Facebook pages that shouldn't exist

Facebook says that hate speech and incitements to violence are banned and will be removed from their site. So why are they maintaining a page called "Riding Your Girlfriend Softly Cause You Don't Want to Wake Her Up"? And another page about "throwing bricks at sluts" that includes a photo gallery of portraits asking "Bang or Brick"?

There has even been an organized effort to use Facebook’s own reporting system to flag these and other pages that encourage rape and violence against women so they’ll be taken down. But Facebook hasn’t done a thing.

Now, Change.org member John Raines is going straight to the top. He started a petition on Change.org telling Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to take down these pages and take a stronger stand against violence against women.

Will you sign John’s petition to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg? Sign on, and tell Facebook to remove pages promoting rape and violence against women now.

When 1 in 3 American women will be sexually abused and/or assaulted in her lifetime, pages like these -- and the reactions they elicit -- are downright scary. Tens of thousands of people have "liked" these pages. Some people even use them as platforms to share rape fantasies and receive explicit tactics for how to carry them out.

John has seen the devastating impact of sexual violence and rape firsthand, on his own family. That's why he created this petition on Change.org to get Facebook to enforce its existing policies and to make it clear that content promoting rape and violence against women violates Facebook's Terms of Service and won't be tolerated.

Please sign John's petition. Tell Facebook to stop providing a platform to promote rape and violence against women.

Thanks for being a change-maker,

- Shelby and the Change.org team

Stop JC Penney and Forever 21 from putting more sexist clothing on their shelves.

Girls are Allergic to Algebra? Clicking here will automatically add your name to this petition to JC Penney and Forever 21: "Clearly something is broken if your companies are marketing shirts to young girls that read "Allergic to Algebra" or "I'm too pretty to do homework." You pulled those two products from the shelves after outraged customers complained, but you need to go further and make a public commitment to improve your review process and ensure you never again stock clothing for girls featuring sexist and demeaning slogans." Automatically add your name: Learn more about this campaign Dear Friend, Just yesterday, retailer Forever 21 began offering for sale a shirt for girls emblazoned with the slogan "Allergic to Algebra." And a few weeks ago, JC Penney offered similar girls' shirts with the slogan "I'm too pretty to do homework, so my brother has to do it for me." Sexist slogans like these play into and perpetuate the offensive stereotypes that women are innately bad at math or that being pretty is more important than being smart. By selling these shirts, the stores give their implicit support of these efforts to convince girls that, to be stylish and fit in, they must be bad at math or less interested than boys in academic achievement. After backlash from outraged customers, the both shirts were pulled from the shelves and online stores.1 But how did the sexist shirts get there in the first place? Clearly, something is totally broken within the corporate culture of these retailers. There is no effective review process for the clothing sold at JC Penney and Forever 21 if offensive clothing like this that demeans young girls makes it to their shelves. Tell the CEOs of JC Penney and Forever 21 that you will hold them accountable for the clothing that is sold in their stores. Demand they make a public commitment to keep sexist clothing for girls from making it to their shelves in the future. Click here to automatically sign the petition. These retailers are clearly sensitive to public pressure, as evidenced by how quickly they pulled the shirts after a public backlash arose. But that's not good enough. We must pressure JC Penney and Forever 21 to make the changes necessary at corporate headquarters to ensure sexist shirts like these never even come close to making it to the shelves. Dozens, perhaps hundreds, of people at JC Penney and Forever 21 encountered these shirts before they were made available to the public. Why didn't employees of these retailers at some point say, "Hey, are we really going to sell shirts to young girls that say 'I'm too pretty for homework' or 'Allergic to Algebra'?" It's obvious that these shirts perpetuate offensive and harmful stereotypes about the ability of women to achieve academically relative to men. Of course, many studies have confirmed that these stereotypes are baseless, and that women's minds are just as well suited to performing academically as men's. But, because popular culture is so powerful, many women and girls will conform to negative stereotypes of what a woman is supposed to achieve if they are continually reinforced. Stores like JC Penney and Forever 21 help shape that culture through the clothing they sell. It's clear that these stores listen to public pressure, but we must pressure JC Penney and Forever 21 to take concrete steps to ensure that clothing this sexist never even comes close to making it onto shelves again. Tell the CEOs of JC Penney and Forever 21 that you will hold them accountable for the clothing that is sold in their stores. Demand they make a public commitment to keep sexist clothing for girls from making it to their shelves in the future. Click here to automatically sign the petition. Thank you for standing up to sexism. Ali Rozell, Campaign Manager CREDO Action from Working Assets 1. "J.C. Penney Shirt Teaches Girls That Being Smart & Pretty Are Mutually Exclusive," Ellie Krupnick, Huffington Post, 08-03-2011. "Forever 21′s 'Allergic to Algebra' Shirt Draws Criticism," Christina Ng, ABC News, 09-12-2011.

