Recently in Law Category

These kinds of stories leave me completely baffled at the competency of the judicial system. (Warning: Story may be triggering.) Via the Curvature, we find a horrendous case where three judges refused a woman protection from her ex-boyfriend in fear of her and her son Wyatt's life -- not a month later, the man murdered the 9-month old boy before he committed suicide.

In the midst of a custody battle between Katie Tagle and Stephen Garcia, Tagle was trying to get supervised visitation with Garcia. She then requested an emergency restraining order against him after he sent her a text message threatening to kill her and her son. When Tagle didn't have hard proof of the texts for Judge Debra Harris because her phone was off, the emergency order was denied and a hearing was set. At the hearing, Judge David Mazurek not only denied the restraining order, but completely dismissed the fact that Garcia had physically attacked and said they should "work together":

"If I grant the restraining order, how do you think that's going to help with respect to you two being able to raise Wyatt together or work together to make sure Wyatt grows up happy and healthy?" the judge asked, according to the transcripts.

"I kind of get an idea of what's going on," Mazurek said. He denied the restraining order, saying, "I don't think that Mr. Garcia poses a threat to Ms. Tagle." Mazurek went on to suggest Tagle might have ulterior motives for alleging domestic violence. "I get concerned when there's a pending child custody and visitation issue and in between that, one party or the other claims that there's some violence in between. It raises the court's eyebrows because based on my experience, it's a way for one party to try to gain an advantage over the other," he said, according to the transcripts.

A day after the hearing, Garcia sent Tagle an email with a "story" about their relationship in which there are two endings: one with the woman returning to the man, and the other with the man killing their child. After rushing to Mazurek with the email, he then gave Tagle a restraining order. But alas, a third judge, Judge Robert Lemkau, refused to uphold the order 10 days later and forced Tagle to give Wyatt to Garcia for visitation. Wyatt was killed nearly two weeks later.

Check out the details to see exactly how this all went down. But when it comes down to it, there were three judges, and multiple incidences of violence as well as threats of murder. Just what is there to question? Cara has some great thoughts on this and the larger issue of a system that perpetuates the notion that women simply can't be trusted.

Yesterday, President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton slammed the anti-gay Uganda bill which could enforce life imprisonment and the death penalty on gay Ugandans at an event called the National Prayer Breakfast. The breakfast was hosted by an organization that has ties to that very legislation.

According to Bilerico, The Fellowship - also called The Family - is a secretive organization with no website or any indication of legitimacy as a non-profit, but hosts this event every year. A number of religious leaders and lawmakers are said to be members, but asked not to be public about it. (Creeped out yet?) What we do know is that the organization has a history of involvement with the Ugandan government and its members have possibly took part in the creation of the bill. Even the Ugandan MP who authored the bill, David Bahati, has deep ties with The Family - he was originally invited, and then disinvited, to the event.

While some said it would be outrageous for the White House to attend such an gathering, others like Bishop Gene Robinson thought it was an opportunity to make a statement against The Family's shady involvement. And they did. Obama said in his speech at the breakfast:

We can take different approaches to ending inequality, but surely we can agree on the need to lift our children out of ignorance; to lift our neighbors from poverty. We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are -- whether it's here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.

Not only did Clinton name-drop Uganda as well, but has been taking forceful action in making it clear to Uganda that if this bill is passed, there will be ramifications.

Various religious groups and organizations responded strongly to the breakfast. An "American Prayer Hour" was organized, where a gay Ugandan man spoke -- with a paper bag over his head to hide his identity -- about the demonization and oppression LGBT individuals in Uganda face. In the meantime, the leader of a Christian group sent out a press release incredulously in defense of the Ugandan bill, stating, "It is not a 'Kill the Gays' bill. Rather, it is designed to kill the disease that some homosexuals spread through their reckless and irresponsible conduct and lifestyle."

Since this bill was proposed, the exposure of the treachery by these religious and political leaders in power is unsettling, for lack of a better word. But at least we have solidarity from the White House; we could certainly anticipate the silence from the previous administration. Let's just hope enough action is taken to stop this madness.

Remember that Human Rights Watch report on the horrifying back log of unprocessed rape kits in LA County? Remember how it motivated the LA police department to take responsibility and increase personnel to get justice served, at long last? We posted on it a lot. Well, all that's kaput:

The announcement today by city leaders that new crime lab positions approved in this year's budget will not be funded makes it impossible for the Los Angeles Police Department to eliminate its backlog of untested DNA in rape cases, Human Rights Watch said today.

The 26 new crime lab positions were approved by City Council in May 2009, despite a near hiring freeze, at the request of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). The police maintained that the positions were necessary to address a backlog of 7,000 untested sets of physical evidence in rape cases, known as rape kits, and to develop a long-term solution for efficient and effective rape kit testing. For the first time since the positions were approved, the city acknowledged today that the positions have not been funded and will not be filled.

So incredibly disappointing. We'll be in touch with deets on what to do if you're as pissed as we are.

So many jokes come to mind here, but I'm going to leave the analysis to Ms. Naughty on Australia's weird ban:

Why ban small boobs? I can only assume it stems from paranoia that flat chests somehow stir up the pedophiles. And you only need to mention that "p" word to start a full-scale moral panic in Parliament.

Shall we put such hysteria aside and look at what this ruling is saying to Australian women? Basically, it's classing a certain normal female body type as obscene. It's declaring all flat chests to be automatically juvenile, something that should not be viewed by anyone because of a fear that it will stir up "base instincts" in certain people.

Can the Classification Board be any more insulting or sexist?

Campaign finance reform is famously one of the most convoluted and complicated issues in politics. But there's nothing ambiguous about the most recent development in the long saga of regulating campaign contributions: the Citizens United decision. It's bad for progressives, and bad for women.

Last week's ruling reverses previous limitations on corporate spending, and allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns based on the legally shaky premise that corporations' "speech" should be protected by the First amendment.

But, as David Kairys points out on Slate in one of the most persuasive arguments against the ruling I've read so far, money isn't speech and corporations aren't people. He sums up the consequences of the Court's latest decision like this:

The Citizens United decision will make it harder to achieve reforms opposed by major corporations and change business as well as politics. Increasing the constitutional rights of corporations beyond their business purposes is really about increasing the rights and power of corporate managers...Taken as a whole, the conservative court's First Amendment jurisprudence has enlarged the speech rights available to wealthy people and corporations and restricted the speech rights available to people of ordinary means and to dissenters.

And he's not the only one highlighting these consequences. The NY Times reports that President Obama called it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

So we already know that the decision is bad for "everyday Americans". Many have argued that it's bad for democracy. But what effect will it have on women?

File this under abominable.

A 35-year-old, Filipino woman living and working Saudi Arabia, who was raped, is scheduled to be lashed 100 times by the state. "Camille" as she is being called, traveled to Saudi Arabia in the spring of last year in order to get a job as a janitor, reportedly to support her three children (ages 5, 14, and 15). After being raped by one of her coworkers in September, she was then imprisoned. Pregnant at the time, she actually miscarried in December behind bars. According to Truth/Slant:

In Saudi Arabia, all sex outside of marriage -- including rape and sexual assault -- can result in prison and lashings under their extreme interpretation of Sharia...The Saudi interpretation of Sharia law does not allow pregnant women to be lashed. However, now that Camille is no longer pregnant, she may be lashed at any time by the government. The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs reports that the sentence will be carried out this month.

Thanks to nealnyc for the heads up.

By now, you've probably heard about the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill that initially threatened to execute gays, and now threatens to imprison them.

And you may also have read in Courtney's excellent piece on the subject that the NY Times, among other news sources, has reported that American right-wingers are on the forefront of this Ugandan homophobia, prompting and prodding it along.

What you may not have heard is that yesterday, Edwin Okong'o of New America Media contributed a heartbreaking but much-needed perspective in his article "Why Ugandans Embrace U.S. Christian Right's Anti-Gay Agenda," in which he puts forth the idea that Ugandans are amenable to embracing the anti-gay agenda of the U.S. Christian right because of a racial inferiority complex.

An excerpt from his article:

Jaclyn Friedman has a good post up at Amplify about an initiative in D.C. that could literally get you arrested for prostitution charges if you're caught carrying three or more condoms with you. In short, D.C. police are using their "Prostitution Free Zone" law to go as far as arresting women for carrying condoms in their purse. This is happening in New and San Francisco as well. She says:

Three. Three condoms. If you think there's a chance you're getting laid, and you're sleeping with someone who has a penis, why would you ever pack fewer than three condoms? What if one rips when you take it out of the package? What if you want to do it (*GASP*) twice? Three condoms is not a lot of condoms, people. IMHO, it's the bare minimum. I once used over a dozen in a particularly memorable weekend. And I still wasn't a sex worker.

And what if I was? As has been pointed out elsewhere, all this law (and laws like it in NYC and San Francisco) are doing is encouraging sex workers to not carry condoms. You know what that's going to do? It's not going to reduce sex trafficking. It's not going to improve the lives or working conditions of sex workers. It's not going to lock up abusers or pimps. It's going to spread disease. It's going to increase the spread of STIs (including HIV) among sex workers and their clients. And those clients will spread it even further out into the general population. And those of us who aren't sex workers but don't feel like risking arrest en route to a hot date? Some of us are going to carry fewer condoms and catch and spread more disease, too. And those of us who carry lots of condoms so we can distribute them and help other people stay safe? Well, we're obviously a criminal element, aren't we?

This attempt at a "Prostitution Free Zone" is dangerous for sex workers in too many ways. Aziza Ahmed and Brook Kelly at RH Reality Check point out that not only will it merely convince sex workers they shouldn't carry condoms, but pushes them out of safer, more commercial neighborhoods and into unsafe areas where they're more vulnerable to harassment and assault. Community poster Nazza also offers some thoughts, who directs us to the original study on how damaging this law actually is.

The very idea that anyone could think forcing sex workers and those who aren't to choose between being arrested and being sexually safe is somehow a benefit to society just confounds me.

The landmark federal lawsuit against Prop 8, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, has begun today. Here is some pretty comprehensive background info on the case.

While Justice has received nearly 140,000 comments in favor of the case being televised, we find via Pam that the Supreme Court has blocked YouTube from broadcasting the case for the next 48 hours. Yep. Fortunately, you can track what's going on at this blog created specifically to liveblog the trial in the meantime.

Pam's House Blend will also be providing legal analysis and recaps by folks from the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) this week.

Sedgwick County District Judge Warren Wilbert ruled on Friday that defense attorneys can present evidence to support a conviction of "voluntary manslaughter," defined in Kansas law as '"an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force," for Scott Roeder, the man charged with murdering abortion provider Dr. George Tiller on May 31, 2009.

The Feminist Majority Foundation argues, "Allowing an argument that this cold-blooded, premeditated murder could be voluntary manslaughter will embolden anti-abortion extremists and could result in 'open season' on doctors across the country." Besides the possibility of justifying murder, in anti-choice advocates' eyes, this type of conviction would also bring different consequences: The New York times reports: "Roeder faces life imprisonment if convicted of first-degree murder. A voluntary manslaughter conviction could bring a prison term closer to five years, depending on prior criminal record."

Wilbert did say, at Friday's hearing, that ''I had to shoot and kill Dr. Tiller to save unborn babies'' from abortion doesn't meet the necessity defense. Abortions, of course, are legal. Further, by legal standards, one life is not worth more than another, so even considering Roeder's moral point of view, the murder could not be deemed justified by Judge Wilbert.

So my question to all you legal experts out there, why is Judge Wilbert entertaining the voluntary manslaughter defense?

As Courtney mentioned yesterday, the NJ State Senate said no to same sex marriage in a disappointing 20-14 vote. You can view individual voting records, as well as a play-by-the-play of the debate that went down in the State Senate here.

In light of this monumentally disappointing-- if not entirely surprising-- setback, I offer as very small comfort the following comment on the sanctity of marriage:

pic via. h/t to Kelly.

Update: Some commenters have pointed out there are a couple of inaccuracies in this map. The point of this post was to reinforce the hypocrisy of "sanctity of marriage" arguments against gay marriage. For a more detailed and up to date map of same sex marriage laws in the US, check this out.

The answer to both questions is yes -- if you can prove they cheated on you. The recent Iowa case, that awarded a woman $1.5 million for past physical pain and suffering, past mental pain and suffering, future mental pain and suffering and punitive damages should feel like a feminist gain. After all, her ex-partner cheated on her with two other women, one of whom eventually gave birth to his child. It seems that the major issue according to Judge Amanda Potterfield, the woman who presided over the case, wasn't just that the dentist transmitted a communicable disease but that he did not exercise reasonable care not to.

I certainly agree that this man was a negligent ass-hat but this ruling is problematic and could potentially backfire for women as a collective. For starters, some of the evidence used in the case to prove that this man was negligent was the fact that he "received medical training and should be aware of the risks associated with communicable diseases." While one wonders whether women cheated on by lesser educated men would have the same claim, I can't help but feel slighted by the presumed sexual illiteracy of the woman in question.

An update on the horrendous anti-homosexuality bill we posted about last week:

Bloomberg is reporting that the death penalty and life imprisonment will be struck from the bill:

"Uganda will drop the death penalty and life imprisonment for gays in a refined version of an anti- gay bill expected to be ready for presentation to Parliament in two weeks, James Nsaba Buturo, the minister of ethics and integrity, said.

The draft bill, which is under consideration by a parliamentary committee, will drop the two punishments to attract the support of religious leaders who are opposed to these penalties."

This is certainly great news, and comes on the heels of increased criticism from the international community

But it's important to remember that this bill is still AN ANTI-GAY BILL. No matter the severity of the suggested "punishment" for homosexuality, the premise is uber-problematic. I also think it's important to remember that the anti-gay sentiment that created the bill has not been eradicated. I've included a link roundup below, if you'd like to learn more about eradicating homophobia in Uganda:

Click here to read a post on Akimbo with more context on the difficulties gay Ugandans already face.

Click here to view the the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) call to action (and to contact the Ugandan parliament).

Click here for the Human Rights Watch (HRW) statement "Uganda: 'Anti-Homosexuality' Bill Threatens Liberties and Human Rights Defenders"

Click here to listen to a radio Interview with Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG)

Click here to read about Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's reaction to the bill (hint: she's not a fan).

Sucky news out of DC this morning: A provision in the Senate State Foreign Operations bill that would have permanently repealed the global gag rule (GGR) was removed.

In January of this year, just days after being inaugurated into office, Obama signed an executive order to overturn the GGR, and we all breathed a sigh of relief. Finally, someone who understands that family planning funds should go to the organizations best qualified and stationed to provide basic health care needs. Period.

But the fight didn't end there (it never seems to, does it?!). As many of us know, the fate of this bogus policy has historically been subject to the ideology of the party in power: Reagan first imposed the order in 1984, but Clinton reversed it when he took office, only to have Bush reinstate it on the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in his very first executive order. So even though Obama repealed it again, in his first few days in office, the policy could still be put into effect at any time if an anti-choice President so desired.

The provision in the Senate State Foreign Operations bill could have changed all that. Today, Congress had a chance to permanently repeal the GGR, instead of leaving it up to the whim of tomorrow's politician- but they chose faulty ideology and political maneuvering over the health of women worldwide yet again, which is so unfortunate, because the GGR has horrific consequences for foreign family planning NGOs- restricting their ability to offer honest, comprehensive health care to some of the most vulnerable and in-need populations in the world.

Click here to write your representative and let he/she know what you think of this.

If you can have the opportunity to watch, C-SPAN is covering the Senate debate live today, which is now resuming the debate over Sen. Ben Nelson's anti-choice amendment. Watch now.

This is really upsetting, but gives us even more fodder to push for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).

This summer, 17-year old Zikerria Bellamy was refused for employment at an Orlando McDonald's when one of the managers learned that she was transgender. In response, the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund (TLDEF) has filed a discrimination lawsuit against the restaurant, and they have pretty damn good evidence: a recording of the voicemail the manager left Bellamy. He tells her, "We do not hire f*ggots." Says TLDEF:

Zikerria's story is all too common. Transgender people face tremendous discrimination in the workplace. According to a recent survey by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force and the National Center for Transgender Equality, 47% of transgender people report being fired, or denied a job or promotion, just because of who they are.

Few protections exist for transgender people who experience employment discrimination. In 38 states, there is no law protecting transgender people from being fired because of who they are. Federal law similarly offers no job protection for transgender people.

There's no Florida law explicitly stating protections against discrimination for trans individuals, although administrative agencies in Florida have ruled in the past that the Florida Human Rights Act's prohibitions on sex and disability discrimination does include trans rights. To ensure there's no uncertainty, the Competitive Workforce Bill was introduced to the Florida legislature last month, which would add language on gender identity and sexual orientation to the Florida Civil Rights Act.

