The Pro-Life Self-Defeating Legal Trap: Be careful what you wish for

The Pro-Life Self-Defeating Legal Trap: Be
careful what you wish for

What happens if the US Supreme Court overturns the half-century of precedent on abortion? I discussed
that in some detail three years ago (“News Analysis: What Happens if Roe v. Wade is Overturned?”, by
Michael Bilow, Feb 20, 2019), and that article was updated when the Reproductive Privacy Act took
effect on June 19, 2019, writing into RI state law the current federal standards under Roe v. Wade (and
its lesser-known companion Doe v. Bolton decided on the same day) in 1973 and Planned Parenthood v.
Casey in 1992, in case the Supreme Court should overturn or weaken those.

Although a reversal of Roe would have little direct effect in RI because of this statutory protection, it
would have drastic consequences in other states, many of which have “trigger” statutes that would ban
abortion automatically if Roe were overturned. But the reasoning used to reverse Roe, if the Supreme
Court does that, could threaten many other fundamental rights that have been assumed safely protected
under American law until now.

With a strongly conservative Supreme Court reinforced by three members appointed by Donald Trump,
it is widely expected that a case awaiting decision will significantly curtail or even completely eliminate
the constitutional right to abortion prior to “viability,” usually considered to be 24 weeks into an
ordinary 39-week pregnancy, recognized under Casey. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health
Organization, the State of Mississippi enacted a law clearly violating the Casey standard, intending to
raise exactly the kind of litigation test that would offer an opportunity to reverse it. Dobbs received two
hours of oral argument before the Supreme Court on December 1, 2021, after which most analysts
concluded that federal protection of abortion rights is likely doomed by the time a ruling is due by June
2022.

The often-criticized aspect of Roe and Casey on a legal basis is that, undeniably, the text of the
Constitution and Bill of Rights are silent on abortion, and indeed on any aspect of childbirth and
reproduction. Unlike freedom of speech or press, free exercise of religion and right to trial by jury, this
simply did not seem to enter into the mindset of the Colonial-era Framers, despite their finding time to
explicitly prohibit quartering of soldiers in private homes.

The emergence of childbirth and reproduction as areas of life where individuals have constitutional
rights against government interference first arose in a 1965 ruling, Griswold v. Connecticut, that
invalidated a Connecticut state law that denied access to contraception even for married couples,
finding a right of privacy in the “penumbra” (shadow) of the Bill of Rights. The court ruled: “We deal
with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights – older than our political parties, older than our
school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate
to the degree of being sacred… Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our
prior decisions.” In a 1972 case from Massachusetts that reaffirmed Griswold the year before Roe was
decided, Eisenstadt v. Baird, the constitutional right of access to contraceptives was extended to
unmarried people.

Over time, and especially in Casey, the right of privacy applicable to childbirth and reproduction came
to be seen as grounded in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment: “…nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Most of the time,
courts are concerned with “procedural due process,” which provides protections such as requiring
notice of charges and fair trials before locking up someone and thereby depriving them of their liberty.
However, there is another prong that courts have come to call “substantive due process” that prevents
the government from doing certain things regardless of the procedures used. No one really likes the
idea of substantive due process, because in practice it allows judges and courts to decide on the basis of
their own opinions what topics are off-limits for legislatures and the political process. At the same time,
no one has found any other good way to stop legislatures and politicians from enacting, for example,
what Justice Potter Stewart in his Griswold dissent called “an uncommonly silly law” that since 1879
banned contraceptives in Connecticut.

Since the 1960s, only cranks and crackpots have been seriously concerned about whether states can
ban contraceptives, and Griswold and Eisenstadt would be almost forgotten today if that was the limit of
their significance, but they have become landmark cases because they laid the precedential groundwork
for a series of rulings touching sensitive and controversial issues, well beyond abortion in Roe and
Casey.

In 1967, the Supreme Court held in Loving v. Virginia that state law prohibiting inter-racial marriage
was unconstitutional, violating both substantive due process and equal protection.

Until the 2003 ruling in Lawrence v. Texas, states were allowed to criminalize homosexual conduct
between consenting adults, a practice upheld by a 1986 ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick. Even as recently
as 1986, the decision by the Supreme Court that there was no constitutionally recognized “fundamental
right to engage in homosexual sodomy,” as the majority opinion phrased it, shocked most observers who
expected the ruling to go the other way. After decades of criticism, Bowers was outright overruled by
Lawrence, bringing private consensual sexual conduct within the scope of substantive due process
protection. By 2015, the court, on the basis of both substantive due process and equal protection, ruled
in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage was a constitutional right, citing the Loving precedent.

The Supreme Court withdrawing substantive due process protection from abortion, as could happen in
Dobbs, would be the first time in US history where protection of a fundamental constitutional right was
taken away after being recognized. In theory, it would open the door to a similar reversal on same-sex
marriage or even allow reinstating criminal penalties for being gay. While this seems unlikely given
current political realities – and it’s not clear what happens if people who have been married are
suddenly declared unmarried – there is a dangerous slippery slope here. In theory, states might again
be free to outlaw inter-racial marriage.

But there’s yet one more aspect social conservatives do not seem to have considered in fighting to
return abortion as a political question to state legislatures: what kind of power would they then entrust
to political vagaries? Between 1980 and 2015, China had what has come to be known as the “one-child
policy,” imposing severe civil disabilities and ostracism for parents who chose to have more than a
single child. In the face of widespread popular resistance and even non-compliance, China gradually
backed off their population-control policy, allowing exceptions for rural farmers, in 2015 allowing a
maximum of two children for everyone and finally ending the program only in 2021. But while China
maintained its population-control policy in some form for over 40 years, there were horrific
consequences ranging from forced contraception and forced sterilization to forced abortion; in the most
extreme cases, cultural preference for sons rather than daughters encouraged female infanticide.

