 Dear Friend, The House of Representatives voted to let women die by passing a bill that would make it legal for hospitals to refuse to perform a life-saving abortion on a woman as an emergency procedure. In response to that vote, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) sent out a fundraising email asking supporters to donate to help protect the health of women. But three out of fifteen of the DCCC's top candidates who would receive that money voted to let women die.1 It is shameful that the DCCC is using these horrible attacks on women's lives as a chance to fill their own coffers with the money of supporters who are genuinely angry about the war extremists in Congress are waging against women. Not only is it hypocritical for the DCCC not to mention that the money raised for their women's health fund will be going directly to three anti-choice candidates, but it is simply wrong that they are funding candidates who are so anti-choice that they voted for a bill that would let women die in a hospital without any intervention. The DCCC's two-faced messaging must stop. If they care about protecting women's health, then they need to stop funding extreme anti-choice candidates — and if they want to fund those anti-woman candidates, then they need to stop running fundraising campaigns that use attacks on women's health to solicit contributions from pro-choice activists. Thank you for speaking out against hypocrisy at the DCCC and working to defend women's rights. Ali Rozell, Campaign Manager 1. The three DCCC frontline candidates who voted for the 'let women die' bill are: Reps. Mark S. Critz, Mike McIntyre, and Jim Matheson. You can see a list of all Democrats who voted for H.R. 358 here. |
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Stop the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from using pro-choice donations to support anti-choice candidates.
Thursday, September 15, 2011
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.
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.
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.
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. |
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.phpFriday, July 29, 2011
Judge orders circumcision ban off SF ballot
http://news.yahoo.com/judge-orders-circumcision-ban-off-sf-ballot-175443534.html
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A judge on Thursday struck a measure from the city's November ballot that called for a ban on most circumcisions of male children, saying the proposed law violates the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom and a California law that makes regulating medical procedures a function of the state, not cities.
The ruling by Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi confirmed a tentative decision she issued a day earlier and came after she heard arguments from proponents of the ban, which would have made San Francisco the first U.S. city to hold a public vote on whether to outlaw the circumcision of minors.
Michael Kinane, an attorney for the proponents, told Giorgi that circumcision was not usually performed as a medical procedure. He also said the ballot measure included an exception in cases where circumcision was needed for health reasons.
"If you bring in your son and say my custom, my religion requires circumcision of this little boy, the state hasn't said anything on the issue, so there is not a matter of pre-emption," Kinane argued.
Giorgi, while acknowledging that "there is legitimate debate on the benefits and harms of circumcision," was not swayed and ordered San Francisco's elections director to remove the measure from the ballot.
"I don't think there is any debate ... that this mater relates to issues of statewide concern," the judge said.
The ban's sponsor, anti-circumcision activist Lloyd Schofield, said afterward that he was considering an appeal.
"We will not stop until all men are protected from this damaging and harmful surgery," Schofield said.
The citizens' initiative, which qualified for the ballot in May, would have made the practice a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail. The measure did not offer exemptions for religious rituals such as the Jewish bris or Muslim khitan.
The city attorney's office had joined several Jewish organizations and Muslim parents in challenging the ban in court.
"It is up to parents to make the choice whether or not to have their baby boys circumcised," said Abby Michelson Porth, associate director of the Jewish Community Relations Council. "We did not want to have Mr. Schofield legislating our religious traditions."
Backers had argued the ban was necessary to prevent circumcisions from being forced on children. Kinane pointed out Thursday that the federal government bans female circumcision.
"The U.S. government has said when you are looking at little girls we don't care if it's a matter of custom or ritual, you can't circumcise them unless there's a matter of medical necessity," he said.
Critics contended the initiative posed a threat to families' privacy and to constitutionally protected religious freedoms. They cited comic books and trading cards distributed by the measure's proponents that carried images of a blonde, blue-eyed superhero and four evil Jewish characters.
Outside the courthouse, anti-circumcision activists carried signs with slogans like "I did not consent to male genital mutilation" and a leaflet claiming that circumcision diminishes men's sexual pleasure.
San Francisco parent Jenny Benjamin, a plaintiff in the lawsuit to overturn the ban, said seeing people compare circumcision to child abuse made "my stomach churn."