What we need is to ensure protection at the federal level. Call the Capitol Switchboard at 202.224.3121 and ask to speak to your representative (TLDEF has recommendations on what to say) - ENDA has been sitting since September and Zikerria's story is further proof this just can't be delayed any longer.

"We have nothing to fear from love and commitment."

I am so disappointed about the outcome of this vote, but it's nice to watch the conviction that New York State Senator Diane Savino has about this issue. It makes me feel like at least the fight will continue...

Thanks to alozano for the heads up. If anyone has time to write a transcript, please go for it in comments!

A little bit of good voting news from yesterday: Kalamazoo, MI has added sexual orientation and gender identity to its laws banning discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations.

While a growing number of anti-discrimination laws include gender identity this still amounts to far less than those that include sexual orientation (there are too few jurisdictions [pdf] covered by these laws, too). 12 states and DC prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, while 21 others prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Unsurprisingly, the campaign against Ordinance 1856 focused on the inclusion of gender identity and those scary scary bathrooms while simultaneously erasing transgender identity. Given these transphobic tactics I see it as an especially positive sign that the ordinance passed with 62% of the vote.

About. Damn. Time.

Via The Advocate and Akimbo:

"The United States is one of a dozen countries that bar people with HIV from entering the country," Obama said as he announced the lifting of the U.S. policy banning travel and immigration to the U.S. by people who are HIV-positive.

"If we want to be the global leader in HIV, we need to act like it."

This should go a long way towards battling the seemingly ubiquitous stigma and discrimination HIV-positive people face worldwide. What a great way to end the week!

Lambda Legal made this great documentary that tells the story of the Supreme Court victory in Lawrence v. Texas that struck down state sodomy laws.

Click here to find out more about the film and how you can host a screening at your school or organization.

h/t Audacia Ray on Twitter.

Yesterday was the The National Day of Action Against Police Brutality, and guess what went down in Brooklyn? Yes, just that. From a reader:

This morning at 11:30am a young woman was having an altercation with about 8 folks from the nypd at the R/M 25th st stop in bklyn. After it was over and she was on her way to the turn style, they came back to arrest her. When she resisted, they tasered her. Clearly, I don't know the background, but she was one, unarmed, woman and the tasering was undeniably excessive.

This is breaking news, so I don't know if anyone is organizing around this incident, but please use the comments section as a place to link folks to that work if and when it happens!

Related posts:
Police Taser Disabled Man for Not Leaving Bathroom
Obama on Skip Gates
Understanding the Dialogue Around Lovelle Mixon
Understanding the Dialogue Around Lovelle Mixon Part II
Justice for Oscar Grant-Please spread widely!
Justice for Oscar Grant: Update on Fruitvale BART Protest

This Fuck Yeah goes out to reader, activist, and attorney Benjamin Edwards, who served as co-counsel on a case in New York defending transgender rights.

Transcript after the jump.

Via ThinkProgress:

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court." Check out his speech from the Senate floor yesterday:

The amendment passed by a 68-30 vote. Jones commented: "It means the world to me. It means that every tear shed to go public and repeat my story over and over again to make a difference for other women was worth it."

Check out this awesome news! From the AP:

"Uruguay lawmakers Wednesday adopted a trailblazing law allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt children, in an unprecedented move in Latin America."

This is hugely exciting, and a true sign of progress towards equal rights! I would be remiss not to note, though, that, as the article mentions, religious leaders and right-wing politicians continue to push a conservative agenda and hold great influence in Uruguay (abortion remains illegal there, for example). So there is much work still to be done. But today, we can celebrate this exciting landmark victory for progressive values and equal rights in Latin America!

P.S. I can't quite make it out, but I'm pretty sure the banner in the pic reads "No Mas Homofobia" or "No More Homophobia"!

Check out this really in-depth article following up on the some of the big picture questions I raised in my post last month about the new Google AdWords policy disallowing abortion ads in over a dozen countries.

The article was written by Masum Momaya of Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID) and gives a dope analysis of this truly multi-dimensional topic. Also the article explicitly mentions Feministing commentors and a lot of the points you all brought up in my first post on the subject, which is awesome and a testament to all of your thoughtfulness!

*pause to reflect on the greatness of this community*

Anyway, one major reveal from the article is that, legally and practically, "those submitting the ads, and not Google Inc., should be doing the screening for legal compliance." So there goes the theory about Google AdWords initiating the abortion policy just to abide by local laws.

Also, the article gets to what I think is the heart of the issue by exploring the various competing interests that are informing Google AdWords decision-making behind closed doors: legal, social, and financial, and more, and then asking:

"So do we want Google Inc. sorting, accrediting and ordering our information for us, ads or otherwise? And is doing so in a truly unbiased way possible for a for-profit company whose major source of revenue is dependent on advertising?"

Yeah, and I would add that reproductive health care information in particular requires special defense, because it is so often under attack as being "controversial" or "politically risky" when it is just health care for women, who, need I remind you, constitute half of this earth's population!

Anyway, before I begin to rant more about that, let me get back to the article. Overall, I agree with the article's conclusion:

"It is important for women's rights activists and social justice advocates more generally to understand the issues and limitations behind what does - and does not - show up when Googling for "abortion" or any other topic, for that matter, and continue to be on the lookout for this 'invisible' violation of women's rights."

Word.

According to a report by Catalyst entitled Women of Color in U.S. Law Firms, more than 75 percent of women of color will leave their employer within five years because of job dissatisfaction stemming from "complex barriers," including:

* A greater sense of "outsider status" and limited growth opportunities.
* Racial and gender stereotyping and more feelings of sexism in the workplace compared to
white women.
* Lack of access to high-profile client assignments and important client engagements.
* Missed opportunities for candid feedback.

The study is the fourth and final in Catalyst's Women of Color in Professional Services Series "examining how the intersectionality, or combined identities of gender and race/ethnicity, puts women of color at a unique disadvantage in the workplace."

I wonder if some of our readers want to speak to their experiences within law firms? I have a hunch we have more than a few legal minds within the feministing community and I'd love to hear your reactions.

My day job is with an amazing organization called the International Women's Health Coalition (IWHC), which works to promote and protect the sexual and reproductive rights and health of all women and young people, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. I work in communications there, doing research, writing for the blog , and, of course, performing admin duties :-) I've been working there for a few months now, and one of the most interesting parts of my job, in my estimation, is identifying and outlining the parallels between the challenges women face in the United States and the challenges we face internationally. I'm constantly reminded of the interconnectedness of our struggles, but I don't know that this interconnectedness is always on the radar of all U.S. based feminists. To that end, I draw your attention to recent happenings in the Dominican Republic surrounding reproductive rights and health.

The same drive to exert control over women's bodies that manifests in the U.S. in anti-choice efforts such as "fetal rights" laws is showing up in the Dominican Republic as, well, this. Proposed changes to a piece of legislation in the Dominican Congress called Article 30 would define life as "beginning at conception" and thus could effectively make any type of abortion unconstitutional and outlaw several forms of birth control. More after the jump.

Is this kind of stuff really still happening?

Well, today it is in Canada. While the news has been flying around about Ottawa Mayor Larry O'Brien's recent acquittal on the charges of influence peddling, not many are mentioning that the key witnesses' recollection of a conversation was deemed "of little weight" by the judge in part because she commutes to work every day while her kid stays at home with her husband.

That's right, politician Lisa MacLeod's testimony was declared unacceptable for corroboration by Justice Douglas Cunningham of Ontario Superior Court, implying that being a working mom has made her life too complicated for her to appropriately account her statement. Said the judge:

"The defence was able to demonstrate that there were a number of rather significant things going on in her life when she gave her statement to the police. ... "

"She was commuting regularly to Toronto for her work, leaving her husband and child in Ottawa,"

Because the overwhelming combination of working while a mom (gasp!), leaving your kid with the stay-at-home dad (double gasp!) on top of a long commute to work (wowowow!) is just too much for our little lady brains. MacLeod, the Conservative MPP for Nepean-Carleton, said the judge's comments were "pathetic" and "surreal."

"I didn't know truth had a gender or a family."

Pic via the Globe and Mail.

68-31 baby. Finally, a person of color on the SCOTUS that doesn't suck.

Remember U.S. Rep Tim Ryan's ousting from Democrat's for Life of America's advisory board for supporting contraception? Well, it looks like he's taken an initiative from the experience to reintroduce a bill that's garnering support from folks on both sides.

Ryan co-authored the bill with Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn) titled Unintended Pregnancies, Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act, which focuses on creating programs that improve access to family planning in low-income communities, reinstating Title X funding as well as fund comprehensive sex education. It's being backed by pro-choice organizations like NARAL as well as supported by a range of religious organizations and leaders.

Religion Dispatches has an excellent overview of the previous bill (that actually had anti-choice restrictions) and how the new version is encompassing so much of what reproductive health organizations have been saying all along (and doing in their work): preventing unintended pregnancies through comprehensive sex education, increasing access to family planning and contraception and supporting low-income women and their families.

The question of stigmatizing abortion around the bill is still a concern, particularly concerning the language coming from pro-life organizations that are backing the bill like Obama-instated Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships' Alexia Kelley's former organization saying that, "preventing the tragedy of abortion requires elected officials to find common ground and support comprehensive efforts to help women and families choose life." But as long as the bill itself doesn't include that rhetoric or any other abortion restrictions, people think this could be a "common ground" bill that may actually work. SIECUS said in its' statement of support:

"We recognize that the framing of this bill creates discomfort for some in its potential to stigmatize the legally recognized right to abortion. We share your concerns, but believe the important pieces of this bill warrant our support."

However, we can't let the new warm, fuzzy feelings between supporters blind folks to the reality that supporting and funding abortion care mustn't be put at the wayside. After all, solving women's financial problems isn't going to eliminate the need for abortion, not to mention the possibility of funding abortion care in health care reform is looking bleak.

Thoughts?

Exciting news. Next to the Senate for confirmation.

The committee voted 13-6 to send its recommendation to the full Senate, which is expected to confirm Sotomayor's appointment next week.

With all of the committee's Democrats supporting Sotomayor, Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin called the president's nominee "a thoughtful, careful and intelligent judge" with "a perspective that the court sorely needs. ... Not only will Judge Sotomayor be the first Latina to serve on the court, and the third woman, but also the first with experience as a trial judge."

Via LA Times.

The Red River Women's Clinic is filing an injunction to block the North Dakota state law that essentially makes women look at an ultrasound of the baby 24 hours before the abortion.

According to a news release from the Center for Reproductive Rights in New York, the new North Dakota law "includes a confusing provision requiring that the 'auscultation of the fetal heart tone,' which makes the fetal heartbeat audible, be consistent with 'standard medical practice in the community,' without making it clear whether or not the facility is required to offer the woman the opportunity to listen to the fetal heartbeat."

Adding the equipment to allow women to hear the fetal heartbeat "would impose a high financial burden on the facility," according to the center, which is working on behalf of the Fargo clinic.

"This law does nothing to enhance the safety of abortion care, and in the end, just subjects the only clinic in North Dakota to strict criminal liability for failing to conform to a medical standard that doesn't exist," said Suzanne Stolz, staff attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, in the news release. "The staff at Red River would either be forced to choose between providing abortions altogether -- in effect denying women in the state access to abortion -- or risking criminal prosecution to continue providing abortion services."

Pro-lifers will stop at nothing with their slut-shaming, anti-woman, pro-forced child birth antics. The sad, but not so shocking reality is that the legislation passed in the first place.

While Jos alerted us a couple of weeks ago to the anti-choice Democrats who are trying to keep abortion funding out of the health care reform plan, a recent interview with our president makes us wonder if he's caving into their efforts.

In an interview with Katie Couric this week, he finally addressed abortion funding in health care reform, but it wasn't too pleasing; he asserted he wasn't looking to "micro-manage" which benefits are covered and that not funding abortion has generally been "the tradition":

Katie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station. (Emphasis mine)

That is a reference to the Hyde Amendment, which currently prevents Medicaid coverage of abortions for poor women. And while none of the health reform bills in Congress threaten Hyde, reproductive health advocates have been trying for decades to repeal the ban. By deferring to this "tradition," Obama seems to be signaling that he could support a public plan that excludes abortion coverage.

This is despite the fact that during his campaign, he stated that he opposed the amendment. Dana Goldstein has more. Read more about the Hyde Amendment here. And take action here.

Via Pam's House Blend, we find efforts were being made to kill hate crimes legislation which would protect the LGBT community - not by objecting a proposed bill, but rather by adding a "poison pill" amendment which would revise it to the point of unsupportable. And they just passed last night.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) added amendments to the Matthew Shepard Act which will in effect kill the legislation; for example, one amendment will apply the death penalty in some hate crimes cases. His two other amendments are also seen as burdensome to the bill and a blatant Republican attempt to put the legislation to sleep.

This is especially bad considering the bill is already in danger being attached to the Defense Appropriations Bill. (Which may be vetoed by the president because of controversial funding requests for F-22 fighter planes.)

For those who don't know, Jeff Sessions was the asshole who grilled Sotomayor last week, accusing her of being a racist (while he was rejected to serve as a federal judge in '84 for making racist remarks). And he now serves as a force in the Senate Judiciary Committee, which he himself has called "a great irony." At least that's one thing we can agree on.

Update: Just found out that the Senate voted to stop the production of F-22 planes, which takes away the threat of the president's veto.

The past few weeks have seen important news related to race and the Supreme Court. In the June 29 Ricci v. DeStefano decision the court ruled in favor of white firefighters in New Haven who claimed they were subjected to racial discrimination when the results of a test for promotion were thrown out because white candidates outperformed non-white candidates. Since President Obama announced Judge Sotomayor as his nominee for Supreme Court Justice one of the primary attack lines leveled against her has been that she is a racist. Both examples represent an attempt to redefine racism without a recognition of history or sociopolitical reality so as to posit people of color as the oppressors and whites as the victims of racial discrimination.

Much more after the jump.

What a complete and utter ass.

Transcript after the jump. Via The Daily Beast.

Watching the confirmation hearings of Sotomayor, it makes me wonder if Sotomayor wants to scream, "hey white dude, you are partial to your own life experience as well..." The Sotomayor hearings are pretty painful to watch, and should put to the side any belief that we are in a post-racial space. Session's attempts to grill Sotomayor on this question of impartiality reveals the obvious ignorance that when white men hold partial beliefs they are natural and objective, whereas when women of color do, they are unable to effectively do the job.

It seems the question of whether Sotomayor's experience adds value, verse whether it impacts her ability to be objective in her rulings is at the core of the questioning, which is almost a pre-multiculturalism line of questioning that only a Republican would concern themselves with them. At least Democrats are up to the multi-kulti frame, where the more diverse we are, the better things are. It is not perfect, but it is better than the belief that white men are objective and everyone else is holding to much baggage to do their work.

Watch more here.

What do you think? Consider this an open thread for those that are watching the hearing as well.

Damn straight! On Wednesday, an appeals court ruled that despite two Washington pharmacists' lawsuit saying that their religious beliefs should allow them to refuse to stock and provide emergency contraception to their customers, personal convictions doesn't trump a patient's right to timely medication.

This decision is huge as it could affect policy across the Western U.S. regarding the "right to conscience" nonsense that has been gaining momentum over the past few years, particularly with the help of Bush implementing the anti-choice HHS regulations before he left office (which we're still waiting for Obama to rescind like he intended). But this ruling creates a precedent for future cases around the issue.

While the pharmacists won a temporary injunction by the U.S. District Court in Seattle under their claim that they should be protected under the First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals wasn't having it. They lifted the injunction, saying that a person's religious beliefs "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability":

"Any refusal to dispense -- regardless of whether it is motivated by religion, morals, conscience, ethics, discriminatory prejudices, or personal distaste for a patient -- violates the rules."

Booya.

Disappointing news: Porn is now illegal in the Ukraine.

Ever the optimist, I see a silver lining here. At least the whole "unless it's for medicinal purposes" clause unwittingly points to the health benefits of masturbation :-)

This is so fucked.

Randall Terry, the founder of anti-choice extremist group Operation Rescue who said that the late Dr. Tiller "reaped what he sowed" is planning a 12 city tour to "Defeat Sotomayor" which will begin in Washington, DC.

The accompanying image and flyer (PDF) that comes with this campaign is completely sick and makes it all the more obvious of how responsible much of the anti-choice movement is for using dangerous rhetoric and imagery that can contribute to terrorist acts like the assassination of Dr. Tiller.

Between the image of her exposed skull, the implication that Sotomayor is the "Angel of Death" and headlines such as, "If your life was threatened..." with a following "Now is the time to act", this honestly scares the shit out of me.

Thanks to Cyril for alerting us.

The case of Ricci v. DeStefano involved 17 firefighters who had taken the qualifications exam to become firefighters. All passed, all were white, but one Latino, and the city invalidated the test because they feared a racial discrimination lawsuit. The court found that this was essentially "reverse" racism and violated Title XII.