China is a one-party communist dictatorship where dissent is not tolerated, but what would happen if
something like their one-child policy were adopted by a state legislature in the US? Under what legal
theory could such a draconian policy be challenged? What, to put it bluntly, prevents a state
government from mandating unwanted sterilizations and abortions? Shockingly, the Supreme Court in a
1927 case, Buck v. Bell, upheld the power of states then in the grip of the pseudo-scientific eugenics
movement to forcibly sterilize people “for the protection and health of the state.” While hardly anyone
thinks Buck would be followed by the courts now, it has never been explicitly overruled and remains,
technically, valid law.

It turns out, as one of my philosophy professors often said, “What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander.” It’s pretty clear whose goose is about to be cooked. The legal principle that extends
substantive due process protection to your right to have an abortion when the government tries to stop
you is exactly the same legal principle that prevents the government from forcing you have an abortion.
One of the key factors distinguishing US freedom from Chinese-style dictatorship is rule of law: If the
Supreme Court deteriorates to one more partisan rubber stamp in a hopelessly polarized political
stalemate, we move inexorably closer to Chinese-style dictatorship. As the plurality warned in their
opinion in Casey: “The Court must take care to speak and act in ways that allow people to accept its
decisions on the terms the Court claims for them, as grounded truly in principle, not as compromises
with social and political pressures having, as such, no bearing on the principled choices that the Court
is obliged to make.”

Editorial

Until recently, I thought Thanksgiving was the quintessential American holiday: no politics, no religion,

just friends, family and food. Then an Indigenous American told me that for them it was a national day
of mourning.

Revelations like that put dampers on the enthusiasm.

Yet I still believe in the possibility of the American Dream.

Not the mortgaged house and 2.5 kids. Nor the flag waving, jingoistic, capitalist empire building. Not
the country that splits its population into coasts and midlands, red and blue, black and white, rich and
poor, citizen and alien, us and them.

I believe in our America.

Our America survived a fraught transition of power.

Our America took to the streets during a pandemic to protest.

Our America not only permits but encourages free speech and dialog.

And our America joyfully celebrates the holidays of many different religions.

Yes, America is flawed. Yet here we live.

This season, as we pause to celebrate and indulge, I invite you to take a few moments to remember the
past, imagine a future, and continue working together to build our diverse and more perfect union.

– Mark Binder

P.S. This is my last issue as Interim Editor of Motif. It’s been a pleasure working with the writers and
staff. Extra thanks to our fabulous designer, Francie Eannarino. I’m going back to my writing and
storytelling. Please keep reading and supporting Motif, and follow me @markbinderbooks.

Phillipe and Jorge’s Cool Cool World: Greta
changes in climate & deforming RI schools

Out of the Mouths of Babes…

We all now live in The World of Lies. Past and recent exemplars of this are: “The check’s in the mail”;
an extremely obscene promise concerning oral sex; anything issued by the Pentagon; and, of course,
anytime Donald Trump’s lips are moving.

But right up there are the most disgusting, shameless, and bloviating pronouncements put out by the
recent United Nations climate change summit following their vacuous meeting in Glasgow. False claims
of mighty success towards halting climate change were issued by more empty suits than you would find

at a Brooks Brothers fire sale. (The U.S. “ambassador” to this farce was John Kerry. Say no more.)

People serious about changing the way we live saw no real progress except for absurd promises. These
were essentially broken before the delegates boarded their planes, laughing all the way.

Hey, Californians, still toasting marshmallows over your fires? What’s the swimming like in your
basements and down Main Street, you Midwest and Southern riverine dwellers? And how ‘bout them
twisters in Texas and Oklahoma? Yeah, everything’s bigger in Texas.

This Glasgow summit was the fitting equivalent of what is known in Great Britain as a “Glasgow kiss.”
That’s a head butt to the face of the person you are squaring up to, designed to break the nose of your
opponent. Oopsy-daisy.

The quote of the week came from Greta Thunberg, the famous 18-year old climate change crusader for
sanity and the future, who has more guts and brass balls than any of the UN and national government
delegates. She spoke her mind to 100,000 demonstrators, “We say no more ‘blah, blah, blah.’ No more
whatever the fuck they’re doing in there.”

Out of the mouths of babes…

The Ticking Bomb

Keep your eye on the potential political explosion over the awarding of a $5.2 million contract to the
neophyte consulting firm ILO Group for education reform and school reopening strategies. As far as
scandals go, this is a full Rhode Island. (And huge kudos to WPRI Channel 12 for uncovering this
farrago and continuing to pursue it.) And we’ve only had a peek under the tent flap so far, it appears.

ILO was not formed until after Governor Dan “Who He?” McKee took office from Gina Raimondo. And
ILO was not only full to the rim with McKee acolytes and backers, but was given the hands-on guidance
of his staffers on how to submit the bid for the contract. WPRI discovered that ILO’S actual bent
windfall was millions more than other more established firms. Experience? We don’t need no steeenking
experience… especially when it involves the future of Little Rhody’s children, right?

