Alveda King’s Dangerous PayDay Loan


I know several people who were at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom August 28, 1963.  I’ve held buttons in my hand that were exchanged on the Mall that day, passed from one person to another documenting how people came from all over the nation to gather and advocate for justice.  And I know that so many of the rights I enjoy today were earned through the blood, sweat and tears of those regular folk and the brave people who organized their activism.  A lot of people focus on the speeches made 47 years ago on the Mall, but I have always been inspired by the pictures of the crowd that capture the faces of the people who made the movement possible.

I watched some of the coverage of Glenn Beck’s Restoring Honor rally this past weekend and I heard Dr. Alveda King speak.  Dr. Alveda King is the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and an anti-choice activist with Priests for Life.  She referred to the speech her uncle made that day, specifically to his statement about America giving black people a “bad check.”

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said:

“In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men – yes, black men as well as white men – would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note, insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked ‘insufficient funds.'”

Forty-seven years later to the day, King’s niece Alveda King said, “When will we know that the check Uncle Martin spoke of is good? We will know when prayer is once again welcome in the public squares of America and in our schools.”

Really?

Well, the Mall in Washington DC is the very definition of the public square and organizers of the Beck rally managed to fit some public prayer in without interference.

So, have we overcome?

Has that check finally been paid in full?

I think not.

The 1961 Freedom Rides and the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom were about expanding, protecting and guaranteeing access to the all of the rights afforded to all persons through the Constitution of the United States of America.

Dr. Alveda King has spent much of the summer of 2010 trying to re-write that history.  In her world, the womb is a battlefield on which she is prepared to wage war on the reproductive rights of black women. 

Dr. Alveda King’s “Freedom Rides” offer a tour of the equality she’d like to see denied, specifically the denial of the Constitutionally guaranteed right to reproductive freedom  she is now working overtime to restrict, revise and remove. 

The Freedom Rides of 1961 tested the system to ensure access, open doors and guarantee safety.

Dr. Alveda King’s Freedom Rides trampled on that legacy by demanding the denial of access to the full range of reproductive health care, the closing of doors and a return to unsafe conditions that would put women at risk.

In 1963 people gathered at the Mall in Washington DC to push for legislation that would protect black voters who faced violence at the polls, protect workers who faced unsafe work conditions and unfair wages and protect the rights of all Americans to live lives free of the fear of violence and the ramifications of discrimination.

Let’s keep it real – this past weekend the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. took the stage and tried to sell this nation a payday loan as the payment solution on that check her uncle spoke of 47 years ago. 

If we take her up on that payday loan we’ll end up in debt and no further down the road to true equality and social justice.

The movement was never about the stage on which people stood or the monument they stood in front of.

The movement was and is about protecting the rights of regular folk and how the denial of those rights threatens all of our freedom.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Pamela Merritt on twitter: @SharkFu

  • forced-birth-rape

    A woman who is forced to be pregnant and give birth against her will, is not free!

    She is physically and emotionally dictated, she does not own, or control her body. Other people say to her, your vagina is going to do what I want it to do, much like a pimp tells his sex slave, I don’t care that you are being used against your will, and you don’t wont to have extreme vaginal pain, that is your job!

  • truth

    What Alveda King is fighting for is equal rights for all guaranteed by the constitution of the U.S. – this includes the most innocent of all – Unborn Children. In effect, what you are saying is that you (the pregnant woman) have dominion over another human being. This is no different than slavery. So Alveda King is continuing her uncle’s work and quite admirably – don’t you think?

  • prochoiceferret

    In effect, what you are saying is that you (the fetus) have dominion over another human being. This is no different than slavery.

     

    There, I fixed that for you.

     

    Let our people (pregnant women) go!

  • forced-birth-rape

    The woman, or little pregnant girl, can not share equal rights with the fetus, one has rights, and one does not. Pro lifers want wemons bodies to be used and abused for the fetus. There for, she has no rights over her body, vagina, or life.