The ruling yesterday to overturn Ricci v. DeStefano was another bad decision in a series of bad decisions by the SCOTUS that will have implications for communities of color, women and poor people. Legal Momentum tells us why,

The Court created a new, more stringent standard for employment discrimination claims in striking down the New Haven Fire Department's attempt to ensure that its promotional exam did not discriminate against Black and Latino candidates. We believe that the standard articulated by the Court reflects a flawed interpretation of Title VII and is contrary to congressional intent.

Irasema Garza, President of Legal Momentum, stated: "Employment discrimination continues to be a major problem. To this day, women and minorities remain egregiously under-represented in many employment sectors. Astoundingly, the Court's decision acknowledges this fact and yet requires employers to avoid policies and practices that would help to remedy this discrimination. This decision will make it far more difficult for women and minorities to get good jobs in fields that continue to exclude them, such as firefighting, and for employers to eliminate barriers that have proved discriminatory in their effect."

Further, as a supporter of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court, Legal Momentum strongly disagrees with those who might use the Court's decision to imply that Judge Sotomayor and her colleagues in the Second Circuit erred in their ruling below. The Second Circuit panel of which Judge Sotomayor was a part acted with appropriate restraint in applying the precedent as it existed at that time. The matter before the Supreme Court involved issues of first impression and the Second Circuit's opinion was consistent with the views of four Justices on the Supreme Court as well as with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice.

Also, what about the possibility that Alito was also racially biased in making this decision? As Adam aptly asks at Tapped, why is racial discrimination only considered an offense when it is women or people of color being biased against whites?

A federal judge, calling his crimes "extraordinarily evil," sentenced Bernard L. Madoff to 150 years in prison today for operating a huge Ponzi scheme that violated thousands of people's trust and caused astronomical loss. I'm reminded of Nancy Goldstein's great piece over at Salon (which Ann linked to a while back in her WFR) about how the closing of two of Madoff's clients, the Picower Foundation and the JEHT Foundation, are affecting funding for advocacy and activism:

The media's obsession with wealthy individuals who have been ruined by Madoff and feel betrayed is understandable. But when that story wears thin, let's hope the cameras will document the effect of the $42 million shortfall that progressive nonprofits will face in 2009 without funding from JEHT and Picower. We've only just begun to understand the implications of that loss for women's health and human rights.

On the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, June 28, Fort Worth police raided The Rainbow Lounge and made numerous arrests. Here's an excerpt of an eye witness account:

My name is Kayla Lane. I am a Ph.D. student at UC-Santa Cruz, staying with my sister, Kelly Lane, for the summer. We and a few of our friends went to the new Rainbow Lounge last night to dance and have some fun. I was in the VIP section when police officers started coming up there. The first arrest (that we saw) was right in front of me in that section.

They asked the guy if he had been drinking, and he said some, and they snidely replied, "Well, we'll see how much!" and plastic handcuffed him as they read him his rights The guy was doing NOTHIG wrong. It was utterly repugnant.

Once I saw this happen, I decided to try and speak with one of the police officers themselves, to go straight to the source and get their side. My sister Kelly and I simply started asking what they were doing here, stating how suspicious it seemed on this date and in this specific club, etc. This was a "State Policeman," whose name I forgot, who tried to explain their actions by referring to "anonymous tips" and "disgruntled ex-bartenders." We pointed out the place was open a week, so the disgruntled ex-bartender source seemed a bit unlikely! He wouldn't really answer my questions. although he did try to grab my hand and flirt with me (which was completely uninvited).

After this, we saw the policemen go into the men's restroom, pull out at least two guys from handcuffs from there, and pull one onto the ground before forcefully removing him. What were they doing in there? Raucously disposing of their waste?! There was no reason for ANY of those arrests, at all. These people were NOT drunk, or even overly happy or silly.

I am incensed and horrified by the way everyone at this location was treated. I hope this will get as much publicity as it deserves, and that a myriad of challenges and complaints will be made to the FWPD and other media sources.

Read more about the incident, and the follow-up protests here.

Today the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that it was illegal for middle-school officials in Safford, Arizona to strip-search 13-year-old Savana Redding because another student claimed she'd hidden ibuprofen in her bra. The lone dissenting vote was Clarence Thomas.

Thomas warned that the majority's decision could backfire. "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."

I doubt it will do much to roll back the problem of zero tolerance policies, however, which are the main problem at hand.  Linking this back to Jesse's post about discipline patterns and prejudice, it's important to understand that in zero tolerance land, it becomes acceptable to freak out over things like a girl having Midol in her purse or some boy wears baggy pants.  When anything can be treated like rock solid evidence of criminality, it becomes super easy to railroad kids that trip up the school officials' prejudices.  Not that I don't think the school-to-prison pipeline couldn't exist without zero tolerance, but I'm guessing it greases the wheels significantly.  The irony of zero tolerance is that it's going to be selectively enforced.  It has to be.  When you can blow pretty much any behavior up to make it seem criminal, either everyone is turned into a criminal or you simply focus all your attention on kids that you had your suspicions about because of their race, family's income level, or, as in the days after Columbine, their tendency to wear black clothes and listen to weird music.

You have seriously got to be fucking kidding me. This was yesterday's editorial cartoon carried in the Oklahoman. Cartoonist Chip Bok depicts Sonia Sotomayor - the Supreme Court nominee, the first Latina woman who would have this position - as a piñata. Sometimes there are no words.

Please contact the paper here, or call them directly at (405) 475-3311.

The Oklahoma Women's Network Blog has more.

Thanks to Eryn for the link.

NY Times: A Judge's Own Story Highlights Her Mother's

What Tami Said: Sonia Sotomayor: How did she get in here? Or...The more things change; the more they stay the same

Think Progress: G. Gordon Liddy On Sotomayor: 'Let's Hope That The Key Conferences Aren't When She's Menstruating'

Feministe: Racism, Sexism and Sotomayor, in a few easy-to-read bullet points.

Post Bourgie: A word on empathy

F.R.I.D.A.: "On the Bench, With Fairness and Empathy"

Broadsheet: Sotomayor and abortion

RH Reality Check: Fair and Balanced: Weighing Sotomayor's Opinionse

Slate: Republicans won't beat Sonia Sotomayor by attacking her as too darn human.

Gender & Sexuality Law Blog: "Justice Sotomayor" - A View from Columbia Law School

What's the best thing you've read so far on Sotomayor's nomination?

Also, I know there's been a lot of non-Supreme Court news this week, too. What have you all been reading and writing?

It's been interesting to catch up to the Sotomayor coverage this morning. I really like this clip from CNN, which features Erica Gonzalez, the opinion page editor for El Diario/la Prensa, the third largest Spanish-language daily newspaper in the country. She actually manages to position Sotomayor's accomplishments in the history of Hispanic people contributing to this country in diverse ways. (It's incredibly difficult to say such complex, historicized statements on our soundbite news shows.) It also has "man on the street" interviews with folks talking about how her roots are inspiring, and of course the requisite America Dream talk from the pundits.

My personal feeling is that the American Dream stuff always gets oversimplified and overplayed when exceptional political leaders like Obama or Sotomayor get their due. It's important that we not lose sight of the fact that though our government, at the highest levels I might add, is becoming less white, male, and less historically privileged, that doesn't mean that the majority of barriers have been smashed or the majority of Americans of color given truly equal opportunities to become the next Obama or Sotomayor. Will it be easier? Probably. It's hard to aspire to be what you can't even see. But will it be easy? Absolutely not--especially with our failing public education system, health care inequities, rampant environmental racism etc. etc. None of these things are eradicated just became Sotomayor steps into her rightful place of power. Neither does her election eradicate the sexism--both institutional and social--that still prevents so many women from living the lives they want to live.

On that note, I find it interesting that a lot of the coverage I saw while surfing around this morning seems largely focused on her ethnic background with just a mention of her gender identity. Perhaps it is still easier for the mainstream media to figure out how to talk about ethnic "uplift" because it fits so nicely into the American Dream narrative than to explore the ongoing gender issues still so implicit and insidious in our daily experiences.

Today Obama announced his pick to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor. Conservatives are already calling her a "judicial activist."

Conservatives argue Sotomayor has a "hard-left record" and believes that judges should consider experiences of women and minorities in their decision-making.

Sounds pretty awesome to me. Although the road to confirmation is likely to be rocky, I hope Sotomayor is indeed confirmed. I was also heartened to see that all of the names on Obama's short-list were women. Yes, Sotomayor's record and experience should be first and foremost when we discuss her as a possible justice, but her identity is not insignificant. I'm looking forward to returning to an era of two women on the court -- because it's pretty damn appalling that "consider(ing) the experiences of women and minorities" is not something we expect of all members of the current Court.

For more on Sotomayor's legal opinions, SCOTUSblog has a detailed rundown in four parts: I, II, III, IV.

(Again, we're at our retreat right now, so sorry for the brevity. More on Sotomayor and her record to come...)

Last night, the LA City Council approved a budget that will fund the testing of the huge backlog of untested rape kits in Los Angeles.

According to Hollywood NOW President Lindsey Horvath (who was also recently appointed to the West Hollywood City Council - congrats!), "Over the next two years, we will eradicate the backlog of untested rape kit evidence as long as the Council continues to work with LAPD on a system that holds everyone accountable."

From Human Rights Watch:

As part of the city's budget for the upcoming fiscal year, the council approved money for an additional 26 employees for the city's crime lab DNA section and for using private crime laboratories for outsourcing. The budget now goes to the mayor for signature or veto within 10 days of approval by the City Council. The city has a backlog of more than 5,000 "rape kits," as the collected evidence is called, which have not been tested to try to identify a suspect through matching DNA.

Wonderful news, but HRW points out that this funding only affects the testing of rape kits under the Los Angeles Police Department's jurisdiction." There are still 7,000 more untested rape kits in the 47 other cities in Los Angeles County and stored by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

Related: Why Do Rape Kits Sit Around Untested?
Nearly 13,000 Rape Kits Go Untested in LA County

Today our nation's highest court ruled in AT&T v. Hulteen that women who took maternity leave and were discriminated against by AT&T are shit out of luck.

Before the Pregnancy Discrimination Act was passed, when women took leave from their AT&T jobs to have a baby, those days did not count toward their pensions -- even though other types of leave, such as temporary disability, were not removed from the pension equation. So when the women went to retire, they had lower pensions than other employees who had worked there the same number of years, even those who had taken leave for other reasons.

AT&T lawyers said their pension plan was legal when the women took pregnancy leave, so they shouldn't have to recalculate their retirement benefits now. Congress did not make the Pregnancy Discrimination Act retroactive, they said, so the women should not get any extra money.

A majority of the justices agreed. "A seniority system does not necessarily violate the statute when it gives current effect to such rules that operated before the PDA," wrote Justice David Souter, who will retire next month.

Basically seven members of the Supreme Court are saying, "You were discriminated against? You're about to retire with less money because of it? Tough."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented. By making it illegal to discriminate against women on pregnancy leave, "Congress intended no continuing reduction of women's compensation, pension benefits included, attributable to their placement on pregnancy leave," said Ginsburg, the court's only woman.

Even if the Pregnancy Discrimination Act cannot be applied retroactively, lawyers for the women argue that

the decision below should still stand based on Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, in which the Court held that if a seniority system is found to be facially discriminatory, it "'can be challenged at any time,'" and the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which specifically provides for challenges to an intentionally discriminatory seniority system "when a person aggrieved is injured by the application of the seniority system."

Given that women tend to make less money during their working years and then live longer than men, they already struggle financially during retirement. And this ruling isn't going to help. According to the National Women's Law Center, which filed an amicus brief (PDF) in the case,

The most recent population surveys show that the median pension benefit for women over 65 is $8,110, compared to a $12,505 median for men in the same age range.

Much like the Court's awful ruling in Ledbetter, Congress could fix this with legislation.

The court's decision could affect thousands of women who took pregnancy leaves decades ago and now are headed toward retirement, said Christine L. Owens, executive director of the National Employment Law Project. Now, the only way women who took pregnancy leave before 1979 can make their leave time count is through the good graces of their company or through legislation by Congress, she said.

Since I've never been too optimistic about the "good graces" of companies, I think it's time to push Congress to remedy this.

Scott Lemieux has more on how this relates to the diversity of the Court.

With 24 states requiring women to either get "counseling" or a 24-hour waiting period before they have an abortion, the Guttmacher Institute has released a study showing that these mandates actually do very little to effect the birth and abortion rates. In fact, women who receive counseling don't change their mind. What it does do is decrease access to abortion care:

Currently, 24 states require women to wait, usually for 24 hours, between an initial counseling session and the abortion procedure. The laws in seven of these states require in-person counseling at least 18-24 hours prior to the procedure. Multiple studies of such a law in Mississippi have found that the requirement was associated with a decline in the state's abortion rates, an increase in the number of residents going out of state for an abortion, and delays in accessing abortion services. These findings suggest that an in-person counseling requirement places an additional burden on some women by forcing them to take more time off from work, arrange child care or stay away from home overnight when the distance to the clinic is great. (Emphasis mine)

As Lynn Harris at Broadsheet smartly calls them "time outs," it really gets to the core of what this "informed consent" bullshit is about - treating grown women like children regarding on their personal decisions, and, like Kelli Conlin of NARAL Pro-Choice New York says, "reinforce[s] the myth that abortion is a decision that women take lightly."

Between being given "time outs" and playing the waiting game, it's obvious that these laws do nothing but degrade and infantalize women, while straight up impeding abortion access - not helping them make "better decisions."

Trigger warning.

The University of Tennessee has extended a scholarship offer to Daniel Hood, "Mr. Football" at Knoxville Catholic High School.

Hood certainly has all the athletic credentials: he led Knoxville Catholic to a 15-0 record and a class 3A state title. For his prowess, he got himself 27 scholarship offers from schools across the country. Indeed, Hood's football highlight film on Rivals.com has been watched 17,594 times.

But then schools caught wind of the horrifying details of his 2003 conviction (something they began to refer to as his "character issue"). Hood and an older friend, 17-year-old Robert Sanrico, who is currently serving 10 years in prison, raped and kidnapped a 14-year-old girl (Hood's cousin no less). Excerpts of the court transcript are here, but I warn you that they are highly disturbing.

All 27 of those scholarships disappeared once schools learned of Hood's legal record. But it appears that UT has managed to look past it. "We didn't go about this lightly," UT coach Lane Kiffin said in a statement Tuesday. "We spent a lot of time researching the issue and talking to a lot of people who are well-respected in the community. Everyone spoke very highly of Daniel. He's a very bright young man who wants to move past this incident and be a good representative for the team, the university and the community."

According to UT athletic department director of public relations, Tiffany Carpenter, the victim wrote a letter on Hood's behalf urging the university to admit him.

This is incredibly difficult for me to process. I won't judge Tiffany Carpenter's choice to forgive and even encourage her cousin to move on. I recognize that every person who experiences sexual assault has to heal in her own way. It does make me wonder what kind of support she's gotten through this whole process (this is the only time she's mentioned in the coverage).

But even more, it underscores the ways in which we still don't take sexual assault seriously in this country. I'm not a fan of criminalizing minors, but this incident is so violent and the punishment so lax (Hood went to a rehab center for a short period of time) that I can't help but feel like this kid's football talent has overshadowed any actual rehabilitation and reflection that he sorely needed and still needs to do. No one mentions if he actually got ongoing therapy, if he has gotten involved in sexual assault prevention efforts, or come to any kind of conclusions about why he committed such a dehumanizing crime against his own relative.

Were he not a football player, he would probably be stuck in a dead end job with no respect, no college scholarships, and no opportunities. (Not optimum, by the way. Just truth.) If he were a young man of color, well, we all know that his punishment would have looked far different. Instead, he's a white guy with a natural talent for throwing a pig skin, and as a result, he'll get a free college education and, quite possibly, could make millions in the NFL. All that money and glory will make the heinous sexual assault of his youth seem like a bad dream. I hate that athletic talent is valued more in this society than women's bodily integrity, therapeutic healing from violent crimes for both the perpetrator and the victim, or sexual assault prevention.

Fuck football.

Email Chancellor Jimmy G. Cheek at chancellor@utk.edu if you want to express your opinion about this issue.

Thanks to Christina for the heads up.

Correction: It appears that Tiffany Carpenter is the PR rep for UT Athletics, not the victim. This was misreported in one of the pieces I read. Thanks to Regann for the info.

Via MSNBC:

A lawyer for a U.S. journalist jailed in Iran says she has been freed from prison after an appeals court suspended her eight-year jail sentence.

Abdolsamad Khorramshahi says Roxana Saberi is "now out of jail."

She was freed after an Iranian appeals court cut her eight-year jail sentence for spying to a suspended two-year term.

The development came a day after an appeals court held a hearing on the case of Saberi, a 32-year-old journalist who has worked for the BBC and U.S. National Public Radio.

You can background on Roxana Saberi's case here and here.