At issue was the governor’s staffers involvement with ILO as a bidder, likely to craft the Request for
Proposals (RFP) to their specs. P&J have had experience in issuing RFPs, and if you do a crooked one,
you are able to make sure it has elements in it that favor a particular firm. To be a bit over the top, if
Firm X has three albinos in upper management who speak Kiswahili, that requirement will be deftly
hidden in the RFP, but can essentially screw other bidders who lack the Kiswahili-speaking albinos in
their executive suite. “Sorry, we really needed to see that diversity for you to get hired.”

Because this RFP looked like a real hummer, the bid was turned into a Master Price Agreement, in
which the state threw a bone to the firm WestEd, which has worked with state educators in the past and
undercut ILO’s bid by what is surmised to be about $1 million, while making baby ILO rich.

The Department of Education and statehouse legislators have looked at this deal with raised eyebrows
and sideways glances, but they know just what went on between ILO and McKee’s crew. Now the state
police and attorney general Peter Neronha have also started looking into this rotten fish. You can
expect our poised and persistent secretary of state, Nellie Gorbea, to keep this issue in the fore of the
public eye and tear Who He? a new one, as she will likely face him in the 2022 Democratic

gubernatorial primary.

You sleep with one eye open, Danny Boy.

Can Police Dragnet Search All Students to
Look for a Gun?

On November 15 at 1:21pm, Principal Brooke Macomber of Coventry High School issued a statement:
“The Coventry Police are currently in the building investigating a threat that was overheard during
passing time. In an abundance of caution, upon becoming aware of this threat, we placed the school in
lockdown and contacted the police… The CPD and State Police are in the process of searching all
students, classrooms and belongings to ensure the safety of our school community.”

Coventry Police statement on high school gun search

The next day, Coventry Police issued a statement: “On 11/16/21, Coventry Police Department arrested
the student responsible for the lockdown incident at the Coventry High School on 11/15/21. No
weapons were located and the student does not have access to firearms. The student was charged with
Disorderly Conduct and the case will be referred to Family Court.”

Coventry Police statement on high school gun search

Captain Matthew Blair of the Coventry Police told Motif in an interview, “Somebody overheard what
they believe was a student say ‘he has a gun’ – those four words. A teacher immediately confirmed it,
followed by a few other students that heard it in the hallway in between classes, so they immediately
enacted what they call ‘hold from passing,’ which is basically nobody leaves class. And then after the
school resource officer got involved, within the first couple minutes, they issued a lockdown for the
whole school, until we were able to get more information. So they did that, were reviewing cameras and
footage and talking to people involved. And they were unable to determine who exactly it was that said
it, or even what group of kids it was said it. They basically had some kids in a hallway in hoodies that
they couldn’t identify… After a few minutes, I personally got there along with the chief and a few other
people. Because we were unable to determine the extent of the threat or what exactly had taken place
and what the context of it was, the decision was made to begin to search the students and their bags,
room by room, including desks, trash cans, and brought in ballistic-sniffing canines and they were able
to conduct a thorough and full search of each student at the school, each bag that each student had. We
passed the ballistic-sniffing dogs through all the rooms, did what we were satisfied was a thorough
search of the common areas, classrooms, and then walking dogs through the hallways where the lockers
were. The handlers in particular were confident that if there were a gun, they would have alerted to it.
We were satisfied after all students were released, after the search was conducted, that the school was
safe, and they were allowed to return to classes the following day.”

Individual students were searched for weapons by pat down, with male officers searching male students
and female officers searching female students, Blair said, but that procedure found nothing suspicious
and did not result in, for example, asking students to empty their pockets. Contents of bags and purses
were searched more thoroughly, he said. The search faced practical problems in that about 1,600
students were on the premises at the time, he said.

As to the charges, Blair said, “The following day, the school resource officer was able to receive some
tips from a few students and narrowed down the group of students that the comment came from to
about four students, and then questioned those students individually, and basically was able to
determine one of the students that actually made the comment, and the students that made the
comment ended up admitting that he had made the comment.”

Asked why the comment might have been made, Blair told Motif the student said “that he was
reenacting a video game. That was the statement he had made to the school resource officer, and
obviously there’s a lot to that because he didn’t come forward and say, ‘Oh, no, I was just, you know,
joking,’ or whatever, the day before, ‘I was making this comment,’ because it would have probably
alleviated some of the issues, or much of the issues that took place the day before, but he didn’t do that.
So whether that’s true or not, we don’t know. He didn’t have a gun with him; he was checked. He didn’t
have access to guns as far as we know; that was followed up on. So basically, just a foolish comment
made by a juvenile that kicked all that off.”

We asked Blair whether consent to search was sought from either the students or their parents and
guardians. “No, no, and the reason for that is because of the exigency of the issue at hand. Obviously, a
student may have a gun or comment that someone in the school had a gun, we had to make sure the
student population was safe. There’s a public safety exception to the search warrant requirement,
which is kind of what we would operate under in that circumstance: exigent circumstances, one, and
then public safety exception would be number two. And we use kind of those exceptions to the search
warrant requirement, which are well established in Supreme Court law, to conduct the least intrusive
method of search that was available to us, which was the pat down search of the students to make sure
that they were safe and get them out of there safely.”

What would have happened if a student refused to be searched? “We would have still had to search
them or bring them into another area to hopefully reason with them if it was that big of an issue where
they refused, and we would have gotten school staff and/or parents involved. That didn’t happen. No, I
think as a matter of fact, quite the opposite thing happened where, at least from the feedback we got
the parents were, as a general rule, overall satisfied with our response to the situation,” Blair said, and
no one objected “get a warrant.” Could they discipline that student? Could they suspend that student,
prohibiting them from entering school premises? Even worse, could they physically forcibly search that
student? In short, can the school draw an adverse inference that a refusal to be searched constitutes a
threat per se?

