Watch the Moms!

Jeanette Sherbondy • May 14, 2024

Moms are a particularly powerful way of organizing. This is not a history but a commentary on some of today’s Moms organizations that have played a role in America’s politics in different forms.

Moms for Liberty caught our attention here on the Eastern Shore a couple of years ago in the elections for local boards of education. It was founded in Florida in 2021 by Tina Descovitch, Tiffany Justice, and Bridget Ziegler. Moms for Liberty claim to be “a grassroots organization dedicated to fighting for liberty and parental rights in education.” [M4L FB website, March 22.] “They promote liberty in our homes and community” according to their mission statement.

In a gesture of defiance and common sense, The Book Plate bookstore started advertising that they have been selling banned books for decades.

Moms for Liberty, Worcester County, Md., also was active in the same year’s elections. Barbara Barbato, Chair, stated that

“Moms for Liberty – Worcester County is dedicated to the survival of America by unifying, educating and empowering parents to defend their parental rights at all levels of government.”

Two grandmothers’ organization were organized to oppose them: Grandmothers for Truth and Grandmothers for Reproductive Rights or GRR!.

Grandmothers for Truth is a group of grandparents and their allies organized by People For the American Way who are “fighting for the next generation’s freedom to learn, and who are resisting authoritarian attacks on the freedom to teach the full truth about our history and culture. In partnership with allies of all ages and communities, we will defeat this generation’s book-banners, censors, and authoritarians."

They are “a voice, coming from grandparents’ unique place of wisdom and love, against censorship and for the freedom to learn.”

“Grandmothers for Reproductive Rights was formed to resist Moms for Liberty by women who grew up in the 50s, 60s, and early 70s when women in this country had little or no access to birth control. Abortion was illegal, and women were dying after unsafe abortions. Their vision is ‘a world where all people have access to comprehensive sexual and reproductive health care, including abortion. A world where all can exercise their human right to maintain personal bodily autonomy, have children, not have children, and parent the children they do have in safe and sustainable communities”.

A larger and older group is Moms Rising that is a merger of two separate organizations, MomsRising Together, a social welfare organization, and MomsRising Education fund in 2006. It was founded by Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner, an American author, speaker, and radio-host and by Joan Blades. This organization has broad interests and could be described as progressive or liberal while actually stating that they are conserving American values that are far from those of Moms for Liberty:

“We take on the most critical issues facing women, mothers, and families by educating the public and mobilizing massive grassroots actions to:

Bring the voices and real world experiences of women and mothers straight to our local, state, and nation's leaders;
Amplify women's voices and policy issues in the national dialogue & in the media across all platforms (from print, to radio, to blogs, social media, and more);
Accelerate grassroots impact on Capitol Hill and at state capitols across the country;
Hold corporations accountable for fair treatment of women and mothers and for ensuring the safety of their products.

Shauna Shames, Associate Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University, wrote in Conversation:

“MomsRising combines the best of American innovation and ingenuity. We are a transformative on-the-ground and online multicultural organization of more than a million members and over a hundred aligned organizations working to increase family economic security, to end discrimination against women and mothers, and to build a nation where both businesses and families can thrive.

“Although Moms Rising never interferes in elections, it works to support or oppose proposed legislation on the federal level and has a political effect throughout the year. It’s reassuring that several Moms and Grandmoms groups formed in opposition to Moms for Liberty and equally, that Moms Rising was formed to opposed the liberty-minded individuals. In this context, 'liberty' tends to describe a struggle for liberty for themselves but not for others and 'freedom' represents a struggle for the rights of all, and formally recognized by governments. Politically these groups are at loggerheads.

Professor Shames continues:

“Others see them as well-organized, publicity-savvy anti-government conspiracists. By 'parental rights' they mean limiting certain content in schools and having local councils and boards run only by 'liberty-minded individuals' — which sounds like rhetoric from the American Revolution. There’s historical precedent in this. Change the clothes and hairdos and these ladies could look like the conservative white women who opposed busing in 1970s Boston, supported McCarthy anti-communism or blocked integration in Southern schools. Those women also formed mom-based groups to protest what they saw as government overreach into their families’ way of life.

“But as a scholar of American politics with a focus on gender and race, I also see differences. Moms for Liberty skillfully leverages social media, drawing on a population activated by the 2009-2010 rise of the Tea Party followed by the Trumpian MAGA movement. Mask mandates were the trigger for the group’s formation, but opposition to gender fluidity and queerness has become its bread and butter — more 21st century than 20th.

“How racial equality is talked about animates its work also, in a distinctly new way. The conservative position on race and government’s role in the past century has pivoted from enforcement of segregation and hierarchy to a kind of social “laissez-faire” — hands off — position to match the Reaganite view that government is bad.

“The extreme, hyper-male form of this anti-government, pro-traditional gender-roles ideology took shape as the Proud Boys, a number of whose leaders are now under indictment and sentence for their part in the Jan. 6 Capitol attacks. Moms for Liberty, while not going this far, shares similar beliefs and apparently has ties to the Proud Boys organization and leaders. They don’t march with guns, but their actions undermine and impede local government.