Taxes! Don't know about you, but just seeing the word "taxes" can bring full-on panic. This week, President Obama announced part of his new tax code plan. I decided to get some help understanding it all from tax professor Annette Nellen, director of the Master's taxation program at San Jose State University.

Hope this helps! Here's Annette...

Samantha Orobator, a 20-year-old British woman faces death by firing squad for allegedly carrying 1.1 pounds of heroin into Laos. To make matters worse, she is pregnant. Doctors attest that she must have been impregnated after her capture; Orobator's mother fears that she was raped in prison. CNN has more.

Amnesty International has some crucial background information on Laos and its ongoing human rights violations, mostly involving the persecution of indigenous people and censored media. On prison conditions:

Lack of access by independent human rights monitors prevented an accurate assessment of the number of political prisoners and prison conditions, but reports continued of ill-treatment, lack of food, overcrowding and inadequate medical care.

Contact human rights group Reprieve, who is trying to make sure that Orobator receives a fair trial and that her right to bodily integrity is protected.

Thanks to multiple readers for the heads up.

UPDATE: Orobator will not be executed, but will she receive a fair trial?

As the New Hampshire Senate passed a bill this week to legalize same-sex marriage, we find trans people's rights were completely fucked on the same day.

While the House rejected a bill in late March that would protect transgender people's rights under the state's anti-discrimination and hate crime law, the Senate is apparently in the same boat:

The New Hampshire Senate today unanimously rejected a bill that would have extended anti-discrimination laws to transgendered people.

House Bill 415 would have protected those with sexual identity issues in areas of housing and employment, much the way the state's laws protects others from discrimination on the basis of color, race, religion or sexual orientation.

I find it interesting that Democrats apparently "blasted opponents of the bill for dubbing the measure the 'bathroom bill,' a move they said created misunderstanding and fear among the general population" but the Senate (with a Democratic majority) unanimously rejected the bill with a 24-0 vote. Am I missing something, or is there a huge WTF here?

Read more at Questioning Transphobia and Pam's House Blend, and then contact the Senate and tell them how appalled you are at this bullshit.

We're a bit late getting to this; on Wednesday, the New Hampshire Senate passed (with a narrow margin) to allow same-sex couples to marry.

It was passed with a 13-11 vote, and only after language in the bill was amended granting religious groups and organizations legal protections who do not want to perform same-sex marriages. (Could this be due to a recent kerfuffle in Iowa over judges giving up their rights to perform marriages altogether to avoid marrying gay folks?)

The House, who passed the bill just a month ago, now has to approve those changes and place the final bill in the hands of Governor John Lynch, who made this statement on its passage:

"I recognize that the issue of same-sex marriage is intensely passionate and personal, and raises strong emotions on all sides.

"I still believe the fundamental issue is about providing the same rights and protections to same-sex couples as are available to heterosexual couples. This was accomplished through the passage of the civil unions law two years ago. To achieve further real progress, the federal government would need to take action to recognize New Hampshire civil unions."

This doesn't sound super hopeful, so sign a petition or contact the governor's office directly; there's no time to waste.

UPDATE: Unfortunately, while marriage equality matters to the Senate, transgender anti-discrimination laws aren't up for discussion. (As it wasn't in the House either. What a disappointment.)

Says NPR:

The court has completed hearing oral arguments for the year and will be issuing rulings and opinions until the end of June. Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.

At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court, but he has made clear to friends for some time now that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire. Now, according to reliable sources, he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.

Souter's retirement would give President Obama his first appointment to the high court, and most observers expect that he will appoint a woman.

Via TPM, we find that SCOTUSblog had a few predictions earlier this year as to who would be picked if there was a space to fill this summer:

The three obvious candidates are Elena Kagan (SG), Sonia Sotomayor (CA2), and Diane Wood (CA7). The sleeper candidate is Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm.

All four were born between 1950 and 1960. Diane Wood is the most respected as a judge. But she is the oldest (born 1950), and as a consequence a seat this summer would likely be her one shot. Kagan and Granholm have the advantage of being the youngest (born in 1960 and 1959, respectively). Granholm has experience dealing with legislatures and actually representing people, as well as law enforcement experience as the state's attorney general. Sonia Sotomayor has the advantage that she would be the first Hispanic nominee to the Court; she also served as a trial judge. She and Judge Wood have the longest written track record, but not one that would present any obstacle to confirmation with this Senate.

While folks say that whomever Obama picks won't change the ideological makeup of the court considering Souter's tendency to lean to the left, it's still seriously exciting to anticipate another woman justice; that in itself will be a notable change. (Send good thoughts to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is now recovering from cancer surgery - and currently the only woman serving.)

Melissa Harris Lacewell suggests Kimberle Crenshaw for the job. Does anyone have a favorite or wish list for the shortlist?

Looks like Supreme Court Justice David Souter is going to retire. Wowza. Thoughts?

The NY City police officers that were charged with the rape of an intoxicated woman have been indicted.

A grand jury in Manhattan has voted to indict two New York City police officers in the December rape of a woman who claimed she was sexually attacked after the officers escorted her from a taxicab to her apartment in the East Village while she was intoxicated, according to law enforcement officials and other people familiar with the case.

The grand jury last week charged both officers -- Kenneth Moreno and Franklin L. Mata -- though the details of the indictment were not immediately disclosed, according to the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The officers, who have been on modified duty, stripped of their guns and badges and working in administrative assignments, are expected to surrender on Tuesday morning and face arraignment in criminal court.

Ugh, what a scary case.

Via NYTimes.

Via Pam's House Blend, we find that many Iowa judges are opting out of performing marriages entirely to avoid having to marry same-sex couples. This has, not surprisingly, called on the Alliance Defense Fund to begin offering legal services to those who still wish to perform only hetero marriages based on their "religious beliefs." Says ADF:

"Government employees who believe in marriage as the union of one man and one woman should not be penalized for abiding by their beliefs," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Doug Napier. "This policy allows an employee who does not wish to violate his or her own conscience by issuing a marriage license to a same-sex couple to abstain and allow the transaction to be performed by someone who is willing to do it. Forcing them to participate in offensive acts contrary to their deeply held beliefs in order to remain employed is unconstitutional."

This comes less than a month after the Iowa Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage equality, so we were expecting some folks to be up in arms. However, it's the first case I've heard of where the "right to conscience" nonsense that anti-choice pharmacists (and Bush) have been pushing for years has managed to seep into another "issue" of the conservative plight.

At least the judges who opt out of performing all marriages know what the deal is - after all, they are servants of the law and know better. But any judge who shacks up with the ADF to use religion as a means of discriminating who they think should be married needs a serious head (and career) check.

Allen Ray Andrade found guilty of the murder of Angie Zapata!

Plan B now available to 17-year-olds!

Thirteen-year-old Savana Redding of Safford, Arizona, was strip searched by middle school administrators, on a tip from another student who claimed she had contraband Advil hidden in her bra. Her lawyer argued to the Supreme Court this week that school officials violated the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches. School officials didn't bother to search her desk or locker, or even question additional students before they made her strip down to her skivvies.

Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer revealed himself to be less than equipped to hear the case. From Dahlia Lithwick's great Slate piece on the topic:

"In my experience when I was 8 or 10 or 12 years old, you know, we did take our clothes off once a day, we changed for gym, OK? And in my experience, too, people did sometimes stick things in my underwear." Click Here!

Shocked silence, followed by explosive laughter. In fact, I have never seen Justice Clarence Thomas laugh harder. Breyer tries to recover: "Or not my underwear. Whatever. Whatever. I was the one who did it? I don't know. I mean, I don't think it's beyond human experience."

Wow, so your history of bullying now constitutes legal or moral precedent? I'm sorry, did I miss a shift in our legal justice system by which judge's adolescent hijinks were sound juris prudence? It gets even more bizarre...

By now, even Justice David Souter has ditched Wolf, musing that if he were the principal in a school, he "would rather have the kid embarrassed by a strip search ... than have some other kids dead because the stuff is distributed at lunchtime and things go awry."

Dead? By a couple of Advil?

The combination of disregard for young women's bodily integrity with total hyperbole about the potential effects of a couple of Ibuprofen is infuriating. Students deserve the same rights as their oh-so-adult counterparts, regardless of and, hell, especially because they are subjected to the horrors of the adolescent locker room.

Thanks to Annasara for the heads up.

Journalist Roxana Saberi, 31, was convicted of espionage in Iran last week after a one-day trial behind closed doors and was sentenced to eight years in prison. Saberi is a freelance journalist who has lived in Iran for six years and was raised by an Iranian father. From the Huffington Post:

Human rights groups have repeatedly criticized Iran for arresting journalists and suppressing freedom of speech. The government has arrested several Iranian-Americans in the past few years, citing alleged attempts to overthrow its Islamic regime. The most high-profile case came in 2007, when Iran arrested four Iranian-Americans, including the academic Haleh Esfandiari. The four were imprisoned or had their passports confiscated for several months until they were released and allowed to return to the U.S.

Last night at Colgate University, Iranian filmmaker Bahman Ghobadi, read a letter in support of Saberi, who served as his translator. An excerpt:

Roxana wanted to leave Iran. I kept her from it. She is the one who took care of me while I was depressed. Then I convinced her to stay, I wanted her to write the book she had started in her head. I accompanied her, and thanks to my friends and contacts, I knocked on every door and was able to set up meetings with film makers, artists, sociologists, politics, and others. I would go with her myself. She was absorbed by her book, to the point that she could stay and bear it all, until my film would be finished, and we would leave together.

Roxana's book was a praise to Iran. The manuscripts exist, and it will certainly be published one day, and all will see it. But why have they said nothing? All those who have talked, worked and sat with her, and who know how guiltless she is.

I am writing this letter for I am worried about her. I am worried about her health. I heard she was depressed and cried all the time. She is very sensitive. To the point she refuses to touch her food. My letter is a desperate call to all statesmen and politics, and to all those who can do something to help.

The full text of Ghobadi's letter is after the jump.

Check out the Free Roxana site to take action.

And more on Roxana at BBC News.

Thanks to Cornelia for pushing us to get on the ball and June Cross for news of the Ghobadi letter.

Ann wrote about Angie Zapata, who was brutally murdered in Greeley, Colorado last July, as part of the Transgender Day of Remembrance, so I wanted to make sure the community knew that her alleged murderer, 32-year-old, Allen Andrade is finally facing trial (started Tuesday). Adrade is facing charges including first-degree murder and a bias-motivated crime, which could add three years to his prison sentence if convicted. Read more here.

It's about damn time:

Gov. David A. Paterson on Thursday announced that he would introduce a bill to legalize same-sex marriage, drawing on the soaring oratory of the civil rights movement to call on the Legislature to add New York to the four states that have already authorized such unions.

Comparing the status of gay men and lesbians with that of blacks, Jews, women, disabled people and other groups who were historically excluded from full political and social equality, Mr. Paterson said he would lead the movement to authorize same-sex marriage in the Empire State. "We have a crisis of leadership today," he declared. "We're going to fill that vacuum today."

More on his announcement here.

Thomas and Rachel Myers at the ACLU recently covered the story in PA where a group of teens were being threatened by Wyoming County (PA) district attorney George Skumanick, Jr. of facing criminal charges over distributing revealing pictures of their classmates - including charges against the very girls in the pictures for being accomplices to child pornography because they allowed themselves to be photographed.

Well, we're happy to see that a U.S. judge has filed a restraining order against Mr. Skumanick from pressing charges against the students. Said the judge:

"The court agrees with the plaintiffs that the public interest would be served by issuing a TRO (temporary restraining order) in this matter as the public interest is on the side of protecting constitutional rights."

Awesome.

This is coming a wee late but is fantastic news. After years of harassment and public shaming through what seemed to be a neverending trial, charged on 19 counts of misdemeanor by the state of Kansas, Dr. George Tilller came out on top and was acquitted on all counts on Friday.

A background: While Tiller is one of the few late-term abortion providers in the country, Kansas law allows late-term abortions only when two independent doctors sign off on the procedure. Prosecutors charged Tiller of having a financial relationship with the doctor that he frequently received authorization from. This, in fact, was nothing more than an anti-choice witch hunt over a law that exists to undermine women's ability to make their own decisions and make abortion providers' jobs harder. (This is not to mention Tiller's clinic was subsequently closed during the trial and he was also shot.)

According to the Times, it only took 45 minutes for the jurors to acquit him on Friday. Unfortunately, the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts is now "investigating" complaints related to the same charges. But today, we pay homage to Dr. Tiller and congratulate him on his acquittal. In other words, halle-freakin'-lujah.

Yesterday, the New Hampshire House voted to allow same-sex couples to marry.

It won just by a seven-vote margin and now lies in the hands of the Senate, although folks are unsure if Governor John Lynch will veto the measure if it passes the house. (He has stated he's against marriage but signed a law allowing civil unions last year.)

Just don't start praising the House yet - it also rejected a bill that would extend protections to transgender folks under the state's anti-discrimination and hate crimes laws. There was a ton of pushback and even mockery by opponents of the measure, coining it, "the bathroom bill" (you know, the whole "horror" of the idea that trans men and women would be walking into bathrooms and saunas as they please) as well as sending emails to constituents claiming the bill would be protecting "sexual predators."

Let's place the horror here where it truly belongs - contact the Senate and let them know your thoughts.

As Andrew Sullivan writes, "This is how you do it."

Which naturally made me sing and dance to this. Dance with me.

Apparently police in Minneapolis are so fed up with prostitution that they're experimenting with a truly bold tactic:

Whether teenagers walking to and from South High School or young women waiting at the bus, the unwanted solicitation by "johns" has left civic leaders such as Schiff fed up and ready to take a new approach -- if the rule of law isn't a strong enough deterrent to the men looking for illegal sex, perhaps advertising their public humiliation will be.

Enter a huge electronic billboard at the intersection of Interstate 35W and Lake Street, which fired up Wednesday with direction to www.johnspics.org, a city website that prominently displays photos of men convicted or charged with soliciting prostitution within the past six months. Clear Channel, which donated the billboard space, will run the signs for the next six months. Though the photos have been online since 2004, the new Web address will be easier for drivers to remember.

What do you all think about this strategy? After learning that the average age a girl gets into prostitution is 13 recently, I've felt pretty tenacious about any policy that can cut down on the power of manipulative older men. On the other hand, this seems like one step down a slippery slope of eroding civil rights and, besides, deterrents like this don't seem to actually work all that well.

Read the full article here.

Thanks to reader Jess for the heads up.

Photo of Prop 8 protest yesterday via the Bilerico Project.

Yesterday the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case to repeal Prop 8. It doesn't look good:

Based on their questions and comments during three hours of oral argument Thursday, a majority of the California Supreme Court appeared ready to uphold Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that ended gay marriage in the state.

But, a small silver lining:

However, it seemed equally apparent that the court was prepared to rule that the 18,000 same-sex marriages performed in the state last year should remain valid.

My colleague Adam at the Prospect flags this quote from anti-marriage-equality lawyer Ken Starr,

"Rights are ultimately defined by the people," said Starr, representing Protect Marriage, the group that put the constitutional amendment on the ballot. He said proponents of Prop. 8 want to "restore the traditional definition that has been in place since this state was founded."

As Adam points out, this worldview is incredibly warped -- "there's something incredibly tyrannical about deciding, by virtue of the immutable circumstances of a person's birth, that they're not entitled to the same rights as you are." (On a related note, Adam has done some great reporting about the NAACP stepping into the marriage equality debate. Check it out.)

Way more on the Prop 8 hearing at the Bilerico Project, Pam's House Blend, Shakesville, Hullabaloo, and at the Community blog.

Oh, and a bit of good news from yesterday, too: A bill granting same-sex couples the right to civil unions -- and recognizing same-sex marriages from other states -- moved forward in Illinois.

Hallelujah. Remember Bush's parting gift, the last minute HHS rule that not only allows health care providers to define contraception as abortion, but allows them to deny health care based on their moral or religious reasons? Well, folks are saying that President Obama plans to move to repeal the regulation today. Via AP:

The Obama administration is moving to rescind a federal rule that reinforced protections for medical providers who refuse to perform abortions or other procedures on moral grounds, an official said Friday.

A Health and Human Services official said the administration will publish notice of its intentions early next week, and open a 30-day comment period for advocates, medical groups and the public. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the official notice has not been completed.

The Bush administration instituted the rule in its last days, and it was quickly challenged in federal court by several states and medical organizations. As a candidate, President Barack Obama criticized the regulation and campaign aides promised that if elected, he would review it.

Looks like we'll have another 30-day comment period to take action despite the fact that over 200,000 people submitted their opposition to the regulation originally, so we'll keep you posted on where to send your comments. In the meantime, I'm keeping confidence that Obama will put this shit to bed already. Thank him in advance.

The Chicago Tribune breaks down the twelve states that are all considering legislative restrictions that would require an ultrasound before a woman gets an abortion. (Or force a doctor to offer one.)