Did the school and the police handle this correctly? On social media, the bulk of comments approve of
the dragnet search of all students, but it is important to step back and look at, among other things, the
law.

Police would never be allowed to conduct such a dragnet search of all people in a public place, such as
a shopping mall, outside of a school setting, on the basis of an unattributed claim that someone heard
someone else mention a gun, although Blair made exactly the opposite argument: “You can’t take the
the situation outside of the circumstances that were at hand, which was we weren’t able to identify the
students at all. So at that point, it’d be similar if there was a lockdown at a shopping mall, the same
circumstances would have been undertaken.”

Citizens have a basic constitutional right, in the words of the Fourth Amendment, “to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures…” (The RI State
Constitution has a similar provision.) In practice, this means police must have probable cause, or at
least reasonable suspicion, to seize (detain) a person and search them, and by definition such probable
cause or reasonable suspicion applies only to a particular individual or small group, based upon
evidence pertaining to them specifically.

The courts have held that while the Fourth Amendment protects school students, in the landmark 1985
US Supreme Court decision in New Jersey v. T.L.O., educators need only meet the lower standard of
“reasonable suspicion” rather than “probable cause” in a school setting. In that case, two students were
caught smoking tobacco cigarettes in the school restroom and one of them, identified by her initials
“T.L.O.,” denied participating, after which the vice-principal searched her purse and found marijuana,
rolling papers, a pipe, and – most damningly – a list of customers who owed her money from dealing
drugs, as a result of which she was expelled and criminally charged.

The reasonable suspicion standard, enunciated in the 1968 US Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio,
requires “specific and articulable facts” – precisely the opposite of a dragnet search of everybody.

Courts on many occasions held dragnet searches illegal, as in the 1979 US Supreme Court decision in
Ybarra v. Illinois, holding that a search warrant for a bar and its bartender did not allow the police to
search the customers who just happened to be in the bar.

Steven Brown, executive director of the RI chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, told Motif,
“The intrusive search of every student in the school under these circumstances is very troubling, but I
am not sure there would be strong legal grounds for challenging it. Unfortunately, the courts have
upheld mass searches of students under circumstances much less fraught than this.” Brown pointed to a
2011 US First Circuit Court of Appeals case, ironically involving the Coventry public schools and police
a decade ago, Lopera v. Coventry, 640 F.3d 388, where a bitterly divided panel voted, 2-1, to affirm a
lower court summary judgment of a lawsuit that arose out of a high school boys competition.

In Lopera, the Central Falls soccer team played as visitors against the Coventry soccer team, and
immediately afterward there were allegations by about 20 Coventry football players – not soccer players
– that the Central Falls players had stolen iPods and cell phones from their locker room. As the appeals
court explained, “Central Falls is a racially diverse community, and the Central Falls team consisted
entirely of Spanish-speaking Hispanic players, save for one Portuguese player. Coventry, by contrast, is
predominantly non-Hispanic and white, and its high school reflected this. The Central Falls players
allege that Coventry players uttered racial epithets during the game, calling them ‘spics’ and
demanding that they speak English.”

The Central Falls coach, along with his assistant coach, searched his players and their bags, satisfying
himself after a half-hour that nothing had been stolen, but then, the appeals court further summarized,
the coach “testified, a crowd of fifty or sixty Coventry students and adults had gathered around the
bus… members of the crowd yelled that they knew his players had the items. He testified that students
and adults in the crowd stated that the players were ‘from the ghetto,’ knew how to ‘hide things’ and
‘lie good,’ and could not be trusted. The players recounted similar accusations and vitriol, including
racial slurs like ‘spic…’ He also testified that members of the crowd stated that they would not let the
Central Falls players leave until the items had been found.”

Someone called the Coventry Police and reported something like a fight or riot, causing several cars to
respond and box in the Central Falls bus. The police then conducted their own search of the Central
Falls players after obtaining the consent of their coach, although he later claimed that he was placed
under duress by the near-riot and therefore his consent was not voluntary. No stolen items were ever
found, and Coventry Police escorted the bus out of town for the safety of the Central Falls team.

At no point, it must be emphasized, did the appeals court hold that the search was actually legal:
instead, the issue was whether the Coventry Police could have reasonably believed that the Central
Falls coach had authority in loco parentis (in the place of a parent) to consent to the search of his
players and whether they could have reasonably believed that his consent was voluntary. That’s the way
qualified immunity for the police works: in the words of the appeals court, citing Supreme Court
precedent, “The qualified immunity defense ‘is designed to protect “all but the plainly incompetent or
those who knowingly violate the law.”’”

The ruling in Lopera was 2-1, with Judge O. Rogeriee Thompson dissenting on whether the consent to
the search by the coach could be voluntary: “The appellants, a team of young Hispanic soccer players
from Central Falls, Rhode Island were subjected to shockingly disgraceful and humiliating conduct by
the police and their fellow citizens alike while visiting another high school in Coventry, Rhode Island.

After playing a tense game against Coventry’s team, the Central Falls players were surrounded by a
mob seething with racial animosity and casting false accusations of theft… My colleagues think that a
reasonable officer would be unaware of the duress this state of affairs would inspire in the team’s
coach… while he was surrounded by an angry mob and unable to depart with his players left little room
for choice.”