    Women have been used, abused, and owned, for centuries, I wont it to stop!

    And we have had way too much unwanted vaginal pain, not according to the christians though.

  • rebellious-grrl

    So Alveda King is continuing her uncle’s work and quite admirably – don’t you think?

     

    No, she’s not continuing her uncle’s work.

    “Basically, Alveda King has been cut off from the King family because she has made a career out of trading on the King name while peddling views that are diametrically opposed to those held by Martin Luther King Jr … and so it only makes sense that Glenn Beck has tapped her to speak at his rally being held on the anniversary of MLK’s “I Have a Dream” speech as Beck tries to claim King’s mantle for himself.

    Why Alveda King Is Perfect For Glenn Beck’s Rally
    http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/why-alveda-king-perfect-glenn-becks-rally

    Meet MLK’s Glenn Beck-loving niece

    http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/08/27/alveda_king_glenn_beck

  • truth

    …it is in its early stages. But it is still a human being and no one should take its right to, “Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” You are on a very slippery slope through your decision to quantify what “life” is and isn’t because under your definition there are alot of born human beings that are burdens on society. Your line of selfish thinking is what caused The Holocaust. When we start defining “quality of life” issues we are taking the role of Our Creator. Woman (human beings) and Unborn Children (human beings) are equal and deserve equal rights. The first of these is LIFE.

  • prochoiceferret

    But it is still a human being and no one should take its right to, “Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” You are on a very slippery slope through your decision to quantify what “life” is and isn’t because under your definition there are alot of born human beings that are burdens on society. Your line of selfish thinking is what caused The Holocaust.

     

    So let me see if I understand your argument:

     

    “Granting women reproductive autonomy… is the sort of thing that led to the deaths of 6,000,000 born Jewish human beings.”

  • bornin1984

    They were deemed as non-persons at the time, which I suppose would mean that they were not human beings, either, since people tend to treat the word person as being synonymous with human being, so I suppose you would have to argue no harm, no foul.

  • forced-birth-rape

    You do not have the right to cause me vaginal pain against my will Born, no one does! Right to life means the right to use and cause women, and little girls extreme vaginal pain agaist their will?

  • prochoiceferret

    They were deemed as non-persons at the time, which I suppose would mean that they were not human beings, either, since people tend to treat the word person as being synonymous with human being, so I suppose you would have to argue no harm, no foul.

     

    Yeah, good luck with that whole “abortion = OMG THE HOLOCAUST” angle.

  • jodi-jacobson

    Please desist in misusing and misleading on the history of the Holocaust and what happened to millions of people including but not limited to Jews during that period.

     

    It had nothing to do with “quality of life.” It had everything to do with deep-seated hatred and anti-semitism, racism, fascism, power, and control. 

     

    I understand your religious philosophy attributes full, sentient life to fertilized eggs and gives no rights to women.  Mine does not, nor do those of the majority of people.

     

    The reality is that the basis for and outcome of the policies you support drawn solely from your own religious ideology have much more in common with fascism, power, control, and hatred (of women) than anything else.

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Your line of selfish thinking is what caused The Holocaust.

    Selfish thinking. Like anti-choicers forcing women to give birth. Now that’s selfish thinking.

  • bornin1984

    You really do not see the irony in your post?

    Also, the majority of people? Where?

  • bornin1984

    Yeah, good luck with that whole \”abortion = OMG THE HOLOCAUST\” angle.

    I say wear it.

  • forced-birth-rape

    It is easy for a man to say, when it is not his body, and genitals, that has to live it, feel it, and anticipate extreme vaginal pain. Very taliban signing women, little girls, and rape victims up for it, Mr. christian man.

  • jodi-jacobson

    You’ll have to point it out to me.

     

    The majority of people here and most everywhere. Irrespective of what people say in surveys, the validity of which are often called into question by the framing of the inquiry and the fact people often say things other than what they mean when we are talking about an issue like this, the majority of religions do not recognize a fertilized egg as a person, and do not put the fetus above the mother.