This reminds us of the whole "informed consent" absurdity that the antis love to push as some sort of right when it's nothing but completely belittling, implying that women don't understand their personal decisions (or at least they don't without the "guidance" of their friendly neighborhood anti-choice legislator). Cara says it well:

It all seems to be about the poor little woman who doesn't understand what it means to be pregnant, or who will surely have a change of heart once she sees a blurry, cloudy image that I've never been able to personally make out. It's about forcing government into the decisions of doctors, trumping science with ideology, and attempting to take away the privacy of women. Indeed, it's about taking the focus off of women and their rights and yet again putting the fetus, this time literally, right in the front and center of the picture.

More at Feministe.

Arizona State University has settled with a rape survivor for $850,000.

The young woman was raped in her dorm room by a student who had been previously kicked out of school after accusations of rape, inappropriate sexual comments and touching, and exposing himself to female students and staff. The Arizona Republic reports that he "was allowed to return to campus in August 2003 and to rejoin the football team, but he received no counseling."

"Historically, universities have downplayed rapes," said Joanne Belknap, a sociology professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder and researcher in violence against women. "In general, they don't want people to know about it because people won't want to send their daughters there and women won't want to come."

This is the first settlement to require a statewide system of universities to change the way it responds to complaints of sexual harassment and violence, and it sends a warning to all universities and colleges, Belknap said.

For more information on sexual assault on college campuses and ways to get involved, check out SAFER.

Well, this is fucked. Two transsexual women are suing the state of Illinois for refusing to change their birth certificates to reflect their gender identities.

When Kari Rothkopf went to her hometown in Springfield to change her birth certificate, the supervisor at the vital records office told her that it couldn't be changed because she intended to have her gender reassignment surgery outside the U.S. (Both Rothkpf and Victoria "Tori" Kirk had their surgery in Thailand.) So the two teamed up with the ACLU to take action. Kirk said at a recent news conference:

"It could create significant problems for me in the future . . . A document that says I am male puts me at risk of embarrassment, harassment and possibly even physical violence."

As all three are too well known to the trans community. Let's hope these women get some justice for this bullshit.

via Feministe.

Unless you're a homo.

This is just unbelievable.

A private religious high school can expel students it believes are lesbians because the school isn't covered by California civil rights laws, a state appeals court has ruled.

Relying on a 1998 state Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Boy Scouts to exclude gays and atheists, the Fourth District Court of Appeal in San Bernardino said California Lutheran High School is a social organization entitled to follow its own principles, not a business subject to state anti-discrimination laws.

"The whole purpose of sending one's child to a religious school is to ensure that he or she learns even secular subjects within a religious framework," Justice Betty Richli said in the 3-0 ruling, issued Monday.

If that wasn't horrible enough, this case is based on two girls who were harassed by their principal, and expelled simply for being perceived as lesbians.

Via Seal Press.

A few months ago, Courtney blogged about news that health-insurance providers are charging women more for the same coverage. (No, this isn't about pregnancy care -- that costs women extra.) Now, the city of San Francisco is bringing a lawsuit against the board that regulates California insurers, to get them to stop the discriminatory practice.

This is especially relevant now, when so many employers are making lay-offs and cutting benefits, because the price difference mainly affects individuals purchasing health insurance. Says SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera,

"A lot of times, women are priced out of private health coverage because of the discriminatory practices by insurance companies," he said. "This means women have to rely on public hospitals and clinics, and over the last few years we've seen an influx of women who can't afford insurance come into San Francisco General Hospital."

As the economic downtown worsens and the costs of healthcare rise, Herrera said, the numbers of those who can't afford healthcare will grow.

"Our state is really behind the curve on this one," he said. "When women can't afford healthcare because they're priced out of it, they're not the only ones who pay for it. These women have to turn to the public health system, a system that is already strained as it is, and every taxpayer ends up paying for it."

For more discussion, see the comments on Courtney's previous post.

Law Students for Reproductive Justice is accepting submissions for its 4th annual Writing Prize. The theme this year is "Seeking Reproductive Justice in All Places for All People."

LSRJ is looking for fresh student scholarship that a) focuses on marginalized individuals or communities, such as people of color, immigrants, minors, poor people, prisoners, and those who identify as LGBTQQI, and b) applies a reproductive justice lens in its analysis.

Papers may have a domestic or international scope. Authors are encouraged to focus
their research on issues or occasions of reproductive coercion or oppression: the political,
social, legal, and economic forces that limit or control the reproductive options of individuals and communities. A wide range of topics will be accepted, including but not limited to a particular community's unique struggle against reproductive oppression; environmental conditions causing reproductive harms; coercive or forced contraception, sterilization, or birthing conditions; the shackling of pregnant prisoners during labor and delivery; discrimination against non-traditional family formation; the impact of pharmacist refusals or abortion provider shortages in geographically isolated communities; or access to the HPV vaccine.

Send your submission as a pdf or Word attachment to info@lsrj.org by March 2nd!
Winning authors will receive $750 (1st place) or $250 (2nd place), get published on LSRJ's website, and perhaps be invited to present their papers at conferences.

For more info, see the LSRJ website.

Amen! Via AP:

Energized by the prospects of a pro-labor president, House Democrats marked the first week of the new Congress Friday by pushing through two bills to help workers, particularly women, who are victims of pay discrimination.

Unlike President George W. Bush, who threatened to veto the two bills when they came up in the last session of Congress, President-elect Barack Obama has embraced them.

"Today we face a transformational moment," said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., chief sponsor of the Paycheck Fairness Act. "With a new Congress, a new administration, we have a chance to finally provide equal pay for equal work and make opportunity real for millions of American women."

The bill could reach the Senate floor as early as next week, so make sure your senator knows about your support. Here's more info about Lilly Ledbetter and read the whole AP piece for more details on today's passage.

One of the less-discussed anti-gay ballot initiatives that passed in November was an Arkansas measure that bars unmarried couples from adopting or foster-parenting. Now the ACLU has filed a suit that says the law is not in the best interest of children -- which makes sense, because at a time when there are 3,700 children in foster care and only 1,000 foster homes, the state is further limiting the number of potential caregivers.

"Act 1 violates the state's legal duty to place the best interest of children above all else," Marie-Bernarde Miller, a Little Rock attorney in the lawsuit, told the Associated Press.

The group filed the suit on behalf of 29 adults and children from more than a dozen families. The families claim the act's language was confusing and voters were therefore misled.

The Arkansas Family Council, a group that campaigned heavily for the ban, admitted to targeting gay couples but said it will affect both gay and straight people.

To say that they're doing this on behalf of kids is just ridiculous. Laws like these are opposed by nearly every child welfare organization in the country. And don't you love that twisted line of argument? "We discriminate against gay people and unmarried straight people, so it's not actually discriminatory." WTF.

There's some minor comfort in the fact that the ban doesn't affect adoptions approved prior to November 4. I'm not sure about foster-care situations, though.

President-elect Obama has named Elena Kagan, Harvard Law School dean, as Solicitor General.

From Think Progress:

Kagan will be the first woman to serve permanently in this important post, which is tasked with conducting "all litigation on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court, and to supervise the handling of litigation in the federal appellate courts. Kagan previously served in the White House during the Clinton administration, as Associate Counsel to the President, Deputy Assistant the the President for Domestic Policy, and Deputy Director of the Domestic Policy Council. (Emphasis mine)

In an email to the law school community, Kagan wrote, "I have accepted this nomination because it offers me the opportunity, working under the leadership of the President-elect and his nominee for Attorney General, Eric Holder, to help advance this nation's commitment to the rule of law at what I think is a critical time in our history."

Related: Also note-worthy is that Dawn Johnsen, former legal director for NARAL, was named the new head of the Office of Legal Counsel. So we got another high-level female appointee - one with a strong reproductive rights background to boot! Sweet.

You can check out more of MC Flow here.

Via Queers United.

It's about time. After a four-year anti-choice crusade against women's health clinics in Kansas, former Attorney General Phill Kline was slammed by the Kansas Supreme Court on Friday for his baseless attempts to criminalize Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri. The Court said:

Kline exhibits little, if any, respect for the authority of this court or for his responsibility to it and to the rule of law it husbands. His attitude and behavior are inexcusable, particularly for someone who purports to be a professional prosecutor. It is plain that he is interested in the pursuit of justice only as he chooses to define it. (Emphasis mine)

Hallelujah. Peter Brownlie, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri, responded, "The Court confirms what Planned Parenthood has said all along: Phill Kline is a zealot pursuing a lawless prosecution and misusing the people's trust to advance a radical anti-choice political agenda. We are saddened and angered by the travesties recounted in the Court's opinion, and we are grateful the Court rebuked him for his disgraceful acts."

Related posts:
Kline files 107 counts against a Kansas City Planned Parenthood (Weekly Feminist Reader)
Abortion records seized by Kline now missing (WFR)
Special Prosecutor fired, Kline criticized by governor Kathleen Sebelius (WFR)
Kline's special prosecutor linked to anti-choice terrorists (WFR)
Phill Kline's "investigation" continues
Are you going to second base? The Kansas AG wants to know.
Hearings on Kansas abortion records to be closed

Yet another reason to be proud New Yorker - dare I say we have a feminist governor? Via Zuzu, we find that Governor David Paterson was "outraged" this week that no women were nominated to lead the state's Court of Appeals.

Forced to choose between seven men from a recommended panel, Paterson expressed his discontent saying, "What we really wanted to do is just publicly acknowledge ... the disappointing fact that they spanned the globe and couldn't find a woman in New York state that was qualified to serve as the chief judge," adding that the panel's rejection could be discouraging to women. Ya think?

Additionally, not one of the three women on the Court of Appeals made the cut. The current chief judge of Court of Appeals, Judith Kaye, plans to resign at the end of the year.

Also on the New York tip, feminist organizations just publicly endorsed Rep. Carolyn Maloney to take Hillary Clinton's seat in the Senate. Considering her impeccable history as a pro-choice advocate in the state, it sounds like a good pick to me - we certainly need a good fit to take Clinton's place.

The latest by fabulous Mikhaela Reid.

Click here for a larger version.

That's what I'm talkin' bout!

Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) and Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) introduced legislation today that would block the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from passing the midnight regulation being finalized as I blog. As most of you know, the proposed HHS rule would prevent family planning clinics from "discriminating" against employees who refuse to service women seeking reproductive health care.

Senator Clinton had this to say about their proposed bill, the Protecting Patients and Health Care Act:

"In the final days of his administration, the President is again putting ideology first and attempting to roll back health care protections for women and families. The fact that the EEOC was never consulted in the drafting of this rule further illustrates that this is purely a political ploy. This HHS rule will threaten patients' rights, stand in the way of health care professionals, and restrict access to critical health care services for those who need them most. Senator Murray and I are standing up once again to the administration against this rule and will continue to fight for women's reproductive rights. President Bush is making a last-minute attempt to undermine women's health care, but our legislation will stop this rule and ensure that women can continue to get needed health care."

Amen. Check out Planned Parenthood's community post on this.

UPDATE: Senator Clinton has a guest post up at RH Reality Check.

More and more cases are popping up where men are being acquitted of rape with the defense that they were sleepwalking so they didn't realize they were raping someone. Common sense-wise, this holds almost no water, yet it seems to be a viable defense for some courts.

Jason Jeal, a 37-year-old roofer with no medical history of sleepwalking, admitted sex had taken place. But he was cleared of rape after he insisted he had been asleep and had no idea what he was doing.

Mrs McKenna, a middle-class mother of one whose husband holds a respectable full-time position, said the acquittal in June had left her feeling 'shocked and degraded'.

Last night, she waived her right to anonymity to highlight her concern that attackers will increasingly use the defence that they were asleep. She has already gained the support of MPs and campaigners who argue the sleepwalking defence 'defies common sense'.

Apparently, carrying out sexually violent acts in your sleep is called 'sexsomnia' and is condition where you carry out "indecent" acts in your sleep. I think it should probably be more aptly titled "rapesomnia" since sex assumes consent.

I find this story and the other examples of the sleepwalking defense to be extremely troubling. Thoughts?

The New York Times has a piece this morning about the Health and Human Services (HHS) regulation that the Bush administration is planning to slip onto the books before he leaves office - you know, the one that would prevent family planning clinics from "discriminating" against employees who are opposed to abortion on "religious or moral grounds," even if they're working at an abortion clinic, and even if they believe birth control is abortion.

With the final version of the regulation (which may very well pass) to be released in a matter of days, Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Reproductive Rights issued a joint letter to the U.S. Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) at the Office of Management and Budget. Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said, "It's unconscionable that the Bush administration, while promising a smooth transition, would take a final opportunity to politicize women's health." The regulations will hit low-income women seeking reproductive health care the worst, allowing pharmacists to refuse birth control to Medicaid recipients and literally undo state laws that require hospitals to dispense EC to rape survivors.

This is all despite the 200,000 plus comments sent to HHS opposing the rule. While Obama is opposed to the regulations and his aides say he will try to rescind the rule, the process could take up to 6 months. And assuming Obama would be able to rescind it in the end, that's still plenty of time to make plenty an impact.

Click here to read the letter to OIRA, and take action here.

Last June, Duanna Johnson was brutally beaten by Memphis police - and it was caught on video.

Johnson was in the booking area at the Shelby County Criminal Justice Center when she was hit repeatedly in the face and head by a police officer while another held her down.

"Actually he was trying to get me to come over to where he was, and I responded by telling him that wasn't my name - that my mother didn't name me a 'faggot' or a 'he-she,' so he got upset and approached me. And that's when it started," Johnson said.

This week, Johnson was murdered. Helen at My Husband Betty brings us the tragic story:

She was shot execution style while on her "usual corner."

I'm tired of this.

I want there to be no reason for the Transgender Day of Remembrance. I want there to be no new names on that goddamn list.

I hope her mother, and her family, and her friends, find peace, and that she has too.

Johnson was suing the city for $1.3 million over the June assault, so something tells me they're not exactly going to give Johnson's case top priority.

Pam has more, including a statement from the Tennessee Transgender Political Coalition.

Dahlia Lithwick at the XX Factor highlights the assholedom that is Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who thinks violence against women is "not that serious an offense."

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard a case about the reach of the Federal Gun Control Act and whether it includes someone convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

...Courtesy of the LA Times' David Savage, here's a report of oral argument, which evidently went poorly for the proponents of disarming wife beaters. Of note in the transcript is the following exchange between Justice Antonin Scalia and Nicole Saharsky, the Justice Department lawyer arguing for the stricter interpretation of the law.

JUSTICE SCALIA: And this was misdemeanor assault and battery, wasn't it?

MS. SAHARSKY: Yes, that's right. I mean, I really--

JUSTICE SCALIA: So it's not that serious an offense. That's why we call it a misdemeanor.

MS. SAHARSKY: Well, I mean, certainly the offense is this particular case was serious. The charging document reflects that Respondent hit his wife all around the face until it swelled out, kicked her all around her body, kicked here in the ribs--

JUSTICE SCALIA: Then he should have been charged with a felony, but he wasn't. He was charged with a misdemeanor.

Wow. Nothing quite like dismissive nastiness when it comes to beating up women!

We've posted on this before, but it's a good reminder to vote no on Prop 8. This is a video of San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders talking about his change of heart on legislation supporting gay marriage. It's pretty emotional stuff.

Transcript after the jump.

Jessica Lenahan (formerly Gonzales)

We've written before about Castle Rock v. Gonzales, a 2005 case in which the Supreme Court ruled that local police departments are not responsible for enforcing restraining orders. Well, the plaintiff in that case, Jessica Lenahan (formerly Gonzales) is taking her case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights this week.

Here is a post from her on what the hearing is all about:

My name is Jessica Lenahan and I am a survivor of domestic violence. On Wednesday I will make my second appearance before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, DC. The IACHR is responsible for promoting and protecting human rights throughout the Americas. I turned to the IACHR three years ago because the justice system in the United States abandoned me.

In June 1999, my estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, abducted my three young daughters in violation of a domestic violence restraining order I had obtained against him three weeks before. I repeatedly contacted and pleaded with the Castle Rock Police for assistance, but they refused to act. Late that night, Simon arrived at the police station and opened fire. He was killed and the bodies of my three girls were found murdered in the cab of his truck.

Feministing pal Roja Bandari gave us the heads up about her dear friend Esha Momeni, whom while in Iran interviewing members of the One Million Signatures Campaign for her Masters thesis at CalState Northridge, was arrested and taken to Evin Prison, which is managed by the Intelligence and Security Ministry.

We've been covering this great campaign for quite a while, and Esha is not the first to be arrested. She is a member of the campaign in California, and came to Iran two months ago to work on her thesis there. Her parents were told by court officials yesterday that nothing can happen until the investigation of Esha's case is resolved.

Our thoughts go out to Esha and her friends and family who are working tirelessly for her release.

