This was an awful time for feminist leader Gloria Steinem to die. As Steinem herself said, modern women’s rights issues feel “both new and angering and ancient” Steinem worked for years as a journalist and activist covering women’s issues, particularly reproductive rights. She founded multiple media and activist organizations that advocated for women, which eventually led to her earning the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2013. Steinem was born in 1934 in Toledo, Ohio. After her parents divorced when she was 10, the responsibility fell on her to take care of her mentally ill mother. After high school, Steinem attended Smith College to study government. She graduated in 1956 and earned the Chester Bowles Fellowship, which allowed her to spend two years studying and researching in India. After her time in India, she landed in New York City, where she worked as a freelance journalist. In 1963, she went undercover as a playboy bunny and exposed what it was truly like to work at Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Club. After that story’s success, she struggled to find serious work. Editors relegated her to the women’s pages, refusing to let her publish political pieces. “I could not have made a bigger mistake,” said Steinem to the Associated Press. “It was personally and professionally a disaster. In the short term it was much harder to get serious assignments, and in the long term it’s been used to ridicule me.” In protest, she helped found New York magazine. There, she could edit and write about whatever political topics she wanted. In 1969, she publicly spoke out about an abortion she had in London when she was 22, and encouraged abortion legalization. According to the National Women’s Hall of Fame, after that statement she became an in-demand journalist and media guest. In 1971, she started Ms. Magazine, which encouraged discussions about women’s rights rather than the vapid housekeeping topics found in other women’s magazines of the time. During this period, Steinem also helped found the National Women’s Political Caucus, which encouraged women’s involvement in public office, and Voters for Choice, a pro-choice political action committee. Her actions, along with the work of thousands of other women, led to the eventual passage of Roe V. Wade, which established women’s legal right to an abortion nationally. It was a huge win for second-wave feminists, which made it all the more devastating when the decision was overturned on June 24th, 2022. Since that moment, 25 states have put in place strict abortion restrictions, with 11 of those placing total bans. Around 25 million women live in these states and are impacted by these restrictions. 25% of women in the United States access abortion care in their lifetime, according to the American Journal of Public Health. Abortion is healthcare. “It’s obviously ridiculous to say somebody is ‘pro-abortion,’” said Steinem. “Nobody wakes up in the morning and says, ‘I think I’ll have an abortion. It’s a pleasurable experience.’ The question is not pro-abortion or anti-abortion; the question is who makes the decision: a woman and her physician, or the government,” said Steinem. Abortion is a personal decision that should be left to the individual. A recent study even found that nearly all women who have an abortion report five years later that it was the right decision. “Obviously, without the right of women and men to make decisions about our own bodies, there is no democracy,” said Stienam. And that’s the responsibility of all Americans: to regulate our government so we secure our civil liberties and freedoms. Though Steinem dedicated her life to protecting these liberties, it is now our responsibility to protect what so many women fought for. She may have gone silent, but it’s time we get louder. Acknowledgement: The opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author, not necessarily Our National Conversation as a whole.
By Adrihanna Collins
Democracies depend on the freedom to criticize governments and political systems. Calling the U.S. a symbol of capitalism, criticizing American foreign policy, or describing political struggles through the lens of “American imperialism” is not, by itself, extremism. But when political disagreement turns into hatred of an entire nation or its people, when violence is glorified, and propaganda replaces critical thinking, it creates an environment in which radicalization becomes easier. Twenty-five years after 9/11, that distinction matters more than ever. On September 11, 2001, the United States experienced the deadliest terrorist attack to ever occur on its soil. The World Trade Center and the Pentagon, symbols of America’s economic and military power, were targeted by terrorists determined to strike at the heart of the country. More than 3,000 people died, including Indian nationals. Most had no connection whatsoever to the political conflicts invoked by the attackers. They were workers, passengers, first responders, visitors, and ordinary people who happened to be in the wrong place on a terrible, extraordinary day. Behind every number was a human being, a family, and a lost future. Yet 25 years later, the language surrounding terrorism and political violence remains deeply troubling. The media created an unprecedented platform for propaganda, conspiracy theories, and ideological extremism. Messages built around hatred travel across borders within minutes, reaching young people who may not have the experience or knowledge to distinguish political analysis from manipulation. Radicalization rarely begins with someone deciding to become a terrorist overnight. It begins much earlier—with the repeated demonization of an entire population, the romanticization of violence, the rejection of opposing viewpoints, and the belief that a political or religious cause justifies any means. That is why the lesson of 9/11 cannot end with simply “remember the victims.” It must also foster a larger understanding of how hatred is cultivated. Terrorism cannot be accepted just because its perpetrators claim to fight for a certain political cause. The same moral standard must always apply, regardless of who commits the violence or whom they claim to represent. The ongoing war involving Hamas and the broader conflict in the Middle East demonstrate precisely why that principle is necessary. Ideology cannot justify attacks against civilians and the deliberate use of terror. At the same time, governments and military operations must remain open to legitimate scrutiny. Opposing terrorism does not mean abandoning human rights, accountability, or the right to question state power. The same standard should apply when examining Iran and its relationships with militant organizations. Rather than blind loyalty to either side, these issues deserve serious, evidence-based examinations. None of this means the United States or Western democracies are beyond criticism. They are not. Their governments have made mistakes and should be questioned, challenged, and held accountable. But there is an important difference between criticizing a government and dehumanizing an entire society. A free society gives people the right to criticize capitalism, American foreign policy, religion, political leaders, and virtually every other institution. That freedom is not a weakness. It is a defining characteristic of democracy. Young people especially need the tools to discern legitimate political criticism from extremist propaganda. They need to question what they see online, verify information, and resist narratives that reduce complicated conflicts to simple battles between “good” and “evil.” Twenty-five years after 9/11, remembering the victims should mean more than holding ceremonies and observing anniversaries. It should mean rejecting terrorism regardless of its ideology and questioning propaganda, regardless of where it comes from. It means refusing to allow hatred to become another generation’s political inheritance. The victims of 9/11 deserve to be remembered not only for how they died, but for the lives, families, and futures that were stolen from them. Let the victims rest in peace. And let the next generation inherit a world with less hatred, less radicalization, and ultimately, less terrorism.
By Suzzy Majumder
Deficit spending has been out of control for years. Both parties are at fault. But for Donald Trump to try and bribe voters by saying “keep Republicans in control and we’ll pay every American adult $5,000” is beyond ridiculous. Estimates say this move will add over $1 trillion in national debt (which is now nearly $40-trillion, add to inflationary pressures — and get us what, exactly, in return? A little sugar high that lasts a month or two? $5,000 is a meaningfully large sum, so I’m sure some will be interested in taking the bait. But, deep down inside, does anyone really believe Donald Trump will make good on this promise? This whole thing reeks of desperation. It’s time to get real. Younger Americans should rebel against all this debt. They’re the ones who will be left holding the bag.
By Jeff Hall
Follow Us