“Moms for Liberty soon found success with disruptive tactics a VICE News investigation called a 'pattern of harassment' of opponents that include online and in-person targeting of school board members, parents or even students who disagree with the group.

“Members in many chapters generate ill will by turning up to school board and other meetings — sometimes to the homes of public officials or teachers — yelling insults like 'pedophile' and 'groomer' at opponents.

“For a newcomer, Moms for Liberty has had real victories. It has disrupted countless meetings, forcing local governance bodies to focus on topics important to the group such as lifting mask mandates and, more recently, removing curricular content that they deem controversial, such as texts on gender identity and racial oppression.

“The group’s success in getting talked about is perhaps its greatest strength so far, moving it from outside disruptor to political player, at least locally. It has successfully supported many local candidates and book bans.”

She concludes:

“The mom rhetoric may be real, but as a political scientist, I can say confidently that the framers of the Constitution would not endorse this brand of liberty. Book bans are weapons of autocrats, and democracy ends where political figures call each other 'pedophiles' in public.”

Shames’s analysis of 21st century conservative women’s groups shows an American pattern of how conservative women may respond to rapid changes by pushing for smaller governmental control while the other Mom’s groups demonstrate a firmer foundation in democratic principles when they oppose them. Ironically these often-labeled liberal principles are also deeply conservative in the sense of keeping faith with the intentions of the founders of our nation, which of course, does not recommend destroying the government!

Jeanette E. Sherbondy is a retired anthropology professor from Washington College and has lived here since 1986. In retirement she has been active with the Kent County Historical Society and Sumner Hall, one of the organizers of Legacy Day, and helped get highway /historical markers recognizing Henry Highland Garnet. She published an article on her ethnohistorical research of the free Black village, Morgnec.

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Mail

Common Sense for the Eastern Shore

Megan Outten Launches Campaign for Wicomico County Council, District 7

By Friends of Megan Outten • July 29, 2025

Megan Outten, a lifelong Wicomico County resident and former Salisbury City Councilwoman, officially announced her candidacy recently for Wicomico County Council, District 7. At 33, Outten brings the energy of a new generation combined with a proven record of public service and results-driven leadership. “I’m running because Wicomico deserves better,” Outten said. “Too often, our communities are expected to do more with less. We’re facing underfunded schools, limited economic opportunities, and years of neglected infrastructure. I believe Wicomico deserves leadership that listens, plans ahead, and delivers real, measurable results.” A Record of Action and A Vision for the Future On Salisbury’s City Council, Outten earned a reputation for her proactive, hands-on approach — working directly with residents to close infrastructure gaps, support first responders, and ensure everyday voices were heard. Now she’s bringing that same focus to the County Council, with priorities centered on affordability, public safety, and stronger, more resilient communities. Key Priorities for District 7: Fully fund public schools so every child has the opportunity to succeed. Fix aging infrastructure and county services through proactive investment. Keep Wicomico affordable with smarter planning and pathways to homeownership. Support first responders and safer neighborhoods through better tools, training, and prevention. Expand resources for seniors, youth, and underserved communities. Outten’s platform is rooted in real data and shaped by direct community engagement. With Wicomico now the fastest-growing school system on Maryland’s Eastern Shore — and 85% of students relying on extra resources — she points to the county’s lagging investment as a key area for action. “Strong schools lead to strong jobs, thriving industries, and healthier communities,” Outten said. “Our schools and infrastructure are at a tipping point. We need leadership that stops reacting after things break — and starts investing before they do.” A Commitment to Home and Service Born and raised in Wicomico, Megan Outten sees this campaign as a continuation of her lifelong service to her community. Her vision reflects what she’s hearing from neighbors across the county: a demand for fairness, opportunity, and accountability in local government. “Wicomico is my home; it’s where I grew up, built my life, and where I want to raise my family,” Outten said. “Our county is full of potential. We just need leaders who will listen, work hard, and get things done. That’s what I’ve always done, and that’s exactly what I’ll continue to do on the County Council.” Outten will be meeting with residents across District 7 in the months ahead and unveiling more details of her platform. For more information or to get involved, contact info@meganoutten.com

“Turtles All The Way Down”

