Mike Pence from One Hoosier's Point of View

On Friday morning, I woke up to a friend posting on Facebook about Mike Pence.  On her feed, one person after another had been sharing feelings for Mike Pence - feelings like admiration, respect, and warmth, because Mike Pence!  What a nice guy!  I suspect my friend felt vaguely ill, and after I read her status update, so did I.  We all have the power to be nice, but we don't all wield power like Mike Pence.

Since accepting the dubious honor of becoming Donald Trump's Vice Presidential nominee, Pence has been touting his amazing accomplishments as Governor of the State of Indiana all over the television.  While Pence does credit long term Republican control of the Governor's mansion for Indiana's economic health, he doesn't credit his predecessor by name, which he should.  Since Mitch Daniels left office, Mike Pence hasn't scored a lot of big wins for Indiana.  He has, however, landed some enormous and embarrassing losses that have not only cast the state in a negative light, but have also threatened the freedoms of whole swathes of his constituents, which is to me the far bigger problem.  Watching him navigate these disasters has convinced me that he is unsuitable to be any part of an executive branch of government, whether state or national.

Let's start with Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, which you can pronounce "riff-ruh" if you don't already.  RFRA purports to be about protecting religious liberty - but protecting it from what, you ask?  Well, as we all know from being alive here on planet Earth, some people are men, and some people are not.  Some people are redheads, and some people are not.  Likewise, some people are heterosexual, and some people are not.  Pence insists that he doesn't believe in discrimination, yet he has said time and again that some rights belong only to some people - in this case, those people who are heterosexual - and what is that if not discriminatory?

Pence always has reasons why his dance with discrimination doesn't mean anything and doesn't hurt anyone, not really.  In 2006, when he was a member of the US House of Representatives, he co-sponsored House Joint Resolution 88 to add a "Marriage Protection Amendment" to the Constitution, which stated, "Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman."  In a Press Release on June 5, Pence explained that despite his support for this amendment, "it is not my desire to impose views or attack any individual or anyone in a relationship in America."  Indeed, he said, activist judges were the ones doing the attacking.  That's why he needed to rush in to defend marriage, but "in a spirit of civility," of course, protecting that "institution that is cherished and is so essential to the American people in the life of our nation."  Wait, essential to the American people?  Huh?  If marriage is essential to Americans, how can it be denied - even extremely politely - to consenting adults who are "in a relationship in America"?  Do LGBT people live in a space that is somehow in the country but not of the country?  What exactly was Pence saying?   

I'm not nitpicking, here; I'm tugging at the end of a loose thread in a discursive tapestry of Pence's own weaving.  In 2011, Pence paid homage to National Marriage Week by enumerating the many benefits of the institution on the floor of the House, adding:

I have been a long-time advocate of traditional marriage, and have been proud to support numerous pieces of legislation to protect this sacred institution.  The family structure is the cornerstone of our society, and I can think of no better time to emphasize its importance than National Marriage Week.  I encourage all Americans to use this opportunity to renew their commitment and devotion to their spouse. (emphasis mine)

Again, if you insist on defining marriage as a solemnized union between one man and one woman - if you don't make marriage a legal option for all consenting adults - then "all Americans" can't possibly enjoy this amazing institution.  It is tempting to conclude that Mike Pence doesn't consider LGBT people to be Americans, but I think that phrasing might almost be too glib.  LGBT people are here, "in America"; Mike Pence simply doesn't think about them, or include them, in the America of his mind.

We can see this again with Senate Bill (SB) 101, the Indiana RFRA.  (If you need to get up to speed on the Indiana RFRA, I wrote a piece in 2015 that might help.)  Pence and his party had every conceivable warning that passing RFRA would produce a Category 5 shitstorm, but they knew better.  They were told businesses would pack up and leave, but they knew better.  Hoosiers rallied and protested, but they knew better.  Pence signed the bill behind closed doors surrounded by lobbyists, religious leaders, and nuns.  Press were not permitted behind the door or even just outside it. 