     

    Actions and reality are more important than words on these issues. I’ll repeat what has been said here time and again: Catholic, Protestant and Jewish women all use birth control at the same rate as the rest of the population, which is to say the majority in each religious sub-group does (and no, I am not including Hasidic Jews, conservative evangelicals or strict Catholics, but these make up the minority of their respective religions).

     

    Catholic and Protestant women have abortions at the same rate as the rest of the population. Well-done focus groups and in-depth investigation of these issues (e.g. South Dakota, Colorado, etc) show that the majority of people do not want to take the decision away from women ultimately nor do they want to “make the decision” for their neighbor. Likewise over 86 percent of parents want their kids to have access to comprehensive sexual health education.

     

    I am not clear where the “irony” lies.

  • zipper

    Seeking more on her beckground I scoured Wiki, Google and the various websites to contributes to, some interesting factoids appear.

     

    This lady has had TWO abortions (guess her revelation on the horror of it took a while to sink in) she is described as “the mother of six children and a grandmother”.

     

    NONE of the bios published make any mention of a husband, partner or friend with benefits, I really would love to know WHO is the father/fathers of this brood.

  • forced-birth-rape

    Jodi my all my cousins are hardcore republicans, I am from the south, I have many cousins, they all vote republican, for guns, strong military, and the death penalty. What they love more then their guns, is their little girls. If their daughters said daddy I dont want to be pregnant, I want a abortion, and the girls could not get one, the republican party would be in for a rude awaking.

    If you told my cousins they could have their guns, or the bible, they would all pick their guns.

  • bornin1984

    Somehow arguing that it is wrong when someone else defines a certain groups out of rights because they are doing it for any number of reasons, while turning around and arguing that it is okay for you to define another group out of rights because your case is different is irony to the extreme. If it is not okay for one group to define another group out of rights, then it is not okay for you to do the same, as the same way you define others out of rights, someone can (and historically would have) defined you out of rights. Anyway, that aside:

    Irrespective of what people say in surveys, the validity of which are often called into question by the framing of the inquiry and the fact people often say things other than what they mean when we are talking about an issue like this, the majority of religions do not recognize a fertilized egg as a person, and do not put the fetus above the mother.

    Concerning the first part, that is wrong. People have very consistent views when it comes to abortion, and they vote as such. And this is not something which has not been known since even before Roe v. Wade. It is why, for lack of a better word, the left works hard to keep Roe v. Wade intact, because they very well realize that if abortion were put up to the legislatures, it would end up far more restricted than it is currently. Concerning the second part, that is a false dichotomy aside, as I do not know any religion which puts the unborn above the mother, or treats their relationship as adversarial. The only people who claim or even do the latter are generally the feminists who argue in favor of abortion. At any rate, the majority of world religions are disapproving of abortion. I do not really understand how you could claim otherwise.

    Catholic and Protestant women have abortions at the same rate as the rest of the population.

    This is simply not true at all.

    According to data taken from AGI (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf), Protestants account for 37.3% of all abortions, while Catholics 28.1, those professing other beliefs 7.1 and those professing none 27.5. According to data taken from the following website (http://b27.cc.trincoll.edu/weblogs/AmericanReligionSurvey-ARIS/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf), Protestants account for 50.9% of the population, while Catholics 25.1, other 3.9 and those professing none 15.0. Now, we if were to extrapolate those numbers, and find the rate of abortions relative to population size, you would find that, ranked in terms from the lowest to highest rate, you would get Protestants (0.73), followed by Catholics (1.12), other (1.82) and lastly by those professing no religious beliefs (1.83). In other words, those professing other and no religious beliefs are almost 2.5 times as likely as Protestants to obtain an abortion, and about 1.6 times as likely as Catholics to obtain an abortion. That is not anywhere close to similar.