The decision in Lopera acknowledges the considerable jurisprudential uncertainty about the scope of
authority of school officials to search students, noting that T.L.O. limits but does not eliminate their
ability to act in loco parentis, citing the 1995 US Supreme Court decision in Vermonia Sch. Dist. 47J v.
Acton, ruling students whose parents refused consent to their being drug-tested could be banned from
athletics.

Blair said about the recent gun search, “We operated under exigency, which those requirements are
less restrictive, when you have a public safety emergency, and especially when you’ve got the safety
and welfare of 1,600 students and 300-plus staff members at a public school, on top, in light of, what’s
gone on in our country over the last couple decades. We take those things seriously. So that’s how we
operate.” Asked directly to clarify, Blair confirmed that he was talking about school shootings.

But exigency is a legal doctrine that applies specifically and narrowly as an exception to seeking a
judicial warrant when it would be otherwise required, such as to prevent the imminent destruction of
evidence, and it is difficult to see that the police would not have had time to do that. The school was
already locked down, there was a substantial presence of police officers and rescue workers, and calling
a judge would have taken as little as 15 minutes. But would a judge have granted such a warrant for a
dragnet search? Probably not.

Searching every student in a school is clearly a violation of the T.L.O. standard of “reasonable
suspicion” which, by definition, must be based upon specific and particular information. The school
officials and police in Coventry were certainly motivated by a fear that a student may have had a gun in
school, but despite honorable intentions they have to accept that even high school students live in a free
society with fundamental civil rights that must be respected. Blair was eloquent in defending each step
of the process that his department followed, and it seems evident that they have the support of the
community.

But a gun is not a magically dangerous object where mere possibility that someone may have mentioned
one in a school hallway justifies the wholesale abrogation of basic civil liberties: remember that no one
saw a gun, no one identified who possibly had a gun, and the dragnet search – regardless of its illegality
– in fact found no gun. Even assuming for the sake of argument that an overheard remark constitutes a
sufficient threat, “He has a gun” is still very different from “I have a gun” and nowhere near “I’m going
to shoot someone.”

If a student who was subjected to the gun search sues, Coventry would try to argue a qualified
immunity defense that there is no authoritative court decision saying they were in the wrong, but that is
far from saying they were in the right. Given Coventry’s legal history of defending in court what Judge
Thompson called “a mob seething with racial animosity,” this should be a road they are reluctant to
travel.

Brown of the ACLU said, “We have not received any complaints about the [recent gun] searches. If we
do, however, we will look into it more closely.”

As of press time, the Coventry superintendent and high school principal did not return telephone
messages from Motif.

Undividing America: Editorial

Today, many people believe that the United States is deeply divided, and that makes us weak and
vulnerable to manipulation. Social media and the pandemic have made it easier to stay in our comfort
zones of home, friends, family, churches — among folk who think and look like “us.”

The metaphor of America as a melting pot doesn’t work anymore. No one wants to merge and abandon
their core identity.

I propose reformulating our recipe as a well-seasoned gumbo; you can still taste each individual
ingredient, and the entire dish becomes something extraordinary.

Working on this issue of Motif has moved me, and directly connected me with people I would never
bump into in the Zuckerverse or Twitterblog. I hope the stories and images inspire you to get out and
meet someone who is different.

Let us know what you think — and what you’d like to see next in Motif.

Thanks for reading.

Once in a Generation Dollars: Let’s Make a
Deal

Welcome to The Squid’s Ink: we print Rhode Island’s dark and humorous truth

Since 2020, the Rhode Island state government has been sitting on the so-called “once in a generation”
$1.2 Billion Dollars of federal funds. “We’re so used to having lobbyists tell us what to do that we kind
of forgot how to think for ourselves,” said a source near the Independent Man.

To facilitate passing the buck, the legislature has created a web page (
https://www.rilegislature.gov/Special/Pages/ARPASFSFRP.aspx) for citizens to make recommendations
on how to spend the pork. Er cash.

Meanwhile, our team of hackers cracked the site and uncovered the following requests from prominent
people and organizations… (The password was “ShowMeTheMoney”)

· Soon to be former Providence Mayor Jorge Elorza wants $71,797,600 to buy every resident an ebike.
He also requested an additional $450,043,125 to build a weather-resistant dome over the city, and turn
every street into a bike lane. “This will make Providence the greenest and fittest city in the United
States,” Elorza said. “And you’ll never have to pay for parking again.”

· Meanwhile, the Department of Transportation countered with a proposal to “Pave The Bay.” DOT
Director Peter Alviti, Jr. said, “Not only do roads equal jobs, but it will make us invulnerable to sea level
rise.”

· Providence Mayoral Candidate Brett Smiley asked that the entirety of the $1.2 billion go to pay off the
city’s pension liability. “This will make a lot of investment bankers very happy,” Smiley said. “And we’ll
only owe another $60 million or so.”

· Interim Governor Daniel McKee first suggested giving high paying consulting contracts to members of
staff, but backpedaled when reporters pointed out he’d already done that.

· Rhode Island Senate President Dominick J. Ruggerio offered to arm wrestle House Speaker Joe
Shekarchi for spending rights. “Most powerful politician in the state my ass,” Ruggerio was heard to
mutter.

· Meanwhile, the Rhode Island Republican Party proposed refunding the money directly to taxpayers.
“If you elect us, we’ll give you $1,000,” said chairperson Sue Cienki. “It’s not a bribe if it’s your money.”