Marriage Equality Achieved in New York State? Not so fast.

Equality is THE LAW in NY State This year the State of New York made the decision to recognize the right of same-sex couples to marry. It's now the law, and public officials must abide by it regardless of their personal prejudices.

This weekend we demanded that the Town Clerk of Ledyard, New York, Rose Marie Belforti, sign marriage licenses for same-sex couples looking to marry -- as the law dictates she must do -- or resign.

Belforti had previously stated that she would not sign licenses for same-sex couples and refused to do so for one couple on August 30. Even after numerous residents voiced their objections to the clerk's position at a town meeting just last night, it was clear that Ms. Belforti is sticking to her refusal to issue licenses and has no intention of resigning.

PFAW Foundation is stepping up the pressure with a petition to Town Clerk Belforti that will help us focus more attention on this issue. Please add your name to it right now!

Marriage equality is THE LAW in New York State, and couples like Katie Carmichael and Deirdre DiBiaggio, whom Belforti refused a marriage license, have the RIGHT to wed.

Public officials can't pick and choose what laws they want to follow. And Ms. Belforti has no place putting her personal prejudices over the hard-won legal rights of New York's same-sex couples. We'll pursue all necessary legal action to make sure those rights are protected and are working with the global law firm Proskauer Rose, LLP to achieve a swift remedy. We've also brought the issue the attention of New York's attorney general.

This year the State of New York made the decision to recognize the fundamental rights of gay and lesbian New Yorkers by finally allowing all couples to have equal access to the protections only marriage provides. We must be able to trust in our elected officials to uphold the people's laws.

Please join us in this fight. Sign the petition to Ledyard Town Clerk Belforti now telling her to do her job, follow the law and sign ALL legal marriage licenses, or else resign.

After you take action, it's critical that you help spread the word. We can't let elected officials at any level get away with illegally denying Americans' their rights because of their own personal prejudices.

Thank you for standing for Equality -- the American Way.

Sincerely,

Michael Keegan

P.S. Please notify us if you or someone you know has experienced the same problem in New York State. Email legal@pfaw.org.

Suing over Sex -- Now That's Criminal

By Dr Yvonne K Fulbright

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-yvonne-k-fulbright/suing-over-sex-now-thats-_b_951758.html?ref=mostpopular

Should you be obligated to have sex with your spouse? A judge in Nice, France thinks so. He fined a 51-year-old man 8,500 pounds for not having sex with his now ex-wife. The judge's decision was based on French civil code article 215, which holds that married couples must agree to a "shared communal life." In the judge's eyes, this means: "sexual relations must form part of a marriage."

In an age when countries' legal systems are finally changing their books to recognize spousal rape and sexual assault as crimes, this interpretation should be considered alarming.

While people typically marry with the expectation that sexual activity will be a part of "'til death do us part," if even just for procreation, sex isn't necessarily a guarantee. It's not a contractual obligation. It's certainly not part of the vows people declare on their wedding day. So to be faulted for failing to have sex with your husband or wife seems not only antiquated, but also barbaric, especially when you consider sexuality throughout the lifespan.

People's sexual interest and desire can wane at any point for a number of physical, emotional, mental, relational reasons. (The husband who just got sued claimed "tiredness and health problems" for his lack of libido.) People's intentions going into a marriage can change as well, with sex no longer a priority.

The French judge's decision, and justifying comment that, "By getting married, couples agree to sharing their life and this clearly implies they will have sex with each other" is disturbing. His ruling and rationale echo that of Michael Hale, a 17th century Chief Justice in England, who pronounced that a husband could not be found guilty of raping his wife "for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto the husband which she cannot retract."

These quotes basically indicate that you have no choice when it comes to sex in your marriage. You have no right to say "no." You have no protections when it comes to your spouse potentially sexually assaulting or raping you. In fact, now you can be sued!

It's easy to sympathize with the woman who sought divorce on the grounds that there was a lack of sex over the course of their 21-year marriage. To withhold such bonding, affection, and touch can, in many ways, be seen as a form of emotional abuse, especially when one's sexual needs have been explicitly expressed.

At the same time, being able to successfully sue a former partner for withholding sex should be unfathomable and considered criminal. Whether married for two years or twenty, husbands and wives have the right to control their bodies, including abstaining.