    Well-done focus groups and in-depth investigation of these issues (e.g. South Dakota, Colorado, etc) show that the majority of people do not want to take the decision away from women ultimately nor do they want to \”make the decision\” for their neighbor.

    It is a well-known fact that if you put a total ban on abortion to vote, it will not pass. The reason it will not pass is because people tend not to want to ban abortion completely, but rather keep it de facto legal with stricter limits. This is why most pro-life organizations do not support the personhood amendments. That has nothing to do with not wanting to make the decision for their neighbor, which people have no problems with when they approve abortion bans. It has to do with pragmatism, and most people are nothing if not pragmatic.

  • truth

    You need to look at history. Hitler was simply acting out what started in America in early part of the 20th Century. It was the pseudoscience eugenics that manifested itself in the extermination of 6,000,000+ human beings, and continues today with abortion.

     

    Those who actively supported eugenics include America’s most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes. The goal: create a superior, white, Nordic race and obliterate the viability of everyone else. The victims: poor people, brown-haired white people, African Americans, immigrants, Indians, Eastern European Jews, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists.

     

    Once you begin to subjectively determine who lives and who dies, you have to be prepared for the consequences of your philosophy. I know it might be hard for some of you to think, but you must try to sit and meditate on what drives you to want to kill human beings – especially those who are the weakest among us – The Unborn.

  • invalid-0

    Whether or not a human being should be treated with dignity and respect and afforded the protections of certain laws should have nothing to do with your personal religion.

     

    Jodi, no one but you is bringing religion into this.  Stop it.  

  • forced-birth-rape

    It is who gets to use my body and cause me extreme vaginal pain, TRUTH! No one gets to use womens, and little girls bodies, and cause them vaginal pain against their will, unless the vaginal pain-mongering christians get their perverted, misogynistic, sadomasochistic way!

  • jodi-jacobson

    I am not going to go back and forth in an endless cycle with you on these things.

     

    I will simply say the following:

    People have very consistent views when it comes to abortion, and they vote as such

    The only people who “vote as such” are those who consider denying women their right to an abortion to be their number one issue for them.  Voting by district in a national election is very different than voting at the state level for state office, and voting for referenda something else again.  Yes, those who are pro-choice also vote for pro-choice politicians, but there are plenty of places where abortion on either side is not the core or priority issue.

    In some places, right-wing politicians with little else to do and no ideas spend their careers ginning up false information about abortion care, and then spend their careers passing and seeking to pass ever-more restrictive policies (e.g. Nebraska, Oklahoma, and so on), and they rely on misinformation and outright lies to do so.  Unfortunately, too often other politicians with little spine to step up for the evidence go along.  That doesn’t mean they represent the broader constitutency of people.

    Concerning the second part, that is a false dichotomy aside, as I do not know any religion which puts the unborn above the mother, or treats their relationship as adversarial.

    I guess you’ve missed a good many of the posts about the Vatican and the USCCB which in fact does just that, and the comments here by their representatives stating that if a woman dies due to a problem pregnancy that could be resolved by an abortion that is just G-d’s will.  I guess that you have not seen or heard the likes of Sharon Angle and others who feel that women who are raped, been assaulted through incest, or otherwise might die should just accept “G-d’s will.”  Try the extremist anti-choice Catholic groups who have shunned gubernatorial candidates because they didn’t believe a woman should be forced with dying in pregnancy.  I could but won’t go on.

    According to data taken from AGI (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/US-Abortion-Patients.pdf), Protestants account for 37.3% of all abortions, while Catholics 28.1, those professing other beliefs 7.1 and those professing none 27.5.

    throwing around a lot of statistics like this does not make you correct.  i stated:

    Catholic and Protestant women have abortions at the same rate as the rest of the population.