· Neil Steinberg of the Rhode Island Foundation was overheard suggesting donating the entirety of
funds directly to the foundation. “Forget about politicians, we know what’s best.”

· The Trinity Rep Company asked for $160 million to fund a new Project Discovery Program. “Live
theater is good for you,” said Artistic Director Curt Columbus. “We’re going to make a new generation
of kids turn off their cell phones and sit still.” The Wilbury Theatre Group and the Gamm also raised
their hands, shouting, “Forsooth!”

· National Grid actually invoiced the state for $780 million so that they could pay off their shareholders
before transitioning the company’s operation to PPL of Pennsylvania. “We know we don’t deserve it,”
said chairman Sir Peter Gershon. “But we’re going to leave, and we really don’t care anymore.”

· Developers Jason Fane of the Fane Tower and David Sweetser of High Rock, which owns the
Superman Building said that they’d take $123 million each to go away.

· Convicted bank swindler Joseph Mollicone, Jr. asked for $15 million. $12 million to pay back the
money he still owes, and another $3 million, “just because.”

· Brown University put in for a $400 million grant, saying that while its endowment was doing quite
well, “We think Dr. Ashish Jha did such a great job, we’re going to buy him another building. Or three.”

· Full Disclosure: Motif Publisher, Michael Ryan asked for $5 million to “Take it to the next level and go
national.” He also promised to take the money and double writer’s pay. Then he plans to spend the rest
on a vacation home in Northern Pawtucket.

News Analysis – William Blackstone: The First
White Guy

Statue of William Blackstone, Pawtucket, Rhode Island, at the corner of Exchange Street and Roosevelt
Avenue. Based upon historical accounts, the subject is portrayed holding a book while riding a bull. The
sculptor is Peruko Ccopacatty.
(Photo: Michael Bilow) (License: CC BY-SA 4.0)

On Indigenous People’s Day, an alternative to the official Columbus Day holiday on October 11, 2021, a
few dozen attendees at Veterans Memorial Park in Pawtucket protested the recently erected stainless
steel statue of William Blackstone, who is primarily remembered because the Blackstone River and
Blackstone Valley were named for him.

Children with the sign they made at the William Blackstone statue protest, Oct 11, 2021.
(Photo: Michael Bilow)

In a speaking program that lasted about two hours, many speakers expressed objections to the statue
and demanded it be taken down. (Full audio available here: motifri.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/10/blackstone-audio.mp3)

Melissa DaRosa, Pawtucket City Council member, at the protest of the William Blackstone statue, Oct
11, 2021.
(Photo: Michael Bilow)

Melissa DaRosa, an at-large member of the Pawtucket City Council, attended the protest, she told me,

“to stand with the Narragansett Indian tribe and to learn more about what this monument signifies…
some people are saying this is capturing a beautiful history but for some that history is less beautiful.” I
asked her, “What’s your objection specifically to the Blackstone statue?” She replied, “Would we put up
a statue of Hitler?”

But Blackstone was far different from Hitler. As the marker at Blackstone Memorial Park near his burial
site in Cumberland notes, he was “founder of the town of Boston, and the first white settler in Rhode
Island.” He was otherwise unremarkable, even forgettable: an Anglican clergyman born in England in
1595, he sailed to North America in 1623 and settled what is now Boston. He had a falling out with the
Puritans (who were anti-Anglican) that led him to relocate to what is now Cumberland, Rhode Island, in
1635, a year before Roger Williams settled in Providence. He had neither slaves nor servants, cultivated
new species of fruits and vegetables, lived alone in the solitude of the woods with a large library of
books until he married at the age of 64, had a son, and died at the age of 80 in 1675 – about a month
before the outbreak of King Philip’s War that would mark the utter collapse of relations between the
settlers and the indigenous Native Americans.

Bella Noka, member of the Narragansett Tribe of Native American Indians, speaking from the stage at
the William Blackstone statue protest, Oct 11, 2021.
(Photo: Michael Bilow)

Bella Noka, a member of the Narragansett Tribe who organized the protest, said she wanted the statue
taken down. “If I were to be raped, and I was to be violated in the worst way possible, do you think I
want to walk by that same man every single day and look him in the face, and people praise and see a
statue 14 feet high, looking down at me every day? No, I would not,” she said. “To think that they can
even raise a voice on what this man has done, the atrocities that they have done. He’s not the only one:
I’m not blaming just him. There were hundreds of them, there were thousands of William Blackstone…
He’s just another face. But you think because somebody wears a collar he was a righteous person? Well,
ask all the altar boys how great the priests were.”

Pawtucket resident Jax Adele Ventura holds a sign at William Blackstone statue protest, Oct 11, 2021.
(Photo: Michael Bilow)

In her view, Blackstone bore responsibility for the entire settler program. “Blackstone is the one who
afforded that [mindset] that you can come in and take over our land. He died with 200 acres. How did
he get those 200 acres? Did we just give it over to him because he’s a jolly good old friend? No, it was
taken. We don’t give up land and we didn’t have a value on land, because land does not belong to
people. It belongs to Mother Earth as the creator. We are to protect her. We are to give to her because
she gives so much back to us. So, for them to come and have ownership and parcel things off, in the
name of greed, or their right to do that is a shame on them.”