According to Bloomberg News, Johnson & Johnson has spent at least $68.7 million to settle the hundreds of lawsuits filed by women who used the Ortho Evra birth-control patch and suffered blood clots, heart attacks or strokes.

Of 562 complaints reviewed by Bloomberg News, the vast majority of users alleged the patch caused deep-vein thrombosis, or blood clots in the legs, and pulmonary embolisms, or blood clots in the lungs. Some blamed it for heart attacks or strokes. The complaints blamed Ortho Evra for the deaths of 20 women.

One settled case involved Ashley Lewis, a 17-year-old high school junior from St. Louis who died in 2003. She developed a blood clot in her lung after wearing the patch for six months, according to Roger Denton, an attorney for Lewis's family, including her son, who was a one-year-old when she died.

Earlier this year, the NY Times found internal company documents that showed J&J hid evidence that Ortho Evra actually delivered much more estrogen than birth control pills, despite its claims otherwise. So scary. (I was actually a huge NuvaRing fan until I read about women having similar problems, like blood clots, at a higher rate than with the pill.)

Related: One woman recounts her horror story with the patch at Nerve.

From the Associated Press:

Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.

Woo hoo!

This story from Canada is just peachy:

Told by a judge she should have 'walked out' of an abusive relationship and never to call police if she goes back to her former partner, a London woman has complained to Ontario's judicial watchdog.

Melodie White said she felt 'embarrassed and humiliated' by Justice Gregory Pockele, who heard the case in a domestic violence court last summer.

White has requested that the Ontario Judicial Council discipline the judge by "re-victimizing" and endangering her by telling her to not call the police if she goes back to her partner. This was all in front of the abusive ex-boyfriend, by the way. "It was supposed to be about (the accused) being violent to me and the police felt it was serious enough to lay four charges. But it turned out to be about me," said White.

And he dismissed the charges. He also told her that women today were not "not weak and disadvantaged" and she should have been gone "in a flash."

Megan Walker, head of the London Abused Women's Centre, responded, "Suddenly, he's saying women are able to walk out the doors into the sunset. He is closing his eyes to the number of women who have been killed trying to walk out the door."

h/t to Rory.

Contributed by Tiffany Campbell, Spokesperson for South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families

The right of families to make decisions about their own private health care is under attack in South Dakota, where I live with my husband, Chris, and our three children. These agonizing decisions would be seized by bureaucrats and lawyers if Measure 11 -- another sweeping abortion ban like the one that South Dakota voters rejected decisively in 2006 -- passes this November.

Why did Chris and I decide to have an abortion?

Two years ago, in the midst of that first, intense battle to ban abortion here in South Dakota, we learned that we were pregnant with identical twins. We were overjoyed.

But then we learned that our sons were suffering from a severe case of Twin-to-Twin Transfusion Syndrome. That's a condition where twins unequally share blood circulation. It meant that one boy was receiving too much blood resulting in a strained heart and acute risk of heart failure. Meanwhile, his brother was clinging to life, but his blood supply was insufficient to sustain normal development. This is an affliction where if one twin dies, the other faces significant risk of death.

So we were faced with an awful situation that forced us to examine our most fundamental moral and spiritual beliefs. At first we just didn't want to believe the doctors' prognosis. We wanted so badly for our boys to win the fight. But we couldn't stay on the sidelines forever: against all of our hopes and prayers, our twins' conditions continued to deteriorate quickly.

This was the most difficult decision of our lives. We could let nature run its course and pray that by the grace of God our boys would miraculously survive, or we could abort the sicker of the two, giving his brother a legitimate shot at life.

Wow, check out this amazing little girl. Nujood Ali, all of 10 years old, went to court and requested a divorce from a husband (three times her age) who beat and sexually abused her. The LA Times reported:

On Tuesday morning, the divorcee, possibly the world's youngest, once again became a schoolgirl.

"I'm very happy to be going back to school," she said, waiting in her ramshackle home for her younger sister Haifa to get ready. "I'm going to study Arabic, the Koran, mathematics and drawing. I will do that with my classmates and I will definitely make friends there."

Thanks to Ms. EmmaB for the heads up.

...and other shockers from that clip we've been waiting for, contrasting Palin and Biden's knowledge of Roe v. Wade:

(Transcript here.)

Pretty astonishing, no? While I don't completely agree with the language Biden uses to describe Roe, it's clear he has a vastly deeper understanding of this ruling than Palin. Which is embarrassing, because it's the only Supreme Court case she knows. Also, I wonder if Bill O'Reilly happened to catch her comments on privacy?

Can't wait for tonight's debate...

UPDATE: Also check out what she had to say about equal pay. Yeesh.

Louisiana state Rep. John LaBruzzo, the charming dude who wants to pay low-income women $1,000 apiece to get sterilized, is speaking out not only to defend his suggestion - but also to complain about the media glomming onto the story. Boo-fucking-hoo.

Watching this guy is painful (and infuriating) but it's worth it, and interviewer Kyra Phillips is decent at taking him to task.

Extra Credit: Drink every time he says "these people." Seriously, he's like a caricature of racism.

This is rich. A self described anti-feminist lawyer has decided to sue Columbia University for offering women's studies courses because they are discriminatory towards men.

The NYT's City Room blog reports that Roy Den Hollander (pictured) -- "a Manhattan lawyer and a self-described antifeminist" who in the past year has sued nightclubs for favoring women by offering ladies' night discounts and has sued the federal government over a law that protects women from violence -- is now setting his sights on Columbia University. Today, Den Hollander filed a suit against Columbia in the SDNY for offering women's studies courses, which he sees as discriminatory toward men. His suit accuses Columbia of using government aid to preach a "religionist belief system called feminism." A Columbia spokesman declined to comment to the NYT.

In Den Hollander's suit he calls women's studies "a bastion of bigotry against men" and said its women's studies program "demonizes men and exalts women in order to justify discrimination against men based on collective guilt." He reportedly writes in the complaint: "Federal financial aid, state funds and other assistance help proselytize feminism at Columbia," in violation of equal protection safeguards of the Fifth and 14th Amendments.

If his hatred for women isn't apparent enough by his suing the federal government around VAWA, it is clear because he has sued clubs for ladies night (as Ann has covered before). As Jay Smooth just pointed out, "ladies night is for the benefit of men, you idiot! Stop getting in the way of the patriarchy!" (/sarcasm). Obviously, he has never been to a club.

For a little background on what motivates this guy, the Gothamist has some gems from the piece that Ann links about his assault on "ladies night" in the New Yorker.

Den Hollander guy sure knows how to charm the ladies; you'll recall that last summer the New Yorker spent a night out with the divorcee, who explained his life mission: "What I'm trying to do now in my later years is fight everybody who violates my rights... the Feminazis have infiltrated institutions, and there's been a transfer of rights from guys to girls." Hence the Columbia lawsuit, in which Den Hollander maintains that the university should not be using government aid to preach a "religionist belief system called feminism."

This guy might have to get a Feminist Fuck You.

A highschool in Okeechobee, FL didn't allow their GSA to organize. They reached out to the ACLU who then filed a federal lawsuit. A year and a half later, the GSA won through one of the first decisions of its kind.

via Alternet.

In his first-of-its-kind decision on July 29, Moore ruled in Yasmin Gonzalez vs. School Board of Okeechobee County that not only can the club meet, but also that a school board "is obligated to take into account the well-being of its non-heterosexual students."

It is one of a kind in that it explicitly states protecting the rights of non-straight conforming students.

Also, via the ACLU website:

"Judge Moore's ruling that GSAs are beneficial to gay students and that they don't harm straight students is unparalleled. This is a clear victory for the students, for the Okeechobee GSA and indeed for all high school students in Florida," said Robert Rosenwald, Director of the ACLU of Florida LGBT Advocacy Project. "These are brave students who would not be silenced and did not tolerate discrimination. So many children cannot stand up for themselves, but hopefully this ruling will serve as warning to other Florida schools that equal access truly means equal access, and schools that choose not to follow the law will be inviting similar litigation."

Yes, this is your happy for today.

An 18-year old girl from Auckland has accused four players of the England rugby union team of raping her, and the team has gone into victim-blaming overdrive.

But what has since followed that night at the Hilton is a mountain of suspicion about the woman's intent and an insane thought from the football union's chief, Francis Baron, that this has all been a "sting". Yes, a plot by the "bitter" All Blacks to bring down English rugby.

...The British paper The Independent said those insiders believed the allegations of rape after the first Test in Auckland were "designed to destabilise" England. "If there had been any substance in the case it should have been dealt with," a Twickenham official said. "The whole episode has been unsatisfactory, but you have to remember that New Zealand are still bitter with us over their exit from the World Cup." (Emphasis mine)

Ri-ight. It's amazing how this young woman has been completely erased and dehumanized - she's just part of a larger plan to bring down a team, she was a willing participant, a groupie, a liar. I'm just so sick of it.

Jessica Halloran, who penned the above article about the case, notes that in the past decade, all English soccer players who have had sexual assault allegations made against them have had the charges dropped. And for the past 28 years, "not one professional footballer from any major Australian football code has been convicted of sexual assault." And something tells me it's not because they're all innocent.

Today the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court injunction, allowing South Dakota's "informed consent" legislation to take effect. The legislation requires doctors to inform women seeking abortions that the procedure "ends a human life." Because, you know, women are stupid and are just getting abortions willy-nilly, without thinking about it much. We need to be told "the truth," because clearly no woman is aware that carrying a pregnancy to term is an option.

Last April, Sarah Blustain wrote about this case and other "informed consent" laws for the Prospect:

This line of thinking makes clear that women are too ignorant to realize that they are carrying some sort of nascent life in them, and too weak to possibly decide for themselves whether to have an abortion. Even worse, drafters of the South Dakota law do not think women are competent to state whether they have absorbed all of this helpful state information properly: The law would require the doctor to certify, in writing, that he "believes she [the pregnant woman] understands the information imparted."

"Informed consent is good," says Yale's Reva Siegel (who wrote about these issues with me in TAP last year), "but not if the only abortion decision the movement recognizes as 'informed' is the decision to carry a pregnancy to term; if this is the premise on which the regulation and litigation rests, then the law is premised on an offensive view of women seeking abortion -- weak and confused and failing to conform to their natural role as mothers -- and will function to pressure and intimidate those women."

Ugh. The case is now headed back to the lower court.

Related:
The politics of "informed consent"
Mandatory ultrasounds and "informed consent"

I'm ashamed to admit this is four days overdue. But better late than never. Monday, June 23rd marked the 36th - yes 36th - anniversary of Title IX, the U.S. law stating that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Title IX has been largely associated with the rights of girls and women's to participate in sports in school, but most don't know there's 9 other issue areas that are really important:

• Access to Higher Education
• Career Education
• Education of Pregnant and Parenting Teens
• Employment
• Learning Environment
• Math & Science
• Sexual Harassment
• Standardized Testing
• Technology

In the meantime, check out Courtney's Thank You Thursday to Title IX and all of the wonderful stories in comments of how Title IX affected Feministing readers. Feel free to add more in comments here.

A Supreme Court ruling made on Wednesday may make it easier for murders from intimate partner violence to go unpunished.

In Giles v. California, victim Brenda Avie called the police three weeks prior to her death, reporting that her boyfriend Dwayne Giles choked her and threatened her life. A trial court convicted Giles for murder which the California Supreme Court upheld, but the Supreme Court justices threw out the conviction in a 6-3 ruling. And it was because Avie wasn't available to be a witness:

The case revolved around the Sixth Amendment, which affords people the bedrock right to confront and cross-examine witnesses who give testimony against them. At issue is whether defendants forfeit their confrontation rights by doing harm to people whose statements are introduced in judicial proceedings.

So because she had made the prior report about his violent behavior and wasn't available for Giles to cross-examine, the conviction was thrown out. The exception of the amendment is if the prosecutors can prove that the accused purposefully killed the victim to keep them from testifying.

And Justice Breyer argued just that in his dissent: "The defendant here knew that murdering his ex-girlfriend would keep her from testifying; and that knowledge is sufficient to show the intent that law ordinarily demands."

What are people's thoughts on this? I find this really upsetting, but I'm no law expert.

Thanks to Jenny for the link!

This was the headline to a recent CNN update on the R. Kelly trial. This possible "vixen" was as young as 13 years old at the time of the taping. Check out this gem by Kelly's defense attorney:

He juxtaposed that image with the female in the video, who takes money from the man before having sex with him. 'The woman on that tape is getting paid,' he said. 'The woman is a prostitute, not a victim.'

Disgusting.

Huh?

The head of a New York law firm which prides itself as "dedicated to the empowerment of women in the workplace" is being sued for sexual harassment. You just have to love the first line in this article:

A top New York attorney known for representing women in sexual harassment cases is a chauvinist with genital piercings, a lawsuit alleges.

Not just a chauvinist, but with genital piercings. For shame! (Sarcasm included)

Not a person.

Anti-choice activists in Colorado have apparently submitted 131,245 signatures to the Colorado secretary of state supporting their "personhood" amendment which would define a fertilized egg as a person. Only 76,047 are needed for the measure to be placed on November's ballot.

The secretary of state has 30 days to review and signatures and place on the ballot, so we need to start taking action in the meantime. Check out NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado for more information about this very real and threatening measure.

My friend and colleague and (hero and rockstar writer) Jeff Chang spreads the word on the fate of the Jena 6 and the case that is being mishandled and more so as the mainstream media fails to pick it up. There have been new developments and we must get the word out.

This Friday, special judge Thomas Yeager will consider a motion made on behalf of the Jena 6 to remove Judge J.P. Mauffray from their cases. Mauffray had previously denied motions by 5 of the defendants to recuse him from their cases. But last week, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals appointed Yeager to preside over this unusual hearing in Mauffray's own courtroom.

We have touched on Jena several times if you want background. You can also read Jeff's full post here which gives a good background. Spread the word and let's keep this up on the blogs at least since the mainstream media is failing us.

Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, editor of That's Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation, has an interesting piece in Alternet where she argues that "gay marriage does nothing to address fundamental problems of inequality."

What is needed is universal access to basic necessities like housing, health care, food, and the benefits now obtained through citizenship (like the right to stay in this country). Legalized gay marriage means only that certain people in a specific type of long-term, monogamous relationship sanctioned by a state contract might be able to access benefits. While marriage could confer inclusion under a spouse's health-care policy, it does nothing to provide such a policy. Marriage might ensure hospital visitation rights, but not for anyone without a spouse. Marriage may allow for inheritance rights between spouses, but what if there is nothing to inherit?

What do you think?

This is big.

Less than a year after she was appointed by George Bush to lead the nation's family planning office, contraception-hating wingnut Susan Orr announced her resignation on Wednesday.

Her resignation shortly followed after the the Family Research Council, the organization she was formerly employed with (along with 80 other conservative groups) called on George Bush to reinstate a "domestic gag rule." Like the Global Gag Rule, this means that eligibility for Title X funds (which covers a huge chunk of our nation's family planning clinics) will require that centers don't refer patients for abortions or share facilities with abortion providers.

Title X is the only federal funding program that provides contraceptive services to low-income individuals, and Susan Orr's job was to watch over its management. The Family Research Council are working hella hard to get this "domestic gag rule" passed, and if Bush decides to leave us with this gift before he leaves office, a lot of clinics and a lot of low-income women and men are going to be fucked.

Check out RH Reality Check for more background on this, and take action here; tell Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt that the gag rule has no home here.

New York currently has no designated funding stream for comprehensive sex education in schools, but the Healthy Teens Act will make information available to fund sex education in the state. This means school districts, BOCES, school-based health centers and community-based organizations would be able to apply for grants to develop and implement programs that will give students real sex ed.

So if you're a New Yorker, let Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno know that New York schools need support for comprehensive sex ed.

Not two months after charges were dropped against an Oklahoma man who took photos up a 16-year-old girl's skirt while she was shopping at Target, a similar Florida case has been thrown out which charged a man who used a mirror to look under a woman's skirt at Barnes & Noble:

Defense attorney Katheryne Snowden argued that the voyeurism charge should be dropped because Presken's accuser didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place under Florida law.

The law under which Presken was charged states, 'It is illegal to secretly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent in a dwelling, structure or conveyance, and when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy.'

This is the same reason the Oklahoma case was thrown out, in which Appeals Judge Gary Lumpkin wrote in his dissent:

"What this decision does is state to women who desire to wear dresses that there is no expectation of privacy as to what they have covered with their dress. . . In other words, it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman's dress." (Emphasis mine)

Looks like he was right.

Regina McKnight - the South Carolina woman who was who was convicted of homicide after she gave birth to a stillborn baby - has had her conviction overturned.

McKnight was the first woman in South Carolina to be convicted of homicide by child abuse due to a stillbirth. Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), says that McKnight "was convicted on junk science and was not fairly represented at trial."

NAPW, who has been instrumental in bringing attention to cases like McKnight's (of which there are far too many), has the full story.