"I don't know about you, but some of the decisions my parents made for me I wasn't thrilled about, but I didn't take it to voters," Benjamin said. "It seems a little extreme. It seems a lot extreme."
Texas Planned Parenthood Clinic Attacked With Molotov Cocktail
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/28/texas-planned-parenthood-_n_912710.html
Planned Parenthood
A McKinney, Texas, Planned Parenthood clinic that does not provide abortions was attacked with a Molotov cocktail late Tuesday night, causing a small fire at the entrance of the building. The device, consisting of diesel fuel in a glass bottle with a lit rag fuse, did not cause any injuries, but a Planned Parenthood official said it did cause "serious damage" to the facility.
"It didn't penetrate the health center office and none of the staff or patients were there, which is great," Holly Morgan, director of media relations and communications for Planned Parenthood in Dallas, told Star Local News. "It scorched the outside of the door and I believe there was a little scorching to the retail locations on either side of it."
Tait Sye, spokesperson for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America told HuffPost that, while this incident marks the first attack on the McKinney clinic, Planned Parenthood locations around the country have experienced similar attacks over the years because of the organization's association with abortion. A 37-year-old man threw a Molotov cocktail at a clinic in Madera, Cali., in September 2010 that shut the clinic down for two days, and another clinic in Raleigh, N.C., was vandalized earlier this month with the spray-painted message, "you shall not murder."
According to the most recent statistics from the National Abortion Federation, there were a total of 96 incidences of violence -- including murder, death threats, vandalism, arson and bombing -- against U.S. and Canadian abortion clinics in 2010.
Despite the attack on the McKinney clinic, the police cleaned up the damage quickly enough that the Planned Parenthood staff were able to continue providing pap smears, STI screenings and contraceptives to patients the next morning.
"We’re open for business today in McKinney," Planned Parenthood of North Texas tweeted on Wednesday, "b/c our patients depend on us & our resolve to serve the community is strong as ever."
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Rape is rape
In a recent speech at the University of New Hampshire, Vice President Joe Biden recounted the story of a college freshman he called Jenny.
Jenny was raped after a party on campus. She tried to pursue a case against her rapist only to be asked if she had been drinking, what she was wearing, and whether she was dancing. The university never took action against her assailant.
As Biden said, "Rape is rape is rape."
Yet each year the FBI omits hundreds of thousands of rapes from its Uniform Crime Report (UCR) because it’s using an 80-year-old definition of rape.
The FBI’s outdated definition of rape is limited to "the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will."
Sign the petition to tell the FBI to update their definition to include all forms of rape.
The FBI’s flawed definition of rape excludes any form of sexual assault that falls outside of the narrowest understanding of heterosexual sex, including the rape of men and boys as well as transgender people.
The emphasis on "forcible" rape also means that the rape or assault of women with physical or mental disabilities and those who were unconscious or under the influence of drugs and alcohol – like Jenny -- are often excluded.
The FBI’s 2007 Uniform Crime Report listed 91,874 "forcible rapes," but some estimates suggest the actual number may be 24 times higher.
The FBI's underreporting of rapes translates to less federal funding for police departments nationwide to test rape kits -- and fewer investigators bringing rapists to justice.
Sign here to tell the FBI to update its definition of rape to address and end sexual assault:
http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-the-fbi-rape-is-rape
Thanks for taking action,
- Shelby and the Change.org team
Breaking: Big step forward for no-cost birth control
Women are so close to no longer having to spend money on copays at the pharmacy counter.
But we haven't crossed the finish line yet. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) soon will decide whether to turn this recommendation into law and require insurance plans to cover a full range of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved contraceptives as part of health-care reform.
Sign our petition to HHS today in support of no-cost birth control.
For women who can't afford rent or groceries, paying for birth control is just out of the question. Covering birth control at no cost means that women won't have to choose between paying bills and skipping a month or two of their contraception.
The good news is that today's recommendation shows that science and medical experts are on our side. After months of research and debate, experts concluded that, yes, birth control is prevention.
Let's show HHS that Americans agree. Sign our petition right now.