    I was writing quickly and hence was not clear, but my point was to say “at the same rate as other women.”  the “rest of the population” (my mistake) is irrelevant.

    the shares of all abortions are made up roughly of one-third, one-third, and one-third here, with some variance for error, and also noting that some people purposefully claim no religion as a matter of privacy.  I did not intend to make an argument about the share of Catholics in the total population; i made an argument about the fact that Catholics and Protestants both access abortions at roughly the same rates as other women, which the data show.  I was speaking to the makeup of the women getting abortions, not the rate compared to their share of the population which also includes men who (voila!) don’t get pregnant and children and people outside their reproductive ages.

     

    And to get even broader, as I am not referencing only women in the United States, in “Catholic” countries such as Italy, Peru, Chile and elsewhere women in the majority catholic population rely on abortion –often unsafe in many countries–because the Church and governments for whom women are not a priority deny them full access to reproductive health care in the first place.

     

    It is tedious to have these conversations over and over with someone whose sole purpose is to deny women their basic rights.  I would suggest that you are in the wrong place as you are not convincing anyone of anything.

     

    with best wishes, jodi

  • bornin1984

    Number one, when I say that people are consistent in their views when it comes to abortion, I mean they are consistent in their views when it comes time to abortion. There was a reason I mentioned the fact that the left fights hard to keep Roe v. Wade intact, and that is because, if it went by the wayside, it would create a firestorm of politicking in which abortion would be the number one issue, after which when the dust settles, abortion would end up moreso restricted than it is now. Why? Because, whether you admit it or not, the majority of people simply do not like the status quo regarding abortion, and given the chance the change it, they would change it. And on a side note, anyone representing a side which consistently waves around coat hangers and the like as a rhetorical device should not talk about lies and misinformation (or even fear-mongering, though you did not use the term).

    Number two, I have read enough of the Catholic bashing I care to read. The Catholic church has never held, nor have they preached, that women are subservient to the unborn, or that the unborn are worth more than the woman. Never. They have, and people who agree with their stance, have argued that neither is more important than the other, and that neither should be killed for the sake of the other. If you want to construe that as a hatred for women then fine. That is your prerogative. But that does not make it true.

    Number three, you really do not seem to understand what a rate is. Changing what you wrote out does not change what I wrote out, nor what I said. To determine the rate of, say, what Catholics having an abortion is, you would have to look at the number of abortions per 1,000 women or the number of abortions per 1,000 Catholic pregnancies or, barring that, look at the percentage distributions of abortion versus the demographic distribution of that population. That is what I did. Indeed, that is how abortion abortion rate are normally calculated (AGI does it the number of abortions per 1,000 women way). What you did, however, was to look at the total number of abortions, and then claim that the rate between all religious groups are the same. This is erroneous because you are not measuring rates, but rather the percentage break-down of abortions by religious affiliation without looking at the demographic make-up of those populations. Furthermore, you would expect that, in a country in which the religious are the majority, that they would constitute the majority of abortions, but I would bet my life on the fact that, no matter what the country, the non-religious have abortions at a higher rate than do the religious.

    And finally, what about the rights of the unborn?

  • rebellious-grrl

    It’s too late arex, the religious right already brought religion into this. How about you stop trying to bully us with Christianity and your religious views? 

  • rebellious-grrl

    Exactly! Forced birth is RAPE. Men will never be forced to give birth. If men could get pregnant birth control and abortion would be free and celebrated.

  • rebellious-grrl

    You only need to pull your head out of the sand, truth. Speaking of history, women have used birth control and abortion for thousands of years. The earliest written record of an abortion technique is circa 3,000 BC. Abortion is not genocide, it is not a holocaust. Women have and will always strive to control their fertility. And for you to make false claims or to push your views on everyone is abusive to women. 4,000 years for choice, http://4000yearsforchoice.com/4000/timeline/

  • bornin1984

    It\’s too late arex, the religious right already brought religion into this. How about you stop trying to bully us with Christianity and your religious views?

