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. 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. Thank you for standing up to sexism. Ali Rozell, Campaign Manager 1. "J.C. Penney Shirt Teaches Girls That Being Smart & Pretty Are Mutually Exclusive," Ellie Krupnick, Huffington Post, 08-03-2011. |
Thursday, September 15, 2011
Stop JC Penney and Forever 21 from putting more sexist clothing on their shelves.
Marriage Equality Achieved in New York State? Not so fast.
|
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.
Friday, September 9, 2011
Suing over Sex -- Now That's Criminal
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.Thursday, September 1, 2011
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.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
JCPenney's Girls Are Too Pretty For Homework T-Shirt Sends Worst Message Ever (PHOTO)
Sometimes something is so wrong you can't believe it's real. Case in point: this JCPenney back-to-school shirt for "Girls 7-16." We're sure it's made of the finest "imported" fabric, but the message tears apart in the common sense wash. We can only assume this is from the chain's new Courtney Stodden line of girls wear.
A word of advice to all clothing manufacturers, designers and stores: please don't use your clothing to encourage young girls to value being cutesy-pies over smarty-pantses. That's kind of not what we're going for as a species.
Texas Sonogram Law: Judge Strikes Down Key Provisions Of Abortion Bill
AUSTIN, Texas — A federal judge on Tuesday blocked key provisions of Texas' new law requiring a doctor to perform a sonogram before an abortion, ruling the measure violates the free speech rights of both doctors and patients.
U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks upheld the requirement that sonograms be performed, but struck down the provisions requiring doctors to describe the images to their patients and requiring women to hear the descriptions.
The law made exceptions for women who were willing to sign statements saying they were pregnant as a result of rape or incest or that their fetus had an irreversible abnormality. Sparks questioned whether the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature was trying to "permanently brand" women who are victims of sexual assault.
The law – one of dozens of anti-abortion measures that advanced through state capitals across the United States this year – takes effect Thursday. The New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights had sued to block it.
Supporters argued the law ensures women fully understand what an abortion entails and said some women have regretted having abortions. They said the law would lead to fewer abortions in Texas. About 81,000 abortions are performed every year in Texas.
Opponents argued that requiring doctors to describe a fetus' features would force them to say things against their will and would violate medical ethics requiring doctors to respect a patient's autonomy and act in the patient's best interest.
The Texas Medical Association opposed the law because it dictated when a doctor must perform a procedure and how the doctor must deal with a patient. While a pre-abortion ultrasound is routine, it is not considered medically necessary.
Sparks wrote that forcing doctors to discuss the results with a patient who may not want to listen "compels physicians to advance an ideological agenda with which they may not agree, regardless of any medical necessity and irrespective of whether the pregnant women wish to listen."
Sparks was particularly troubled by the requirement that victims of sexual assault or incest sign statements attesting to that fact to get around the provision. That would require women to disclose "extremely personal, medically irrelevant facts" that will be "memorialized in records that are, at best, semi-private," Sparks wrote.
"(It) is difficult to avoid the troubling conclusion the Texas Legislature either wants to permanently brand women who choose to get abortions, or views these certifications as potential evidence to be used against physicians and women," Sparks wrote.
Sparks also struck down several enforcement penalties for doctors who faced losing their medical license and possible criminal misdemeanor prosecution if they did not comply.
The ruling is a "huge victory for women in Texas and a clear signal to the state Legislature that it went too far when it passed this law," said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
The group said it had already received notice the state plans to appeal.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican who is running for president, was critical of Tuesday's ruling. Perry had made the law one of his top priorities for the 2011 legislative session.
"Every life lost to abortion is a tragedy and today's ruling is a great disappointment to all Texans who stand in defense of life," Perry said in a statement.
State Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, a key sponsor of the measure, said he was confident the law would be upheld on appeal.
"It is clear to me, from the inflammatory language in the order, that Judge Sparks was predisposed to this decision," Patrick said.
Sparks represented doctors and hospitals as an attorney for about 30 years before being appointed a federal judge in 1991.
A similar Oklahoma measure, passed in 2010, has been put on hold there pending legal challenges.
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Fox News contributor compares birth control to manicures and pedicures
Dear Maddalena,
| Don’t let Fox News commentators attack no-cost birth control.
|
It’s just plain insulting. A Fox News contributor from Family PAC Federal compared no-cost birth control to getting manicures and pedicures.1
But it’s not just right-wing groups that are leading the attack. Rep. Steve King of Iowa spoke out against birth control on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. He said the new no-cost birth-control regulations would make us "a dying civilization."2
Bottom line: we can’t let anti-choice distortions like these go unanswered. Please send your comment to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in support of contraceptive coverage for all women.
Birth control is used by nearly all women in the U.S. In fact, 98 percent of women use birth control at some point in their lives. It’s incredible that, thanks to the Obama administration, expensive copays will be a thing of the past. Women are going to feel the magnitude of HHS’s decision every time they go to the pharmacy counter and pick up their birth control without paying a copay.
It’s such a tremendous leap forward. But there is one piece left undone: certain religious employers may be allowed to opt out of the requirement to cover birth control at no cost.
HHS is accepting comments on this refusal provision, and we have a brief window of time to weigh in. Send a message to HHS now to say that all women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless of where they work.
This potential opt-out provision is the last chance for anti-choice activists to weigh in – and you can bet that the smear campaign we’re seeing is part of their strategy. It’s up to us to stop them from turning the public against no-cost birth control.
Here are the facts that we must get out: 98 percent of women use contraception at some point in their lives. Under the health-care law, women can choose the birth-control method that she and her doctor agree works best for her, whether that’s a pill, patch, IUD, or something else, without a copay. When more women use birth control, we should see fewer unintended pregnancies and better health outcomes for women.
Thank you for your unending work to improve women’s access to birth control.
My best,
Nancy Keenan
President, NARAL Pro-Choice America
1 - "Fox ‘Expert’ Blasts Expanding Access To Birth Control: ‘Are We Going To Do Pedicures And Manicures As Well?’," Think Progress, August 2, 2011
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2011/08/02/285620/fox-expert-blasts-expanding-access-to-birth-control-are-we-going-to-do-pedicures-and-manicures-as-well
2 - "Steve King: Covering Birth Control Will Make Us ‘A Dying Civilization’," Talking Points Memo, August 2, 2011
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/08/steve-king-covering-birth-control-will-make-us-a-dying-civilization.php
JIM VERTUNO 08/30/11 08:42 PM ET