Once the storm hit, Mike Pence played the part of the woefully misunderstood, if not the actual victim of the entire debacle.  He insisted that RFRA was about protecting religious liberties, in general, the way you protect your home and its occupants by locking your front door.  One of the lobbyists in that picture, however, had already given up the game.  From the web site of Advance America:

SB 101 will help protect individuals, Christian businesses and churches from those supporting homosexual marriages and those supporting government recognition and approval of gender identity (male cross-dressers).

Here are just 3 examples:

• Christian bakers, florists and photographers should not be punished for refusing to participate in a homosexual marriage!

• A Christian business should not be punished for refusing to allow a man to use the women’s restroom!

• A church should not be punished because they refuse to let the church be used for a homosexual wedding! (emphasis in original)

In all of these examples, the humiliation and discrimination suffered by LGBT people are completely erased.  In the Advance America narrative, there is no bride who brings her mother to her cake-tasting appointment with a baker she has used before, excited to design her dream wedding cake, only to be told very abruptly in front of her mother, in the middle of her joyful day, that someone who has accepted money from her in the past no longer will because there is no groom.  In the Advance America narrative, there is no crying in the car in the bakery parking lot, nor depression in the days following.  There is no wondering if the wedding should just be called off.  That story is not my fanciful imagining, by the way; it's summarized from a real case in Oregon with real women who suffered real pain.  In Pence's mind, there is no pain, or if there is, he doesn't intend it, and therefore, it doesn't matter.

During his interview with George Stephanopoulos, Pence continued the erasure, insisting that RFRA was simply about "empowering individuals when they believe actions of government infringe upon" their religious rights.  When Stephanopoulos asked, repeatedly, whether discrimination was now legal in Indiana, Pence refused to give an answer, meanwhile griping about the "avalanche of intolerance poured on" Indiana.  Oh, yes.  Poor Indiana.  The State famously had to spend $1 million dollars to hire a Public Relations firm to try to fix the damage Pence did by signing RFRA.  How's that for fiscal responsibility? And who empowers LGBT individuals when they believe the actions of government infringe upon their rights?

Pence's steadfast refusal to see the people he harms, the people whose rights he does not respect, makes him truly dangerous as a leader.  It's not something he does exclusively with the LGBT community, either.  Let's take reproductive rights as another example. When it comes to abortion, Mike Pence has a long and passionate history of being anti-choice.  In April of 2007, in a floor speech, Pence celebrated the Supreme Court's decision in Gonzales v Carhart, upholding the constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of of 2003, signed by George W. Bush.  In an amicus brief prior to the decision, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) had pointed out: "'Partial-birth abortion' is not a medical term.  Neither Medical textbooks nor physicians use the term to define any particular procedure." As a result, the ban was regarded as overbroad and underinformed by physicians who would have to abide by it.  In the brief, ACOG quotes a physician saying, "None of my colleagues know or could state whether the abortions they perform now are covered under this law.  Indeed, as I read the definition of the banned procedures, any of the safest, most common abortion methods used throughout the second-trimester of pregnancy could proceed in such a manner as to be outlawed."  Again, however, neither the woman's safety nor the physician's charge over it was of any interest to Mike Pence, who said on the floor, "I commend President Bush for signing the bill, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who supported it, and Congressman Steve Chabot of Ohio, its principal author.  Life is winning in America. In big cities and small towns, American women are listening and learning."  Yes, high fives to all the dudes.  The women may be less safe, and their physicians less certain, but we'll eventually teach women to think right.

Meanwhile, compare Pence's position on the abortion ban with his position on the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007.  In a floor speech given just one month after he celebrated the verdict in Gonzales v Carhart, he said, "Now, some of these thoughts and beliefs are abhorrent, like racism and sexism, and I disdain them.  But hate crime bills are broad enough to encompass legitimate beliefs as well, and protecting the rights of freedom of speech and religion must be paramount on our minds."  Indeed, he deplored the idea that someone could preach against homosexuality from the pulpit and be held responsible for those words, because then pastors and radio evangelists alike might hesitate to speak their minds on the evils of sodomy.  That, to Pence, is dangerous government overreach, but sacrificing women's safety?  That's fine.  As long as Pence's religious convictions are upheld, everything is fine.  No wonder Pence has repeatedly said that he is a Christian first, then a conservative, and only then a Republican. No breaks for women and trans men until Pence is stripped of the ability to impose his version of Christianity upon others.

