be preparing to act.

“As the court has not yet ruled, it would be premature to speculate about what may happen after a decision is issued,” said Matt Lehrich, a White House spokesman. “The administration will, of course, be prepared to address any implications of the court’s decision.”

Activists, however, are warning gay couples not to expect that federal benefits would arrive immediately, because government agencies vary widely in how they determine whether a couple is legally married.

Some federal agencies, like the I.R.S. and the Social Security Administration, make that determination by looking to the state where a couple lives. Even with the 1996 law overturned, those agencies would deny benefits to gay couples who live in one of the 38 states that do not allow same-sex marriage.

In such cases, the administration would have to change its standard — for example, by defining marriage based on whether a couple is legally married in any state — in order to extend benefits to same-sex couples.

Other agencies, like the Defense Department, already base their decision on the location of a couple’s wedding, regardless of where the couple lives now. The same-sex spouse of a service member would get health care benefits no matter where the couple lives, as long as the two married in one of the 12 states where same-sex marriage is legal.

Gay rights advocates say that the scope of federal benefits that would become available to gay couples in the wake of the court’s ruling is uncertain. There are more than 1,100 places in the federal statutes where rights or benefits are based on a person’s marital status, according to one analysis by advocates for same-sex marriage.

“Without sweeping decisions from the court, we’ll continue to have a patchwork across the country that denies all families equal protection,” Mr. Sainz said. “We are going to fight for full equality in all 50 states, including marriage.”

Opponents of same-sex marriage say the legal questions surrounding the definition of marriage were a key argument behind the passage of the act in the first place. Chris Gacek, a senior fellow at the Family Research Council, said the organization would oppose any effort to impose same-sex marriage on states that do not want it.

“We certainly wouldn’t go for imposing gay marriage on the country administratively,” Mr. Gacek said.

He continued, “Once you open up this can of worms, there are a lot of issues here.”

President Bill Clinton signed the marriage act into law in the months before his re-election in 1996. Because no state allowed same-sex marriage at the time, the law was largely symbolic. Seventeen years later, the situation has changed, with gay couples able to marry in 12 states and the District of Columbia.

In his first term, Mr. Obama sought to do what he could to extend benefits to same-sex couples despite the Defense of Marriage Act. He required that any hospital that receives Medicare or Medicaid payments allow visitation by a patient’s gay spouse. And he ordered relatively small changes in policy affecting the federal work force, which permitted the State Department to issue embassy identification cards to same-sex partners of diplomats.

Now some activists want him to go further if the court overturns the law. But others are being more cautious, citing the politically charged nature of the issue and complex legal questions.

“It’s important that no one get ahead of the court,” said one adviser to gay rights advocates, who asked for anonymity because the court’s decision had not been announced. “People recognize that whatever the court decides will require some complex administrative implementation, which will take some time.”

From The NY Times