    The above is false. It is the pro-choice contingent is the one that constantly brings religion into abortion, either by claiming that others should not push their religious views on them, or that they should have religious freedom to act as they choose. The pro-life contingent, however, tends to focus on the fact that abortion takes the life of a human being without cause, and pushes the right to life for all. It is actually funny how often pro-choicers relegate their argument to one on the basis of religion, when religion is not even the strongest predictor when it comes to shaping abortion attitudes, and has actually weakened with its association in abortion attitudes as opposition to abortion has grown.

  • kate-ranieri

    Notre Dame professor Cathleen Kaveny in an article from Commmonweal, June 20, 2008 article, “A flawed analogy,” lists four differences between the Holocaust and the American practice of legalized abortion.

    The intention of the perpetrators is such that the Nazis wanted total elimination of the Jews while in the U.S. no one is arguing that all unborn are social vermin and should eliminated. Further, the government is not engaged in forcing women to abort.

    The second difference has to do with classifications. Whereas, according to the Nazis, once a Jew always a Jew, unborn are classified as unborn for only nine months. It’s a temporary classification. “And it is a category in which everyone has at one point belonged. So while abortion is intentional killing in many cases, it is not genocide—it does not aim to eliminate ‘them,’ a group of people who are totally and permanently different from and inferior to ‘us.’”

    The third difference deals with government involvement. The Third Reich ordered the killing of Jews, gypies, homosexuals and others while the U.S. government is not involved with demanding the killing of the unborn. The unborn who have been killed by abortion are a result of individual decisions.

    The fourth difference is about choices or as Kaveny writes “options available for assisting the victims.” While the Nazis punished those who helped Jews, prolifers are not punished by the U.S. government for helping women find alternatives to abortion.

    In another of her comments within the article that I found particularly poignant, Kaveny writes “those of us who believe that the unborn are full members of the human community have morally relevant reasons for distinguishing between Nazi Germany’s treatment of the Jews and the treatment of the unborn under U.S. law.”

    And while I personally do not agree that a 7 week fetus is a full member of the human community, I do share Kaveny’s sentiment that we need to distinguish the Holocaust from abortion. We must stop framing legalized abortion as the American holocaust.

     

  • kate-ranieri

    When you wrote “Number two, I have read enough of the Catholic bashing I care to read. The Catholic church has never held, nor have they preached, that women are subservient to the unborn, or that the unborn are worth more than the woman. Never” you were absolutely ill-informed and WRONG about historical Catholic teachings. The child took priority. Now, however, the Church has back pedaled to cover their pedantic ass by saying that we should love and care for them both–mother and fetus.  

  • cmarie

    Please keep in mind that Dr King was also a Baptist minister.  (politically incorrect to mention I know but like many politically incorrect facts, true).   Its really not that outlandish that his family includes people who strongly identify as Christian and are alarmed at the number of abortions which have happened since 1973.  To my understanding neither Dr King nor his wife Coretta Scott King ever backed off on any of their Christian principals.  It’s not unreasonable to gather that the Dr who spoke at the rally was an appropriate representative of Dr. King and his family.  luv you guys  and thanks for reporting on the rally!

  • beenthere72

    Thank you for this, Kate.    As a descendant of Eastern European Jews, this analogy irks me to no end. 

  • gabbyhayes

    If there were a word to say about reproductive rights and the holocaust, it would be that women were encouraged not to terminate pregnancies, women with large numbers of children were given medals, and heroes–soldiers and fliers and sailors with particularly outstanding records–were given access to young women at what might be called whorehouses except, of course, no money changed hands, and the young women were encouraged to become pregnant and bear the offspring of the heroes so that (presumably) Germany would be crawling with heroes. Women had virtually no rights in this system and were treated as brood animals. Women were never used in the German wahrmacht. I think the intelligent application of women to manufacturing and noncombat service might have been the key in the destruction of Germany by the USSR and the US, both of which took a very progressive view of women and their place in society.