Improving women's access to birth control is positive in so many ways. A woman who can plan when to have a family is able to participate in society more fully. Allowing women to plan and space their pregnancies contributes to healthy childbearing. And ultimately, fewer unintended pregnancies can reduce the need for abortion.
Unfortunately, some anti-choice groups don't share our views. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops even said that birth control is not health care, but a "lifestyle choice."1
Our opponents are just flat-out wrong. Birth control is nearly universal: 98 percent of women use birth control at some point in their lives.
Medical experts agree that women need birth control for prevention, and that it should be available to every woman, regardless of how much money she earns.
Add your support to this monumental step forward for women. Sign our petition today.
Thanks for supporting women's access to birth control.
My best,
Nancy Keenan
President, NARAL Pro-Choice America
1 - "Contraception Could Be Free Under Health Law," Associated Press, October 31, 2010
Issa's witch hunt flops - demand accountability
Rep. Issa accused Democratic appointees on the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) -- the independent commission established in 2009 to investigate the causes of the financial crisis -- of financial mismanagement, disclosing confidential information, conflicts of interest and unethically pursuing a partisan agenda. But the documents produced in this investigation not only failed to substantiate these claims, they actually demonstrated improprieties by some of the Republicans on the Commission.
Now, Chairman Issa wants to brush it all under the rug and look the other way. We can't let him!
Join PFAW's petition to the Government Reform and Oversight Committee now demanding that they investigate improprieties by Republican members of the FCIC.
Outrageously, upon canceling a committee hearing on the FCIC accusations, an Issa staffer was quoted as saying, "they had found some documents at the last minute that didn't fit the narrative." A report by committee Democrats, based on 400,000 internal FCIC emails, memos and other documents, shows that those documents didn't just "not fit" Issa's narrative, they outright refuted them!
Issa's allegations of financial mismanagement, inappropriate disclosure and partisan conflicts of interest on the part of Democratic commissioners all turned out to be bogus -- frivolous charges not based on evidence of any impropriety. HOWEVER, the same could not be said of Republican members of the Commission.
There is evidence that Republican FCIC Commissioners Peter Wallison and Bill Thomas violated ethics guidelines and shared confidential information about the commission's work with political insiders and Republican consultants. And contrary to the FCIC's mission, Republican Commissioner Wallison repeatedly urged his GOP colleagues on the FCIC to use their positions on the Commission to help Republicans in their efforts to repeal the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill.
Don't let Chairman Darrel Issa get away with this blatant hypocrisy. His witch hunt failed, but now he, and his committee, MUST investigate evidence of improprieties and conflicts of interest by Republicans on the FCIC. Sign here now if you agree!
Thanks for standing up for justice and accountability -- the American Way.
-- Ben Betz, Online Strategy Manager
P.S. It's hardly a surprise that partisan and corporate conflicts of interest have been found among Republican FCIC members -- these are the same people who insisted on issuing a minority report of the Commission's findings that whitewashed the findings of phrases like "Wall Street" and "deregulation" in an attempt to rewrite the history of the financial meltdown. But Chairman Issa decided to open this can of worms with his own ideologically driven attacks on the Commission's Democratic members. Now, it's his responsibility to do the right thing and hold the real culprits accountable. Sign our petition now.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Respect, Protect, Reject 2012
Join us in calling for Congress to RESPECT women, PROTECT Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, and REJECT any budget plans that threaten the economic security of women. Sign Our Petition! http://respectprotectreject2012.org Very soon, members of Congress will reach an agreement on how to reduce the federal deficit. As much as $4 trillion could be cut from the federal budget over the next decade. These cuts will touch upon virtually every program that serves and employs women. Currently, some negotiators are refusing to accept new taxes to raise revenues as part of the package, which could result in deep benefit cuts to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and an array of other critical safety net programs. The economic well-being of women, communities or color, persons with disabilities, low-income earners and their families are at stake. Negotiators have a deadline to create an agreement and then to raise the debt ceiling by Aug. 2. We have a deadline, too; we have to step up the pressure on Congress now. We also have to make sure that Congress does not sell us out in a bad deal. We are not willing to allow women to be robbed to pay for the vacation homes and multi-million dollar bonuses for millionaires and billionaires. The National Council of Women's Organizations (NCWO) and its allies are making sure that women are respected in these negotiations. We must assure that programs which disproportionately serve and employ women are protected. Any effort to undercut these programs must be rejected. Here's what you can do NOW: Sign our petition by clicking on this link http://respectprotectreject2012.org
|  |
 | and then |  |
Friday, July 8, 2011
Tell the President to Reconsider Bad Deal Tell President Obama... take action After taking action, please support our work! Take Action - Urge P
| If you are having trouble viewing this email, please read it online. | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
Dominique Strauss-Kahn: So Much for Us to Learn
The Strauss-Kahn case is not about winning or losing, but opening a dialogue on rape, violence and gender.