Historically, Blackstone had good personal relations with Narragansett chiefs Miantonomi and
Canonchet and with Wampanoag chiefs Massasoit and Metacomet. Both Blackstone and Williams
opposed the “doctrine of discovery,” the legal justification that European settlers could claim land
without the consent of the indigenous aboriginal residents; both argued that proper title to land
required treaties with and payments to Native Americans. (See “Providence Plantations: The Real
History”, by Michael Bilow, Jul 13, 2020.)

Randy Noka, member of the Narragansett Tribe of Native American Indians, at William Blackstone
statue protest, Oct 11, 2021.
(Photo: Michael Bilow)

It was Randy Noka, the husband of Bella Noka, who in a wide-ranging 40-minute interview asked what
seemed the most resonant question: “Why put up a statue about him, if he was such a recluse then what
the hell’s he doing being recognized like that for?” I answered, “My guess, and I don’t know this, I think
the city was just totally blindsided by it, they figured the river is named after him, the valley is named
after him, his name’s on everything.” Noka pointed out that these names replaced Indian names: “It was
the Pawtucket River, Pawtucket Valley. Whoever changed the name… if he was such a weirdo out in the
wilderness and kissing trees and whatever, then why the hell, why change the river? What did he do,
even for his own kind?”

I asked, “Are you saying that being the first white settler in the land, he doesn’t deserve a statute for
that?” Noka answered, “Oh, he’s the first one, so we’ll put up an ugly – no disrespect to the artist – an
ugly monument, rename a river, rename a valley, whatever, because he was the first white guy. How
prejudiced is that? How about the first Black guy that came here? They don’t know that person because
he was probably brought from Africa as a slave.” Eventually, Noka summarized his perspective: “He
went over in the woods, lived by himself, but happened to be the first white guy, so let’s put up a statue,
rename a valley and a river. Well, that’s even more insulting!”

All That Happened Was Nothing: Right Wing
Recall Fizzles

Earlier this month, Motif reported on a recall measure against North Kingstown school committee

member Jennifer Lima. So what happened? Nothing: October 12 came and went and the committee
petitioning for the recall didn’t turn in any signatures at all. The rumor around town is that they only
gathered about 700 signatures, fewer than a quarter of the 3100 they needed. They had ample financial
backing, from the Gaspee Project and their extensive dark money network of donors. Despite the money
that littered the town – all-town mailers, glossy flyers, polished website – the record was of total failure.

Jennifer Lima – relieved to not be recalled

But no matter, the bullies pivoted on a dime, and they were out in force at the School Committee
meeting that very evening. Nobody mentioned the recall at all – what recall, what are you talking about?
Instead, they were there to protest terrible things found in school library books. (The two that are
getting the most attention are The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie and
Gender Queer: a Memoir by Maia Kobabe.) Of course we didn’t even get to that because shortly after
the public comment began, the meeting was totally derailed by people refusing to wear a mask.

No police were on hand to enforce the mask mandate, so the chair adjourned the meeting and that was
that. Of course that made the bullies angrier because they were going to be denied their moment to
complain, so they shouted more. I thought it was good to leave the pro-covid crowd alone and didn’t
stick around, so I didn’t see that much. But one of them posted video of the disruption on social media
where an attentive high school student copied it before he thought better and deleted it. My favorite
moment on the video was a guy in the back shouting “Free speech! First amendment!” over and over.
I’m not sure what he thought he meant by that.

Lesson of the whole episode: These people are nothing but bluster and their financial backers are paper
tigers. They simply do not have the clout they claim. They can certainly be disruptive, and they are
bullies, but they can’t accomplish or change anything because they don’t have the votes. They’re like a
four-year-old throwing a tantrum. He learns he can disrupt the family and get attention, but the
attentive ones learn that their parents’ plans don’t actually change. They still leave him with a

babysitter, but now everyone’s in a bad mood.

Trolling RI Pols: Bullying public officials for
doing the right thing

The Rhode Island arm of the national right-wing foundations — Koch, Bradley, Scaife, and others —
have targeted Jennifer Lima, a school committee member in North Kingstown, with totally ridiculous
accusations about critical race theory, marxism, and brainwashing impressionable minds.

The Gaspee Project, a secretive conservative Rhode Island political group, is funding the gathering of
signatures for a recall election against Lima. A statewide non-profit, associated with the “RI Center for
Freedom and Prosperity,” Gaspee is trying to make Lima into a statewide issue. The front page of their
web site currently features a hysterical screed against her, “Extremists have taken over the Democrat
Party…don’t let them come for you next!” Dig deeper and you come to another blare: “Stop the
Indoctrination of our Children! Help us remove the pro-CRT & Marxist school committee member.”
(“CRT” here stands for “critical race theory.”)

An inflammatory postcard mailing accused Lima of corruption, abuse of power and trying to “organize a
group of Marxists to indoctrinate our children with defund the police propaganda and divisive racial and
gender theories.” In fact, the recall petition against her cites only “opinions that her constituents do not
share.”

Lima’s central offense is simply having the temerity to call for giving all students a fair shake, and to
ask the schools to look at the ways in which some students might not get one. Running on that platform,
she got more votes last fall than any other local candidate.

Lima is not pushing to bring CRT into NK schools. In fact, to climb down into the weeds for a moment,
she disagrees with CRT theorists who claim that racism is inevitable because of the structure of our
society. She says it is not, but it takes people with awareness and sensitivity to eradicate it. Ms. Lima
ran on the premise that our classrooms need to be a place where being anti-racist is actively taught and
is an expected part of the learning culture, and that is how we will build a world where all children are
equally able to reach their potential.