Idaho Abortion Lawsuit: Jennie Linn McCormack Challenges State Fetal Pain Law

By Rebecca Boone

BOISE, Idaho -- An eastern Idaho woman has filed what is believed to be the first lawsuit in the nation to directly challenge the constitutionality of a so-called "fetal pain" abortion ban.

Jennie Linn McCormack filed suit in federal court against Bannock County's prosecuting attorney, contending Idaho's new law banning abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy violates the Constitution.

Idaho is one of six states that have enacted such bans in the past two years. The bans are based on the premise that a fetus may feel pain at 20 weeks.

McCormack, who was briefly charged with having an illegal abortion, is seeking class-action status in her lawsuit against prosecutor Mark Hiedeman. The suit also challenges other parts of Idaho abortion law.

McCormack was charged with a felony in June after police said she took pills to terminate her pregnancy last December. Police found the fetus in a box at McCormack's Pocatello home Jan. 9, and an autopsy determined it was between five and six months gestation. Police said McCormack told them she didn't have enough money to go to a licensed medical professional, so her sister helped her access abortion-inducing drugs online.

A judge later dismissed the criminal case without prejudice for lack of evidence. That means the prosecutor may refile charges if he chooses, unless the federal courts stop him from doing so.

In the lawsuit, McCormack challenges the lack of access to abortions for women in her region, as well as the ban on abortions after 20 weeks.

She notes there are no elective-abortion providers in southeastern Idaho, forcing women seeking the procedure to travel elsewhere.

McCormack was unmarried and unemployed at the time of her pregnancy – with an income of $200 to $250 a month – and already had three children. She couldn't afford the time or money it would take to travel to Salt Lake City to get an abortion, the lawsuit says.

If McCormack prevails, it will be a win for women across the region, said her attorney, Richard Hearn of Pocatello.

"If we're successful, they'll be able to access legal and safe abortions in southeastern Idaho," whether performed with medicine or surgically in a clinic, Hearn said Wednesday.

Hiedeman could not be immediately reached for comment.

Idaho law bars women from getting abortions from anyone but licensed Idaho physicians, and requires that second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital. Women who purposely cause their own abortions, or who get abortions from unlicensed physicians, face up to five years in prison and up to a $5,000 fine.

McCormack is asking a judge to find that those criminal sanctions are unconstitutional, in part because they wrongly burden women in regions like southeastern Idaho that lack abortion providers.

Another Idaho law, passed during the 2011 Legislature, bans abortions once a fetus has reached 20 weeks on the belief that fetuses begin to feel pain at that stage. Idaho was one of five states – along with Kansas, Alabama, Indiana and Oklahoma – that enacted bans modeled after a fetal pain bill passed in Nebraska in 2010.

McCormack says the new law violates the Constitution because it doesn't contain an exception allowing for abortions if necessary to preserve the mother's health, and because it prohibits some abortions even before a fetus has reached viability. Roe v. Wade barred states from prohibiting abortions done before the age of viability, and other legal rulings have since determined viability occurs at 22 to 23 weeks gestation.

That contention echoes an opinion written by Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden's office, which advised state lawmakers that the fetal pain bill could be found unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment.

It's not the first time Idaho lawmakers have passed abortion laws that they were warned likely would be found unconstitutional. In the past decade, Idaho has spent more than $730,000 to defend restrictive abortion laws that ended up being struck down by courts. Those costly rulings prompted legislative leaders in recent years to require that abortion-related legislation be reviewed by the Idaho attorney general's office.

Republican state Sen. Chuck Winder, who sponsored Idaho's fetal pain legislation, didn't immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

The National Right to Life Committee said Wednesday it believes the law will be upheld.

"Unborn children recoil from painful stimuli, their stress hormones increase when they are subjected to any painful stimuli, and they require anesthesia for fetal surgery," the group's legislative director, Mary Spaulding Balch, said in a statement. "We are confident that the Supreme Court will ultimately agree and will recognize the right of the state to protect these children from the excruciatingly painful death of abortion."

Janet Crepps, director of the U.S. legal program for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said laws like fetal pain bills are both unconstitutional and bad policy. They also are "demeaning to women and their doctors" because they don't take into account how each woman's situation is different, she said.

"When you think about all the regulations that are piled onto abortion, it just clearly becomes impossible for doctors to provide them and women to receive them in a situation like McCormack's," Crepps said. "It's a really sad situation."

___

Associated Press writers John Miller in Boise; Jay Reeves in Birmingham, Ala.; Phillip Rawls in Montgomery, Ala.; Jennifer O'Malley in Indianapolis; Scott McFetridge in Omaha, Neb.; and Chris Clark in Kansas City, Kansas, contributed to this report.