Feministe, the Oklahoma Women's Network Blog, RH Reality Check and the ACLU also have more.

That's right, spitting.

An HIV-positive man convicted of spitting into the eye and mouth of a Dallas police officer has been sentenced to 35 years in prison.

Because a jury found that Willie Campbell used his saliva as a deadly weapon, the 42-year-old will have to serve half his sentence before becoming eligible for parole. He was sentenced Wednesday.

Gross and assaulting? Definitely. But a deadly weapon?! Didn't we debunk the HIV-saliva thing like a millions years ago?

Thanks to Auden for the link.

Valena Beety is an attorney and a board member of Students Active for Ending Rape (SAFER), an organization that works to empower students and hold colleges accountable for sexual assault in on- and off-campus communities.

Melanie Ross thought Daniel Day, her college classmate, was fun and a decent date - until they were having sex and she told him he was hurting her. She asked him to stop - and he didn’t. After that, Ross broke up with Day, and avoided him.

Unfortunately, because of events a month later, Ross is now suing Day for civil sexual battery.

Her lawsuit against Day is now on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court, in part because of the victim-blaming actions of the trial court judge. Judge Phillip Brown, despite a Georgia rape shield law, compelled Ross to disclose every person she had ever dated, or engaged in any sexual activity with, including their names, dates of interaction, and contact information. This evidence was supposedly to show “consent;� the actual purpose was to humiliate the victim and discourage her and other victims from pursuing these cases. Under Georgia state law, and federal law, a victim’s sexual history with third parties is supposed to be irrelevant. The result of this case is that any victim who brings a civil claim for sexual battery in Georgia must be prepared to discuss all of her previous sexual partners. The judge ultimately found Ross was not raped in part because, as all that testimony showed, she was not a virgin.

The trial court judge not only dismissed Ross’ claims - he ordered her to pay $150,000 for the court costs of her attacker. The judge found there was no evidence to support her claims of rape, in large part because Ross did not remember anything from the encounter: “There’s no witnesses in there. There was no evidence. It’s a closed door. And there’s no possibility that there could be any proof that there was rape...�

This was after the judge had dismissed the evidence: Ross could have received lacerations and redness documented in a rape kit from shaving, and “[b]ruises can come with a bump into furniture or from other causes.� As far as the claim that Day gave Ross a rape drug, defense counsel responded, “neither Day, nor anyone else for that matter, would have to use any type of drug to convince Plaintiff to participate in sexual conduct.�

The judge found that since Ross and Day had previously had a sexual relationship, Ross should have known her claims were “frivolous... there was no reasonable belief that a court would accept Plaintiff’s claims...�

The nightmare of this case, for Melanie Ross and for all future rape victims in Georgia, is that she was forced to discuss in elaborate detail her sexual past, and then she had her claims dismissed in part because she wasn’t a virgin. Moreover, not only did Ross lose her case, the judge fined her $150,000 for bringing it in the first place - a fee sure to dissuade other victims from coming forward with their own claims. This case is currently being appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which can choose to hear it or not - let’s hope they right this wrong before it hurts more victims.

NOTE: As noted by some of the comments in response to my posting on a Georgia state court case, I want to confirm that Daniel Day was charged with sexual battery, a civil charge, rather than criminal rape. Day was not charged with criminal rape, and has furthermore not been found guilty of civil sexual battery.

Just to add to what Jessica posted two days ago about the Michigan Supreme Court decision, the University of Michigan is trying to find ways around the decision.

After a lower court ruled that the gay marriage ban applies to benefits, some universities switched their benefits programs so that they were available not to domestic partners but to “other eligible individuals,� a category that would include many gay partners, but would also include others who live with but are not legally related to university employees. For example, the University of Michigan’s criteria include joint residence for at least six months, some joint financial ties such as checking accounts, and no legal relationship or marriage between the individuals involved.

After the Supreme Court decision Wednesday, the university immediately asserted that its new benefits are not domestic partner benefits and are thus not covered by the ruling. Further, the university said it had eliminated domestic partner benefits after the lower court’s decision. “The university believes all current benefit offerings are in full compliance with Michigan law. The university cares deeply about recruitment, retention, and maintaining a healthy workforce and we design our benefits with these principles in mind,� the statement said.

This is why these kind of referendums (like the 2004 ballot measure that created the MI law) are so insidious. I wonder how many of the people who voted against gay marriage would agree that same sex couples should be denied access to each other's health care.

Thanks to Rose for the link

(Trigger warning.) In 2003, 21 year-old Ramona Moore - a student at Hunter College in New York - told her mother she was going to Burger King down the street and would be right back. She never came home.

Moore was held in a basement a few blocks away where she was raped and tortured for four days before her captors beat her to death. The police, who Moore's mother begged for help, did nothing to find her.

Sean Gardiner at The Village Voice has a huge piece not only on the police's mishandling of Moore's disappearance - but also how it has sparked a historic racial bias case against the city.

Moore's mother Elle Carmichael is bringing forward a a civil-rights lawsuit claiming that the NYPD has a "practice of not making a prompt investigation of missing-persons claims of African-Americans, while making a prompt investigation for white individuals."

Not exactly shocking news, of course, but the case would be the first of its kind.

To prove racial bias, Carmichael's team would have to "show it's happened in a pattern of instances," says NYU law professor Paul Chevigny. And the only way Chevigny can think of to do so would be to take a large sample of missing-persons cases, identify the race of the people involved, and then determine whether there really is a pattern.

Carmichael's lawyer, Robert Barsch, is apparently attempting to do just that. He tells the Voice that he has heard from a number of black people who have also had their attempts to have police open up missing-persons investigations ignored. And he plans to point to the [Svetlana] Aronov case as a prime example of the flip side of that coin. After all, the NYPD tried harder to find Aronov's dog than they did Romona Moore. (Link added)

Tried harder to find a dog. "If this was a white kid, they would never had done this," Carmichael told Gardiner.

"I had to say to the detectives one day: 'You know, I feel the same emotions and pain as a white person.' "

Read more about Moore and the case against the NYPD at What About Our Daughters? and The Feminist Underground.

It seems that banning same sex marriage just wasn't enough for Michigan. The state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments and universities can't offer health benefits to same sex partners of employees.

The court ruled 5-2 that Michigan's 2004 ban against gay marriage also blocks domestic-partner policies affecting gay employees at the University of Michigan and other public-sector employers.

The decision affirms a February 2007 appeals court ruling.

Charming.

h/t Delightfully Dawgmatic.

Mildred Loving passed away last week, a black woman who had married a white man and couldn't live in the state that she resided in, without getting arrested because interracial marriages were illegal. That was in 1957, not that long ago. After returning to Virginia, they were charged and sentenced for engaging in miscegenation and had to relocate to DC where they filed a motion against the judgment which led to ultimately striking down anti-miscegenation laws nation-wide.

I have never been a big fan of marriage, but if the government wants jurisdiction over marriage and it is considered a protected right, when someone legally can't get married it is a violation of their guaranteed rights. It is pretty crazy that this was only a few decades ago, but the battle for marriage rights continues today.

(h/t Angry Black Bitch)

Thank god.

After the highest court of Maryland reheard the case which made the horrifying ruling that a woman cannot be raped once she has consented to sex, the court has overturned the decision and broadened the definition of rape to, um, rape:

With this expansion of the legal definition of rape, Maryland joins seven other states whose courts have determined that a woman can revoke her consent after intercourse begins.

'This goes to the heart of women's autonomy,' said Lisae C. Jordan, legal director of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, which filed a brief in the matter. 'It says that, yes, women do have the right to make decisions about something as intimate as sexual intercourse.'

The Maryland Court of Appeals' opinion in a rape case from Montgomery County overturns what defense attorneys and a lower appeals court said was existing common law and the high court's own 1980 opinion.

Like Jessica said, it's hard to believe that this was actually up for debate in the first place, but at least the right decision was made. (Nearly two years later.)

This is vile.

Now that Senator David Vitter is likely to get a pass for this past summer's scandal with having a connection to the "D.C. Madam" prostitution ring, prosecutors are having their day in court with D.C. Madam and 15 other women who worked with her in a pointless , slut-shaming witch hunt.

Prosecutors are making the women recount sexual experiences with their clients, condescendingly poking and prodding into personal and irrelevant details. Prosecutor Catherine Connelly even asked DC Madam:

'Did you specifically discuss what happened when you went in the shower?' the prosecutor wanted to know.

The witness explained, 'I was having sex.'

'What would happen if you were menstruating?' Connelly asked.

Because a lady's bleeding has everything to do with money laundering! For this, women's careers will be ruined; a young naval officer on the stand yesterday was put on leave from the navy after being forced to talk about when she was "aggressive" or "submissive" with a client.

And this is just the beginning. Over 100 other previous sex workers will also be publicly named.

We all know who should really be ashamed here.

This makes me want to tear my hair out. Remember the Nebraska judge who banned the word 'rape' from a rape trial? (You know, so the accuser was forced to use words like "intercourse" and "sex" to describe the attack. Charming.) Well, according to an appeals court, that's all fine and dandy.

The lawsuit argued that Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront violated Tory Bowen's constitutional rights in barring her from using certain words during her testimony in the trial, in which she said Pamir Safi sexually assaulted her.

While Cheuvront barred Bowen from using phrases and words like "rape kit" and "victim" in her testimony, he allowed Safi's attorneys to use words such as "sex" and "intercourse" when describing the encounter between Safi and Bowen.

Even worse, of course, was that the jury wasn't told about the banned words.

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate had this to say when news of the case first came out: "The fact that judges are not rushing to ban similarly conclusory legal language from trial testimony—presumably one can still say murder or embezzlement on the stand—reflects not just the fraught nature of language but also the fraught nature of rape prosecutions. We as a society still somehow think rape is different—either because we assume the victims are especially fragile or because we assume they are particularly deceitful. Is the word rape truly more inflammatory to a jury than the word robbery?" Indeed.

Bowen (who made her name public), has been an inspiration through this disgustingness. First, she refused to abide by the judge's rule: "I refuse to call it sex, or any other word that I'm supposed to say, encouraged to say on the stand, because to me that's committing perjury. What happened to me was rape, it was not sex."

Then, after there was a mistrial (because of the controversy over the word ban), Bowen sued. I'm just so disappointed that it's come to this end. But kudos to Bowen for not taking shit - she is one amazing woman.

A forewarning: This is about as bad as it gets.

A Maryland man with bipolar disorder with a history of suicide attempt murdered his children this weekend after a court refused to submit a permanent restraining order requested by their mother partly because she was still "having sex" with him in fear for her and her childrens' lives.

While the psychologist's report claiming that Mark Castillo was not someone of harm to his children was a factor in the decision, Amy Castillo said that her husband told her "the worst thing he could do to me would be to kill the children and not me so I could live without them," which she wrote in the petition for the order.

Nonetheless, Judge Joseph A. Dugan Jr. said, "I am not satisfied that indeed there is clear and convincing evidence of abuse in this case." And brought up the fact that Amy continued to "have sex" with her husband, including "twice on the day he allegedly talked about killing the children," despite Castillo testifying that she was - very understandably - scared of him and worried that if she didn't, he would suspect she was taking action against him.

This is beyond horrid. To discredit a woman for being raped to save her and her childrens' lives is unbelievably heinous. I wonder if Dugan has that on his conscience now that her children are dead. Fucking horrible.

Thanks to Sarah for the tip, who is from the same neighborhood.

RH Reality Check had a great feature for April Fool's yesterday with a focus on how crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) fool women into believing that they're all-options clinics, not to mention load them with a ton of dangerous misinformation. And surprise surprise - these illegal and harmful practices are heavily funded by the Bush administration.

Kierra Johnson of Choice USA wrote a piece about CPCs and their efforts with the National Abortion Federation to support a bill that Senator Menendez proposed yesterday, Stop the Deceptive Advertising in Women Services. Call your senators to support the bill.

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle has signed a new law that will allow victims of domestic violence to break rental contracts without punishment.

Supports say the law removes a hurdle that often prevented victims from getting help and leaving abusive relationships.

“If you’re required to stay with an abuser because of a lease you can feel trapped in your residence,� said Kathryn Chapman, executive director of the Golden House shelter in Green Bay.

Naturally, landlords aren't too pleased, because they feel like the law "burdens" them. I get it, but sorry - I don't trump being "burdened" over not being killed by your partner.

Josh Freker, policy director for the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said the bill’s sponsors worked with landlords so the provision wouldn’t be a burden to them.

Freker said anyone breaking a lease under the provisions of the bill would have to show documentation, such as a criminal complaint or restraining order.

For more information on the employment and housing rights of domestic violence survivors, check out women's legal rights organization, Legal Momentum.

A Republican California assemblyman proposed a bill that would deem pregnant women "temporarily disabled" in the third trimester of their pregnancy and allow them access to handicapped parking. The bill failed, but I think this is really interesting.

The classification of differently-abled people is usually pretty stigmatizing. Disability rights activists have talked about the problem with being overly protective of differently-abled people while overlooking systemic problems in the care of people with disabilities and the lack of appropriate legislation to protect their individual rights.

People with disabilities are constantly fighting against a misinformed public, discrimination and the often erroneous belief that differently-abled people are helpless and can't make decisions for themselves. It is not OK, but we can agree that these assumptions are prevalent. So if that is the case, and we have politicians that want to classify pregnant women as "disabled" these same misconceptions apply on some level. There is then the belief that pregnant women are unable to take care of themselves, make choices for themselves, etc. Is the answer for society's mistreatment of both differently-abled people and pregnant women legislation that will classify women as "temporarily disabled?"

I don't think so. But then you think about what is possible, given the current laws with regard to differently-abled people and it is true that pregnant women sometimes have special needs and those needs should be protected by the government.

I just have a problem with calling people "disabled" and to extend that category to pregnant women. It is infantilizing, something the legal system loves to do to "vulnerable" populations through demoralizing and poorly phrased legislation. Isn't there a way to protect people's rights and allow them fair access depending on their abilities without saying they are disabled? And I am not overly concerned with the terms alone-but the meanings and assumptions that are attached to them.

In the wake of Spitzer's resignation there's been a ton of commentary (feminist and otherwise) about prostitution, trafficking, legalization, and a host of other related issues. I've been out of town and haven't found time to write a substantive post on the subject, but I've been reading a lot of interesting things 'round the internet:

First up, check out Nicholas Kristof's column from Sunday's Times: Kristen's story is "a dangerously unrepresentative glimpse of prostitution in America. Those who work with street prostitutes say that what they see daily is pimps who control teenage girls with violence and threats — plus an emotional bond — and then keep every penny the girl is paid."

Amanda forges ahead and opens what we all know can be a huge can o' worms for a sex-positive feminist: "But when degradation and harm are the work itself, struggling over labor standards becomes confusing. ... Which is why I tear my hair out at the people who focus on the exceptions, like Kerry Howley arguing that prostitution is about women who love sex so much they want to make it a career. That sort of argument serves only one purpose—to shame people with serious questions about prostitution into not asking those questions for fear we’ll be labeled as prudes. Well, I’m not taking the bait."

Safe to say Twisty's against decriminalization: "Note that the goal is merely to curb the male appetite for trafficked women. The message? Pay-for-rapists are here to stay! It is unfathomable that human society could exist entirely without a subclass of sex slaves." UPDATE: Twisty has a clarification.

Brad Plumer looks at what happened in Nevada and Sweden when they decriminalized prostitution: "[O]ur currently policies are grotesque, but honestly, I don't know what the ideal alternative is. I'd lean toward legalize-and-regulate as the least-bad option, although the idea of providing generous support for women who want to get out of the sex trade sounds like the best idea on offer. But if Sweden can barely manage it, good luck putting anything like that in place in the United States."

...and dnA has more thoughts on legalization.

The Sex Workers Project says: "To focus solely on the salacious scandal created by Mr. Spitzer’s alleged actions without attention to the realities and needs of sex workers does nothing to provide solutions for sex workers."

Jill takes on conservative John Derbyshire, who actually wrote that: "To a lover of liberty, it’s hard to see why a woman shouldn’t sell her favors if she wants to. Trouble is, weak or dimwitted women end up in near-slavery to unscrupulous men, and I think there’s a legitimate public interest in not letting that happen." Yeah, you read that right: "weak or dimwitted women."

Jill also points out that there is not an inherent contradiction in being a sex worker and a feminist.

What have y'all been reading/writing about this issue? I'd love to see more links in comments.

Bad first: A Florida House committee passed an Unborn Victims of Violence Act that defines an "unborn child" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb" and removes all language around viability.

The good news: The Oklahoma House voted by a tiny margin to reject a bill that would require parental consent before students receive sex education. They currently already send "opt out" forms to parents of children enrolled in classes that provide sex ed.

Some great news to end your week with:

Flanked by two survivors of sexual assault, one with tears welling in her eyes, Gov. Jim Doyle signed a long awaited bill Thursday that requires hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.