She believes students deserve to be presented with age-appropriate, accurate lessons on historical and
contemporary issues that help them become the critical thinkers we need to make this a more just and
equitable nation.

As a matter of policy, the Gaspee Project and its associated Center for Freedom and Apple Pie squawk if
you ask who their donors are, but they have received hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past
decade from the Donors Trust, a pass-through non-profit whose purpose seems only to be anonymizing
the hundreds of millions of dollars that pass through it. Donors Trust is a creation of the Koch network,
funded by Koch money. The Center for Freedom and Apple Pie will doubtless call this a lie, but they

will also refuse to provide any kind of accounting of their donors that might demonstrate otherwise.
They do not dispute their membership in various networks of Koch-funded right-wing organizations, like
the State Policy Network, an association of “think tanks”, whose website suggests removing restrictions
on for-profit hospitals as the first priority for dealing with the coronavirus.

Nonprofits like the Gaspee Project are classified as “social welfare organizations” and are allowed to do
public education, but are not allowed to participate in elections. But the rules for recall elections are
vague and do not restrict the signature-gathering period. So, this local arm of national dark money feels
free to tamper with our school committee.

This is sad, and nothing more than an attempt to bully a school committee member, who manages both
to embrace her serious purpose and remain full of joy. Their goal is to make an example of her, to
discourage others like her from seeking elective office.

Harassment and bullying just like this is why Emily Cummiskey resigned as South Kingstown’s School
Committee chair in June, and Christie Fish left the committee altogether. Mission accomplished in SK,
they move on to NK, looking for another scalp.

If you’d like to see the Gaspee Project Screed, visit gaspeeproject.com/recall

Read more about the Donors Trust on Senator Whitehouse’s web site:
whitehouse.senate.gov/news/speeches/time-to-wake-up-277-donors-trust

And here: sourcewatch.org/index.php/DonorsTrust

If you’d like to support Jennifer Lima in her efforts to resist the trolls, please contribute here:
secure.actblue.com/donate/lima4nk

Vaxes? We Don’t Need No Stinking Vaxes

Dear devoted readers: As you have probably surmised by now, after 42 consecutive years of writing our
column (longest in Little Rhody journalistic history), bringing you up-to-date on whose what is where,
when and how, Phillipe & Jorge are invincible. Which is why we refuse to be vaccinated against the
bogus coronavirus scare.

We have reached this decision after rigorous examination of the scientific aspects of Covid-19, as
provided by right wing podcasts, which are undoubtedly the best possible source of true information
about this faux pandemic. Here are our carefully and thoroughly vetted reasons (confirmed by some
bloke we ran into while waiting for a bus in Kennedy Plaza, after he bummed a cigarette off of us) for
why our essential freedoms should not be taken away by some fly-by-night doctors and immunologists
who are merely perpetuating this hoax, as well as lying about their world-class credentials.

   1. This is just a mainstream media campaign, backed by our federal government, to fill the coffers of
      the already obscenely rich Big Pharma firms by producing millions of doses of anti-Covid vaccines

that are really drawn directly from the water in public swimming pools and fountains.
   2. Every dose of the various vaccines contains a microchip that will allow the government and Mark
      Zuckerberg (oops, redundant) to track all citizens wherever they are at any time, and pass that
      locator chip on to their children and read your thoughts.
   3. The feds will also know whether or not you prefer a six-pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon to a box of
      cheap rose wine, and turn you into a human bobblehead if you ever speak out against vaccines.
      (This is incontrovertible truth, since after a couple, two, t’ree malt liquor 40s, numerous shots of
      Jagermeister, and a quart or two of Pernod and grapefruit cocktails, we have actually seen this
      happen right before our eyes.)
   4. All results of Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. have been falsified. The only six podcast-certified deaths
      were a handful of bass fishermen in the Deep South who bit off the heads of some of the fish they
      caught, resulting in nearly instantaneous death since the fish were the poisonous snakeheads that
      were trying to take over the world.

So in the famous words from the legendary movie, Plan 9 from Outer Space, “That proves it!” Phillipe &
Jorge salute the astute who have rejected the idea of feeding into the elitist global cabal that is
perpetuating this coronavirus myth with the goal of achieving world dominance, and allowing your
selfish and moronic selves and your unmasked children to infect enormous and innocent numbers of the
public with suffering and horrific deaths. (Is this last bit right? Sounds a bit off-script, no?)

(Note to the extremely gullible: While the above is obviously b.s., P&J are both fully vaccinated and
encourage — if not threaten — everyone who is at this stage unprotected to step up and get your jabs
toot sweet, or we will have to horsewhip you to within an inch of your stupid lives on the steps of your
holier-than-thou or totally ignorant residences. You’re welcome.)

Bag People
If you stuffed everyone in the U.S. Congress, the executive branch, and the Supreme Court, and put
them in a huge bag and then hit it any number of times with a big baseball bat, you would never fail to
connect with a greedy, self-serving, power-hungry, pathetic soul who deserved their bruises or cracked
skulls.

The latest example of this has been the inability of Congress to pass infrastructure and health/social
care bills put forward by the Biden administration. This is supposedly his “legacy” agenda, (according to
hysterical media looking for a new story line) which, since it is barely into his first year, is absurd.The
spineless GOP Senators obviously fear the man behind the screen, the frothing, certifiable Donald
Trump. Can no one come forward from the Republicans and do the right thing? No, then they wouldn’t
be able to hang with the cool kids anymore.

Please start manufacturing that big bag now. And have it made in the USA, eh, Donald and Ivanka?