The events unfolding in the case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former head of the IMF accused of sexually assaulting a hotel chambermaid, are both surprising and surprisingly not surprising. The New York Times first reported claims that there were serious problems with the prosecution relating to the credibility of Strauss-Kahn's accuser, who is originally from Guinea.
On Friday allies of the one-time French presidential hopeful welcomed this speculation, expressing hope for his swift return to the political scene. But the collapse of this case is not the worst thing that could happen: that would be for us all to retreat into our corners, to retrench our polarized positions. What is important is what we learn from this global episode, and what dialogue it leads us to.
This is a stream of the questions running in my head all morning.
How do you fight a rape case if you have lied in your past? How do you fight a rape case if you have been sexually active? How do you fight a rape case as a woman who wants a future in journalism, politics, banking, international affairs? How do you fight a rape case and ever hope to be taken seriously again or be perceived as anything other than a raped victim?
How do you fight a rape case as a woman in places like Congo where there are no real courts and no one is held accountable? How do you fight a rape case as an illegal immigrant with no rights in that country?
How do you fight a rape case if you still believe rape is your fault, if you don't even know what rape is, if you are afraid of upsetting your boyfriend/husband, or afraid of getting him in trouble because he will be more violent to you?
How do we get men to stop raping lesbians or independent or highly sexual women as a "corrective act" rather than addressing the forces and powers they are truly angry at? How do we get men to understand the impact of rape: how the external bruises are internalized and remain for ever?
How do you speak out against rape and not be called a man hater, a gold digger, a slut? How do you convince women to speak out when their character is called into public question?
How do you speak out against incest or childhood sexual abuse if your mother is sleeping with the man who is abusing you, and you know she loves that man or will not believe you?
How do you speak out against the adored, handsome, powerful, charming company president/caring psychotherapist/honored history professor/visionary film director when you risk being despised by those around him? How do you speak out against the charismatic leader of the party or country when to do so jeopardizes the standing of the party, the country itself, and could let the opposition take power?
How do you press charges for sexual harassment and not worry about losing your job, or being seen as weak or unable to protect yourself or hang with the guys and "take a joke".
When do we stop separating how we treat women from our vision of a free, equal, just world -- ie how do you call yourself a socialist, an intellectual, a leader, a freedom fighter, an anti-apartheid, anti-racism, pro-earth champion, and not make honoring women a central part of that equation?
How do we create a real dialogue between men and woman about violence: what it does, how it hurts? How do we stop saying that women who are opposed to violence hate sex? When do we stop seeing them as the same thing?
The DSK scandal has rocked the world: it has brought into question issues of sex, power, race, class and gender. It is not simply a matter of winning or losing this particular case. The stakes are much higher. This case is a defining moment, a signifier of the direction we move in -- towards transformation or more abuse and loss.
This post originally appeared in The Guardian on Friday, July 1st and has been republished in many publications around the world.
Follow Eve Ensler on Twitter: www.twitter.com/vdayorg
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Gay Marriage Opponents Target New York Senators Who Flipped
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/gay-marriage-foes_n_887271.html
Ohio Heartbeat Bill Seeking To Impose Abortion Restrictions Advances
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/29/ohio-heartbeat-bill-seeki_n_887062.html
Fathers and Familiar Strangers? What?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/fathers-and-familiar-stra_b_877289.html
JIM VERTUNO 08/30/11 08:42 PM ET