"This is one bill I've been working to get on my desk for a long, long time," Doyle said.

He credited rape survivors like Linda Gage and Amanda Harrington, who provided testimony before the state Legislature and appeared next to him at the bill signing, with being instrumental to the bill's passage.

"I would like to recognize all of the survivors who have been willing to come forward with their stories ... and to tell what they went through," Doyle said. "The survivors really made this happen."

It's kind of unbelievable that anyone would want to fight against a law that would ensure rape survivors are treated with respect and given all the necessary medical options they need. But in any case, I'm glad to see Wisconsin took this important step in fighting for women's health.

Gage said the new law "tells me, my daughter and the women of Wisconsin that our health and well-being does matter to our state government."

Find out more at BushvChoice.

As many of us already know, Bush's budget proposal for 2009 includes a $120 million cut from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Joe Biden has a bill on the floor of the Senate today requesting $100 million to be restored to the program. Tell your senator to vote for this much-needed amendment.

New York is introducing a bill to the City Council this week that would expand protections of victims of intimate partner violence to unmarried couples. Only married/divorced couples or blood relatives can currently seek a civil order of protection from a family court. The bill would allow same-sex and unmarried couples to get the order without having a criminal proceeding first, which is known to possibly escalate violent behavior.

"We will continue to advocate on the state level for a broader definition of family, but we can't wait for the state to act," said Christine Quinn, speaker for the City Council.

Check out more information on intimate partner violence in LGBT relationships.

Attention, dildo-lovers of Texas! You no longer have to pretend your vibrators are for "educational purposes." A federal appeals court has overturned the state's sex toy ban!

But I have to ask: WTF is up with this picture and caption in the Washington Post?

As if someone could, in a fit of rage, purchase a vibrator and really do some damage? (Actually, no joke, Mississippi has deemed sex toys more of a threat to public safety than guns.) I suppose the idea of women having extreme sexual pleasure all by their lonesome is really quite a threatening idea to some people.

Jill has the right idea in celebrating the repeal of the Texas ban by reposting the classic Molly Ivins video:

As Texan Amanda says, "Praise the lord and pass the AA batteries."

This just pisses me off. An anti-choice group in Rapid City, SD is suing the school district because of a middle school that didn't allow them to use the auditorium to feature an anti-choice speaker.

The suit is claiming that the school's community-use policy is "unconstitutionally vague" and impinges on free-speech rights. This "unconstitutional" policy that the middle school dares to apply says that "use of school facilities will be granted only when a proposed activity is suited to the available facility," as well as that the school "shall not be used for political purposes" and lastly, that requests to host politically-related events will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

The good thing is that the district doesn't seem to be wavering. An attorney for the district said its officials believe the policy is sound and are filing a response to the suit.

This week, the anti-choice bills in Indiana are on a roll.

The Senate voted on Tuesday to pass a measure that would allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraception, specifically "prescriptions that they believe will be used to induce an abortion or assist in a suicide." Lovely how the two are conveniently placed together.

But that's not all, folks. The Senate also voted to pass a "contentious" bill that would require state physicians to tell women seeking abortions that there is "differing medical evidence concerning when a fetus feels pain," as well as state that "an embryo formed by the fertilization of a human ovum by a human sperm immediately begins to divide and grow as human physical life."

Apparently the language was toned down from the original bill, which we're SO grateful for. As long as "human physical life" and "when a fetus feels pain" is in there, they're good to go. Fuckers.

Here's something you may not know (I certainly didn't): A new civil rights bill introduced in Congress last week makes it easier for students to sue schools where they were sexually harassed or abused, if the school didn't respond reasonably.

From Students Active for Ending Rape (SAFER):

As the law currently stands, students have fewer protections than employees and so schools have less incentive than workplaces to curb their employees and educate against hostile environments. This excellent position paper explains why the changes are absolutely crucial. (Found via a Feminist Law Professors link.)

SAFER, an organization which aims to improve schools' sexual assault prevention and response activities, is encouraging people to call their representatives about the bill and specifically mention the student sexual harassment provisions: "Our elected officials need to know that we care and that we’re paying attention. If this bill were to pass, it could be a powerful tool for fighting administrations that turn a blind eye to sexual assaults and rape culture on their campuses." Indeed.

Nearly six months after the House passed its companion measure, the Senate heard testimony for S. 1843, the "Fair Pay Restoration Act," or the "Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act", reports the ACLU. Caroline Fredrickson, director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office, stated:

"This bill is a modest and logical fix to an ongoing civil rights problem. American workers should know that they are protected from wage discrimination and are able to challenge such discrimination when they discover it. There should be no benefit to employers in keeping pay discrimination hidden."

Let's hope this is soon put to bed.

After talks last spring in New Jersey of making HIV testing mandatory for pregnant women, we find that the state has decided to move forward and enforce new legislation.

The law requires health care providers to make the test a part of routine prenatal care, with an "opt out" exception. However, newborns will also be required to be tested if the mother is HIV positive or her HIV status is unknown.

We had some really good discussion here around the issue, where commenter Sassygirl pointed out the ACLU's position with some background information on mandatory testing for pregnant women and newborns, which explains that the testing of newborns is more or less senseless. It also features an example of a HIV-positive woman (from New Jersey, no less) whose child was taken away from her because she refused to give her newborn AZT treatment and was deemed an "unfit" mother. The baby ended up being HIV negative.

And while having the option to refuse testing is a good thing, studies show that many women who live in states that have mandates didn't feel comfortable refusing testing, and almost one in five didn't even know they were even tested for that matter. So how much of "an option" really is it?

It's a complex issue and obviously prevention should be the priority, but do women's private medical decisions need to be sacrificed in the process?

Nancy Northup is the President of the Center for Reproductive Rights, a global human rights organization that uses constitutional and international law to secure women's reproductive freedom. The Center has won groundbreaking cases before federal and state courts, U.N. committees, and regional human rights bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights. Working at the state, national, and international levels, the Center has built the legal capacity of women's rights advocates around the world, working in over 45 countries.

Nancy is an attorney with extensive experience in constitutional impact litigation, criminal law, and reproductive rights advocacy. Here's Nancy....

Documents show that Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee lobbied for the release of a convicted rapist out of prison, despite a number of letters sent from previous survivors and the families of survivors urging him otherwise.

This was due to their prediction that he would rape again, and even murder, if released. Huckabee ignored their pleas, Wayne Dumond was released 25 years before his original release date, and their predictions came true. Reports the Huffington Post:

In a letter that has never before been made public, one of Dumond's victims warned: 'I feel that if he is released it is only a matter of time before he commits another crime and fear that he will not leave a witness to testify against him the next time.' Before Dumond was granted parole at Huckabee's urging, records show that Huckabee's office received a copy of this letter from Arkansas' parole board.

Huckabee spokesperson denies that he ever received these letters, although authors of the letters as well as a former senior aide of Huckabee say that they were indeed, sent and received. And despite his denial that he pressured for the release of Dumond, four parole board members say that Huckabee did, in fact, push them for his release.

You must read the details at HuffPo, which includes the letters to Huckabee by the survivors and their families; it's pretty unbelievable.

Guttmacher has just released a report revealing how the basic tenets of "informed consent" is violated by states that have strict pre-abortion counseling requirements:

The counseling required by these 23 states in many cases appears to be designed more to influence rather than inform a woman’s decision whether to have an abortion, for instance by exaggerating the physical or mental health risks of abortion, or by including information on certain abortion procedures that is irrelevant to most women, according to the report published in the Fall 2007 issue of the Guttmacher Policy Review.

While the existence of "informed consent" within the spectrum of abortion law has always sounded pretty paternal to me, just as Guttmacher mentions Justice Kennedy's majority opinion in the Federal Abortion Ban ruling and his "concern" that women aren't necessarily capable to make decisions for themselves, they state that Kennedy's opinion "moved the Court—and likely the future of the abortion debate in the states—to the very heart of the issue of informed consent," in which they then seem to reclaim the term for its bare principles. These principles come together to the ultimate goal of what "informed consent" seeks to achieve for a patient, which is "protection of personal well-being and individual autonomy." Which is the very opposite of what is really going on.

In short, the ethical base of informed consent has been stripped by misinformation and methods of coercion that exists within current state abortion laws. It's interesting stuff; read the full report here.

The House approved the Employment Nondiscrimination Act last night, legislation that would ban discrimination against individuals in the workplace based on their sexual orientation, but with gender identity left in the dust.

Sign the petition stating that you support the original ENDA.

A case out of Kansas City that alleged AT&T Corp. was acting illegally when they failed to provide coverage for female employees contraception ended badly recently. A judge has ruled that the company didn't act out of turn because, wait for it...contraception is not related to pregnancy so AT&T couldn't possibly have been discriminating against women.

A three-judge panel of the appellate court ruled that contraception was not “related to� pregnancy for purposes of the law “because, like fertility treatments, contraception is a treatment that is only indicated prior to pregnancy. Contraception is not a medical treatment that occurs when or if a woman becomes pregnant; instead contraception prevents pregnancy from even occurring.�

Cough, bullshit, cough.

"German playboy" Rolf Eden is suing a 19-year-old woman for ageism because, after he wined and dined her, she refused to sleep with him.

Despite a night on the town with Eden, which ended back at his place, she refused to have sex with him, saying the he was too old for her.

"That was shattering. No woman has ever said that to me before," Eden told the tabloid. "I was crushed." He has filed charges with the prosecutors' office, he said. "After all, there are laws against discrimination."

Yeah, let me tell you what's up, Rolf. Purchasing a meal and a few drinks for your ladyfriend has NEVER meant you've bought the right to sleep with her. I'm sorry she's not into septuagenarians, but that's not exactly grounds for a lawsuit.

This guy sounds just awful. He once wrote, "I would like to die as I have lived -- on a woman."

I bet that poor woman under him wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in Atlanta recently, where she talked about the backlash against women and reproductive justice. She noted if Roe was overturned, middle class women would still be able to obtain abortions but the decision "would have a devastating impact on poor women."

The opening session for this conference was fantastic. It was called "Telling Our Stories" and featured Lilly Ledbetter and Rev. Lois Dejean. Both talked about the ways rolling back civil rights changed their lives. Ledbetter started out reading the testimony she gave during a Title VII hearing in Congress. If you're not familiar with the history of her case, definitely go read it. Basically, wen she was a manager at Goodyear, even though her performance was excellent, she consistently got smaller raises than her male peers. But, she only found out about it years later, because the company kept all increases confidential. Once and anonymous person left her a note telling her of the discrepancy, she did the right thing and filed a claim with the EEOC. Only then did she get official confirmation of her unfair pay.

In court the company claimed that she was paid less because she wasn't as good an employee. Except they also had given her a top performance award. Hmm. And other female managers testified that they received the same treatment. Pretty easy case, right?

Well, no. Blah blah, legal wrangling, and she ends up at the Supreme Court. They say she should have filed a complaint every time she got a discriminatory increase. You know, the ones she couldn't know about. Right. Swell. She concludes her statement with this:

My case is over and it is too bad that the Supreme Court decided the way that it did. I hope, though, that Congress won’t let this happen to anyone else. I would feel that this long fight was worthwhile if, at least at the end of it, I knew that I played a part in getting the law fixed so that it can provide real protection to real people in the real world.

Ledbetter also talked about the aftermath of the case. She told a funny (by which I mean irritating) story about all of the interviews she did. The NBC folks wanted her to bake a cake during the interview, to show... something. She wouldn't, so they asked her to make coffee. Though her husband is apparently the coffee-brewer in the family, she agreed. Then CNN came to town. They said she'd already made coffee for NBC, so "how about a cake this time." Charming. Let's gender stereotype the woman you're interviewing because she was discriminated against because of her gender. Nice work.

Reverend Lois Dejean, a New Orleans native, shared her stories from the aftermath of Katrina. She addressed the UN in Geneva about what happened. She told us that before that speech it didn't occur to her that the human rights of people on the Gulf Coast had been violated, only civil rights. She also touched upon the environmental impact of Katrina, and efforts to get the EPA to actually do something about it.

It's not really a huge surprise that Dejean didn't think about human rights. It's not something we talk about a lot in this country. partially because our country doesn't recognize that we have them. It's something I've heard Loretta Ross talk about. I mean, unless you're versed in international issues, it's rare you'll even know what's included in the Universal Declaration of human rights. It's a good list.

I'm in (currently) cloudy Durham, North Carolina today for a conference called "Why We Can’t Wait: Reversing the Retreat on Civil Rights" from the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund and the National Campaign to Restore Civil Rights. Great, and packed agenda for the next two days. I'll keep you updated. One of this morning's sessions will feature Lilly Ledbetter, from Supreme Court case Ledbetter v. Goodyear.

A 19 year-old woman is suing George Washington University after being denied treatment on the night of her rape because she "appeared intoxicated."

The plaintiff, a 19-year-old sophomore, also filed suit against the District, Howard University Hospital and several local doctors. The complaint states she was given a date-rape drug at an off-campus party near Howard and was then denied a rape kit at several hospitals - including GW.

..."There is no legitimate reason why it was handled this way," said Bruce Spiva, her attorney. "She has really been hurt by this and is reluctant to speak out publicly."

Even when the woman went to the police, she was denied help.

"A sexual assault kit is for police to recover evidence," said Sergeant Ronald Reid of the MPD Sex Assault Unit. "So if we don't have reason to believe a crime happened we wouldn't administer a rape kit."

So they didn't believe a crime had been committed because she appeared intoxicated? (Which isn't a shock considering she was drugged.) Make sure to read the whole story of her assault and subsequent horror story at multiple hospitals. It's just too depressing for words.

Ok, so that title is a bit misleading. There's actually no debate among doctors (those without an anti-choice bias, anyway), medical associations, and FDA officials about when pregnancy begins. They all agree that moment is when a fertilized egg implants in the uterine wall. Most folks in the anti-contraception, pro-forced-pregnancy movement believe, however, that "life" begins at the magical moment when sperm meets egg, regardless of whether that egg implants.

I bring this up because it's relevant to a case recently dismissed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in which parents filed a lawsuit after their teenage daughter received emergency contraception at a city health center and was told (correctly) that it would prevent -- not terminate -- pregnancy. Sherry Colb at FindLaw explains:

The plaintiffs in Anspach v. City of Philadelphia alleged that at the girl's request, the health center gave her a "morning after" pill, but without notifying her parents and without informing her that the medication could prevent a fertilized egg from implanting inside her uterus. Her parents contend that this information would have been of great significance to all three of them, because the prevention of implantation constitutes an abortion according to their religious beliefs.

Of course, parents have no right to be notified when contraception is dispensed to their daughter. And emergency contraception does indeed prevent pregnancy, not end it. So the court had no problem throwing out the suit.

Colb connects this to the whole embryo debate. Some legal experts think that the 400,000 embryos currently sitting in fertility clinic freezers could form the basis of a serious legal challenge to Roe. (I'm not convinced.) And when it comes to how these embryos will affect the right to contraception, agree with Colb -- that conception in a petri dish actually further supports the medical standard that pregnancy begins at implantation.

Is there any reason to view implantation, rather than conception, as the morally relevant moment for purposes of saying whether an abortion has taken place? Consider the case of in-vitro fertilization. A woman has her egg harvested for fertilization by a man's sperm cells in a test-tube. Conception takes place. Notwithstanding conception, however, no one, at this point, can be said to have become pregnant.

Well, except that many anti-choicers claim that not implanting these test-tube embryos is tantamount to murder. I'm just waiting for the day when they start pushing false "research" showing that all women who have thawed their embryos are plagued by severe, life-long depression.

Drum Major Institute's blog has a good post up by their civil justice fellow Kia Franklin on the Anucha Brown Sanders' victory of her sexual harassment lawsuit against Knicks coach Isiah Thomas.

Sexual harassment cases are certainly not new in the arena of sports. There have been several high profile cases related to big and famous athletes sexually harassing women, whether in the hotel after party or at the job. The media has always played a big role in how we perceive the accused verse accuser. Whether the athlete be portrayed as a big evil aggressive monster-beast the general public is repulsed by or the woman as a money hungry *fan* that just got too crazy and was lucky that she got any attention at all, and now she just wants his money! Gender-based and racial stereotypes usually come to the forefront of the popular imagination.

Either way, sexual harassment cases are bad press for all people involved. As we have found here before, trying a case on blogs is not always productive, when you don't know all the facts of a case. So, while I was reading about this case in yesterday's New York Times, thinking oh noes, here we go again. Although this story hasn't gotten a ton of press and mostly I think people are sad the Knicks are continually not in good favor in the media.

Former basketball player Isiah Thomas (I used to love him when I was a kid, I mean LOVE!) is being sued by the former Vice President of marketing and business operations for the Knicks, Anucha Browne Sanders. Shortly after she filed the complaint, she was fired and is suing and one of her complaints is that she was fired because she brought up potentially being sexually harassed by Thomas.