Speaking of Pence's ability to impact others, in 2011, when Mitch Daniels was still Governor and Pence was in the House, Pence introduced a bill to cut off all federal funding to Planned Parenthood, the largest provider of abortion services in the country.  The bill passed.  He called it the Pence Amendment.  In a press release, he said: 

I believe that ending an innocent human life is morally wrong. I also believe it is morally wrong to take the taxpayer dollars of millions of pro-life Americans and use them to fund organizations that provide and promote abortions, like Planned Parenthood of America.

What's the moral over/under on cutting off care to people who visit Planned Parenthood clinics?  Once again, it doesn't matter.  It doesn't matter that Planned Parenthood uses no federal funding for abortion procedures.  That abortion services are provided in a Planned Parenthood clinic anywhere is justification for closing Planned Parenthood clinics everywhere.  Back in 2011, he insisted  that there are numerous other places people could seek care, yet look at the example of Scott County, Indiana, where the closure of a Planned Parenthood clinic in 2013 was followed in 2015 by an HIV outbreak.  By this point, Mitch Daniels had moved on, and Pence had shifted from the House of Representatives to the Indiana Statehouse, giving him a bird's eye view of the health crisis that had been spreading unchecked without Planned Parenthood on the ground.  People had nowhere to get tested, not even (at first) the local health department, which was also prevented by the State from giving out condoms.  According to Buzzfeed, Pence, who has strongly advocated for abstinence, coincidentally doesn't believe condoms are effective in preventing the spread of disease.  Forget the science; that's how he feels.  He also feels that "effective anti-drug policy" does not mean "handing out drug paraphernalia," which is to say, he doesn't like clean needle exchanges, even though, according to the Chicago Tribune, "numerous studies — from the Centers for Disease Control to the World Health Organization — have indicated that needle exchange programs do not result in higher rates of drug abuse in communities."  Pence did ultimately allow for a temporary needle exchange program in Scott County, which is comforting, I suppose, but barely.  And temporarily.

Given the attention the Scott County health crisis received around the country, and given the serious health threat posed by HIV, did Pence at least learn from the Scott County outbreak?  Did he make a public statement in which he acknowledged that Planned Parenthood, in addition to giving abortions, provides other care that is essential to public health?  Did he rethink his positions on condoms and needle exchanges? Would you like three guesses?

In March of 2016, Pence reached the pinnacle of his long career of anti-choice actions when he brought Indiana into the national spotlight - yet again - by signing House Enrolled Act 1337, an veritable smorgasbord of Constitutionally questionable abortion restrictions.  Admittedly, it is not Pence's fault that the Indiana legislature drafted this bill, but the women and trans men of Indiana promise you: That bill didn't sign itself.  Despite protests and rallies, Mike Pence picked up the pen with his very own hand, and the media responded with headlines like

• "After Penced signed HEA 1337, women's rights in Indiana are dead" (Nuvo, March 25, 2016)
• "Mike Pence's sadistic abortion law: Indiana passes draconian anti-choice bill geared towards humiliating and bankrupting women who have abortions" (Salon, March 25, 2016)  
• "The Crazy New Ways Indiana Will Restrict Abortion (thinkprogress.org , March 25, 2016)

The ACLU quickly filed a lawsuit on behalf of Planned Parenthood, and a judge intervened to stop those "crazy" ways from taking effect, so in a repeat of RFRA, that was certainly a good use of time, money, and people's real emotional distress.

Mike Pence has done a lot of things over the course of his career.  He has wasted time and resources making purely symbolic efforts to repeal Obamacare.  He has pushed back against the EPA.  He has supported amending the Constitution to prohibit the desecration of the flag, because that act of free speech doesn't matter like the free speech of the religious.  He has co-sponsored a bill that, as summarized by VoteSmart, "would forbid federal courts and the Supreme Court from hearing cases questioning or interpreting the Pledge of Allegiance and its constitutionality."

Does Mike Pence seem nice on TV?  Honestly, now that you've read this, I hope not.