Witchcraft and Health Care Reform

In a word, Debora Geary’s A Modern Witch is charming (pun intended).  It’s particularly charming for those smitten by tales of witches living among mere mortals, like Macbeth and Harry Potter, especially if the reader also happens to like Chick Lit.  The story begins with a 28-year-old woman stumbling upon the fact that she may be a witch after meeting a group of witches in an online chat room.  This group of witches, concerned about the possibility of an untrained witch on the loose in Chicago, dispatch a male witch (not called a wizard) to assess whether the young woman is indeed magical.  So, a handsome, powerful man meets an equally (or more) powerful, attractive woman and, as it turns out, they’re not meant to be together.  I love that deviation from the typical Chick Lit script.  Overall, it’s a light, humorous story with likeable characters.  I look forward to seeing what happens to them next in this series.

I found Geary’s brief references to the past persecution of witches interesting.  At one point, in response to a question about whether men can be witches, a character responds by saying, “Many of history’s most talented witches are men.  The world fears a powerful woman most, so it’s women who have been most noticed, and most hunted.”  Scholarship on the history of witchcraft in early modern Europe and in colonial America has established that, while men outnumbered women as the subjects of some witch-hunts, the vast majority of those persecuted for perceived witchcraft were women.  As Edward Bever, a historian of early modern Europe, writes, “While in some regions and certain trials men predominated, overall women constituted 80% of the people tried.”  In colonial America’s Salem witch trials (1692-1693), which happened after a group of girls claimed that witches had tortured them, women outnumbered men among those convicted of witchcraft.  Fourteen women and five men were hanged, and an additional eight women were convicted but not executed.  A man was also pressed to death.

Historians disagree over the reasons why these individuals were accused, pointing to different socioeconomic factors, such as Puritanism, sexism, racism, and classism.  Historian Mary Beth Norton, describing the work of Carol Karlsen, Professor Emerita of History and Women’s Studies at the University of Michigan, explains:

Karlsen contends that many accused witches were seen as outspoken trouble-makers (or potentially so) in their communities, thus taking issue with a more common view of the accused as scapegoats for community tensions and fears.  Karlsen’s witches often seem to be early protofeminists or at least women who did not act in conventionally feminine ways.

So, these women may have been vilified for breaking traditional gender norms over 300 years ago.  I suppose the fact that we no longer execute strong women is a sign that we’ve made quite a bit of progress in three centuries, but I continue to believe that many Americans still view powerful women with suspicion, and the battle over affordable health care reminds me of that fact.

As just about everyone knows by now, President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed constitutional muster (for the most part) under the Roberts Court’s interpretation of the US Constitution, meaning that health care reform will finally become a reality by 2014 (if Republicans don’t get their way).  Hallelujah!  I am thrilled by this long overdue development. I have often wondered whether we would have had a version of health care reform two decades ago, in 1994, if the initiative hadn’t been led by a woman.  I remember all too well, despite my tender age at the time, the media’s vilification of Hillary Rodham Clinton and her attempt to give Americans health care.  Public opinion of Hillary Clinton plummeted, largely because she did not fit the stereotypical, gendered role of the First Lady.  Americans were so suspicious of a First Lady who did not want to babble about china patterns that we decided to stick with our high mortality rate and high healthcare costs rather than give her health care initiative a chance.  I would like to say that our view of powerful women has improved since then, but the limited role women continue to play in American politics suggests otherwise.


  1. Hallelujah! Indeed.

    And to those who say some we should have no mandates or who protest a new “tax,” before “Obamacare” all those who were insured had a mandate to pay for life-threatening illnesses that others were not insured for. And those who were insured were effectively taxed by healthcare providers to pay for the free care others got. There’s a “mandate” or “tax” either way. To conservatives I say, shouldn’t people take personal responsibility and pay their own way when they can?

    1. Exactly! There was a mandate or tax either way. I think the ACA’s mandate squarely fit under Commerce Clause (if the federal government can call growing pot in your backyard for your own consumption “commerce,” then forcing others to pay for your health care when you get sick and are uninsured is certainly also commerce–everyone will inevitably need health care). So, I wouldn’t have gone with the Tax Clause route, but I’m happy with the overall result. I wish the future of the medicaid expansion were a little more certain. Everyone deserves health insurance, not just the privileged few, and now it will be a bigger battle on the state level. That’s tough in states like mine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s