The Week in Political Poetics

Trump's misogyny includes Mother Nature. Missouri Republicans only preach "law & order" when it's on their terms. Kansas women fight back.

05.23.2025 – 05.30.2025

As you dive in, a quick note about what you’ll find in each section: An article somehow linked to the politics of womanhood, motherhood, or bodily autonomy, including a link to read the full article in its home publication. A reflection on why this article. A poem in response.

01. “Turmoil, resignations and ‘psychological warfare’: how Trump is crippling US national parks” by Annette McGivney

Read it on The Guardian.

A REFLECTION

During our honeymoon, my husband and I visited three national parks: Great Basin, Bryce Canyon, and Zion. During a break-up, I ran away to Sequoia and King’s Canyon National Parks. A year later, when I needed to return to myself, I found her in Yosemite. When my daughter is old enough to walk, I dream of taking her to the foot of El Capitan and teaching her, This is sacred ground.

My experiences aren’t unique: in 2024, 331.9 million people visited national parks, a 2% increase from 2023, over 300% more than visitors to Disney World and Disneyland combined. The National Park Service (NPS) is by far the most trusted federal agency, with a 76% approval rating according to a recent Pew survey.

Yet, the Trump administration is hellbent on stripping funding from our already underfunded parks, gutting protections for endangered species that the parks work to protect, and giving control of NPS to a former oil company executive.

And, as a feminist, I can’t honestly say I fight for women if that fight doesn’t include Mother Nature.

A RESPONSE

Written at the entrance to Zion National Park

I am made of red rocks
and bat encounters
and cackling selfies
in front of national park
signs because I am
compulsive
in what I love,
how I love. I cry
at the trail cam footage:
mama bear and four cubs.
Good neighbors.
I'd chain myself to their cave
to protect their home,
choose their lives over
the wallets behind
all the superstores.

02. “Missouri Supreme Court Defies Voters, Halts Abortions in the State” by Madison Pauly

Read it on Mother Jones.

A REFLECTION

Can I start by saying how much I appreciate that this article title actually names what the Missouri Supreme Court is doing? Too many of the other articles I've seen around Missouri’s reinstated abortion ban soften their language, double down on maybes. But here’s the thing: the antis don’t care about not making us mad, sparing our feelings, or in any other way engaging in respectability politics. When I log onto the social media pages of the reproductive and sexual health clinics I work for, any time I share an abortion post, I’m met with name-calling, threats, and misinformation. Often, the comments make me laugh—I’ve grown numb to them, and bluntly, the lack of originality or thought is so obvious it’s laughable. What actually hurts and infuriates me is that our so-called partners, especially in journalism, add to the mess when they refuse to name antis for what they are and, consequently, lend credibility to the lies they regularly spread.

A RESPONSE

That feeling when
After Chloe Grace Laws

The nursery is not done and the country you live in loves kids by attacking drag queens but throws an innocent husband into a detention center mere weeks before his wife's due date. You only have parental leave because you work for an abortion clinic, and all the money the state gives goes to its neighbor that plasters up signs advertising abortion pill reversal. The churches in your town all string up banners thanking mom for choosing life, and you're the witch because you point out they don't care about the child, only the fetus. Your elected officials never respond to your letters because they're one-foot-in-the-grave white men who think pregnancy complications are a deserved punishment for Eve's imagined sin. You're portrayed as no better than she was because you feel no shame shouting pregnancy in a forced birth country is a travesty.

03. “Women sue Kansas over law that disregards end-of-life wishes during pregnancy” by Praveena Somasundaram

Read it on The Washington Post.

A REFLECTION

Georgia has been using Adriana Smith as a human incubator for over 100 days now. Since her story came out, she is often all I can think about. But the scary part is that, in 30 states, Smith’s situation is all but guaranteed for incapacitated pregnant people. Read that again: In 30 states, pregnant people and their surrogates do NOT get a say in their end-of-life care. Twenty-five of those states even invalidate advance directives to not be put on life support or to be taken off life support at a certain point if the patient is pregnant. No matter how early in the pregnancy they are (Smith was 9 weeks pregnant when the state decided she still had to carry her pregnancy to term). And though the good old-fashioned values dictate women give birth, look pretty, and stay silent, women are speaking out. Calling for change. Suing their states. Because, as cliche as it may sound, we are not going back.

A RESPONSE

The good old-fashioned values 

Of sit, but only when he's seated, only when he's served. 
Of eat, but only after he's had his fill, only as much 
as you need     to lie, on your back, stomach so flat 
it looks like you're only breasts and vagina. 
The good old-fashioned values     of being only 
a body, hands, legs, mouth, 
to serve, to come, to swallow.     

But only when told to.

What are you replacing the good old-fashioned values with? Let me know in the comments.