By John Christie • July 29, 2025

Way back in 1935, the Supreme Court determined that independent agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) do not violate the Constitution’s separation of powers. Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). Congress provided that the CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, would operate as an independent agency — a multi-member, bipartisan commission whose members serve staggered terms and could be removed only “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause.” Rejecting a claim that the removal restriction interferes with the “executive power,” the Humphrey’s Court held that Congress has the authority to “forbid their [members’] removal except for cause” when creating such “quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial” bodies. As a result, these agencies have operated as independent agencies for many decades under many different presidencies. Shortly after assuming office in his second term, Donald Trump began to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of several of these agencies. The lower courts determined to reinstate the discharged members pending the ultimate outcome of the litigation, relying on Humphrey’s , resulting in yet another emergency appeal to the Supreme Court by the administration. In the first such case, a majority of the Court allowed President Trump to discharge the Democratic members of the NLRB and the MSPB while the litigation over the legality of the discharges continued. Trump v. Wilcox (May 22, 2025). The majority claimed that they do not now decide whether Humphrey’s should be overruled because “that question is better left for resolution after full briefing and argument.” However, hinting that these agency members have “considerable” executive power and suggesting that “the Government” faces greater “risk of harm” from an order allowing a removed officer to continue exercising the executive power than a wrongfully removed officer faces from being unable to perform her statutory duty,” the majority gave the President the green light to proceed. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, asserting that Humphrey’s remains good law until overturned and forecloses both the President’s firings and the Court’s decision to award emergency relief.” Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to “overrule or revise existing law.” Moreover, the dissenters contend that the majority’s effort to explain their decision “hardly rises to the occasion.” Maybe by saying that the Commissioners exercise “considerable” executive power, the majority is suggesting that Humphrey’s is no longer good law but if that is what the majority means, then it has foretold a “massive change” in the law and done so on the emergency docket, “with little time, scant briefing, and no argument.” And, the “greater risk of harm” in fact is that Congress provided for these discharged members to serve their full terms, protected from a President’s desire to substitute his political allies. More recently, in the latest shadow docket ruling in the administration’s favor, the same majority of the Court again permitted President Trump to fire, without cause, the Democratic members of another independent agency, this time the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC). Trump v. Boyle (July 23, 2025). The same three justices dissented, once more objecting to the use of the Court’s emergency docket to destroy the independence of an independent agency as established by Congress. The CPSC, like the NLRB and MSPB, was designed to operate as “a classic independent agency.” In Congress’s view, that structure would better enable the CPSC to achieve its mission — ensuring the safety of consumer products, from toys to appliances — than would a single-party agency under the full control of a single President. “By allowing the President to remove Commissioners for no reason other than their party affiliation, the majority has negated Congress’s choice of agency bipartisanship and independence.” The dissenters also assert that the majority’s sole professed basis for the more recent order in Boyle was its prior order in Wilcox . But in their opinion, Wilcox itself was minimally explained. So, the dissenters claim, the majority rejects the design of Congress for a whole class of agencies by “layering nothing on nothing.” “Next time, though, the majority will have two (if still under-reasoned) orders to cite. Truly, this is ‘turtles all the way down.’” Rapanos v. United States (2006). * ***** *In Rapanos , in a footnote to his plurality opinion, former Supreme Court Justice Scalia explained that this allusion is to a classic story told in different forms and attributed to various authors. His favorite version: An Eastern guru affirms that the earth is supported on the back of a tiger. When asked what supports the tiger, he says it stands upon an elephant; and when asked what supports the elephant, he says it is a giant turtle. When asked, finally, what supports the giant turtle, he is briefly taken aback, but quickly replies "Ah, after that it is turtles all the way down." John Christie was for many years a senior partner in a large Washington, D.C. law firm. He specialized in anti-trust litigation and developed a keen interest in the U.S. Supreme Court about which he lectures and writes.

“Andy Harris Just Made the Most Dangerous Vote of His Career”

By Shore Progress, Progessive Maryland, Progressive Harford Co • July 15, 2025

Marylanders will not forget this vote.

How Many Will Be Kicked Off Medicaid in MD-01 Because of Andy Harris?

By Jan Plotczyk • July 9, 2025

More than 30,000 of our neighbors in Maryland’s first congressional district will lose their health insurance through the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid because of provisions in the GOP’s heartless tax cut and spending bill passed last week.

Six Reasons Why the House Budget Bill Will Hurt Rural America

By Michael Chameides, Barn Raiser • May 21, 2025

Right now, Congress is working on a fast-track bill that would make historic cuts to basic needs programs in order to finance another round of tax breaks for the wealthy and big corporations.

Who Will SNAP Cuts Affect in Maryland? On the Eastern Shore?

By Catlin Nchako, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities • May 21, 2025

The House Agriculture Committee recently voted, along party lines, to advance legislation that would cut as much as $300 million from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. SNAP is the nation’s most important anti-hunger program, helping more than 41 million people in the U.S. pay for food. With potential cuts this large, it helps to know who benefits from this program in Maryland, and who would lose this assistance. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities compiled data on SNAP beneficiaries by congressional district, cited below, and produced the Maryland state datasheet , shown below. In Maryland, in 2023-24, 1 in 9 people lived in a household with SNAP benefits. In Maryland’s First Congressional District, in 2023-24: Almost 34,000 households used SNAP benefits. Of those households, 43% had at least one senior (over age 60). 29% of SNAP recipients were people of color. 15% were Black, non-Hispanic, higher than 11.8% nationally. 6% were Hispanic (19.4% nationally). There were 24,700 total veterans (ages 18-64). Of those, 2,200 lived in households that used SNAP benefits (9%). The CBPP SNAP datasheet for Maryland is below. See data from all the states and download factsheets here.