Advertisement
“A dream you dream alone is only a dream; a dream you dream together is reality.” — Yoko Ono
Feb
19
Montana State Hospital Pays $375,000 Settlement to Rape Victim
Filed Under disability, human rights, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls, women’s health | 7 Comments
Trigger Warning for graphic descriptions of sexual violence.
Moodybpgirl recently wrote about a really horrifying case in which Montana State Hospital at Warm Springs paid a six-figure settlement to a woman who was raped during her stay there, by a fellow patient who also just so happened to be a convicted sex offender.A female patient at Montana’s psychiatric hospital was reportedly raped by a convicted sex offender in March 2008, and the state recently paid a $375,000 settlement to avoid litigation in the case.
More glaring than the sexual assault on a mentally ill, newly committed patient, however, is the lax supervision and lack of oversight that allowed the rape to happen at a state-run hospital, according to a Montana civil rights group that investigated the claim.
Disability Rights Montana, a private nonprofit law firm required by the federal government to investigate allegations of abuse or neglect, not only found that hospital personnel failed to comply with their own policies – a lapse in procedure that gave a convicted rapist unfettered access to the hospital’s general population – but that other patients notified staff of the rape while it was in progress, and yet still no steps were taken to investigate the claim.
This rape was entirely predictable and preventable, but hospital staff did nothing. They gave a convicted sex offender who was categorized as having a strong likelihood of offending again unsupervised access to female patients, and failed to tell other patients of the fact that he was a rapist.
Feb
9
Deaf Woman Was Not Told Her Cancer Was Terminal
Filed Under disability, discrimination, human rights, women’s health | 9 Comments
I’ve heard a lot of heartbreaking and enraging stories in my lifetime, but this still manages to rank pretty highly up there. Health care providers never gave a woman with cancer and her husband, both of whom were deaf, a repeatedly requested interpreter. And thus, they weren’t told for three months that she was dying.
For three months, the Nelsons met with doctors at North Memorial Medical Center, but they weren’t aware Mary Ann was dying of cancer. In fact, they thought she was doing well enough in her battle with the disease that she could go to her retirement party. So they were stunned in March 2006 when her oncologist abruptly put an end to their hopes — and their request — with a terse note saying, “We can’t cure the cancer!”
It was the first time the Nelsons, both deaf, understood the cancer was terminal, according to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights. Mary Ann Nelson died in May 2006.
The agency pointed to the incident as an example of the medical team’s failure to communicate effectively with the Nelsons. This week, state regulators announced that North Memorial agreed to pay $105,000 to settle charges that Nelson and another patient were not provided access to qualified sign language interpreters. Often, David Nelson had to read lips or write notes to communicate with doctors and nurses, despite his repeated requests for an interpreter.
“It was extremely difficult and painful for them,” said Rick Macpherson, Nelson’s attorney. “They couldn’t ask any questions. They couldn’t have any discussion. They couldn’t get any kind of comfort.”
I imagine that this news is among the worst that can ever be received, even with all of the empathy in the world. The very idea of receiving it like this, and three months after it should have been received — precious time that very well may have been used quite differently had the information actually been conveyed — both makes me want to sob into my pillow, and causes my blood to boil.
Dec
23
Mother’s Disability Featured in Custody Dispute
Filed Under bigotry, courts, disability, discrimination, parenthood, reproductive justice | 10 Comments
Kaney O’Neill is a 31-year-old mother with a 5-month-old son. Her ex-boyfriend, and her son’s father, is now waging an ugly custody battle against her. So far, it’s an experience that countless parents have endured. What makes O’Neill’s story newsworthy, if not rare, is the fact that she has a disability — and her ex is using that disability as evidence that she is an unfit parent.
In September, Trais sued O’Neill for full custody, charging that his former girlfriend is “not a fit and proper person” to care for their son, Aidan James O’Neill.
In court documents, Trais said O’Neill’s disability “greatly limits her ability to care for the minor, or even wake up if the minor is distressed.”
O’Neill counters that she always has another able-bodied adult on hand for Aidan — be it her full-time caretaker, live-in brother or her mother. Even before she gave birth to Aidan, O’Neill said, she never went more than a few hours by herself.
The custody case, expected back before Cook County Judge Patricia Logue next month, raises profound questions about what rights disabled parents have to care for their own children.
Ella Callow, the director of legal programs for the National Center for Parents with Disabilities and their Families, said disabled parents are incorrectly “perceived as unable to perform to standard.”
“No judge wants to be the judge who sends a child home when the child gets hurt,” said Callow, of the Berkeley, Calif.-based advocacy group.
Callow said the bias against disabled parents is such that judges tend to grant custody to an able-bodied partner “even if they have a history that might usually be a heavy mark against them — not having been in the child’s life, a history of violence, etc.”
What Trais is attempting is repulsive, wrong, and inexcusable. But the bigger problem is that parents who try to pull this type of nonsense have a whole lot of backup. It ranges from the multitudes of ignorant online commenters who have agreed with him, to the judges who have ruled previous custody cases based on one parent’s disability, to complete outsiders who feel the right to speak on the matter as experts (emphasis mine):
But Howard LeVine, a Tinley Park attorney not affiliated with the case, said Trais’ concerns are legitimate and may hold legal weight.
“Certainly, I sympathize with the mom, but assuming both parties are equal (in other respects), isn’t the child obviously better off with the father?“
LeVine, who has specialized in divorce and custody cases for the last 40 years, pointed out that O’Neill would likely not be able to teach her son to write, paint or play ball. “What’s the effect on the child — feeling sorry for the mother and becoming the parent?”
Well here we see a bias exposed in all of its glory: you see, Mr. LeVine, all things being equal, the disability wouldn’t factor in to this decision at all.
Oct
8
All Denials of Coverage For Pre-Existing Conditions Deserve Equal Outrage
Filed Under disability, legislation, violence against women and girls, women’s health | 16 Comments
You’ve almost certainly heard: in certain U.S. states, insurance companies are legally calling domestic violence a “pre-existing condition” and are therefore refusing to cover any treatment related to it. If the person in question doesn’t disclose the domestic violence prior to taking on insurance, they can have their coverage dropped by the insurance company. And, in the cases that are making the most news, those who have previously been victims of domestic violence are being denied access to insurance entirely.
The story has been around for several weeks now. And seemingly, it’s not going away anytime soon. I keep seeing more details pop up in my Twitter feed. In my blog reader, someone shared an item at Jezebel about the Democratic plan to ban the classification of domestic violence as a pre-existing condition. Of course, this ban is a part of the plan to end the denial of coverage on the basis of pre-existing conditions, period — but for some reason, the issue of domestic violence deserves explicit mention. Indeed, we’re seeing it get all kinds of special attention at various feminist blogs — and by our First Lady.
The question that too few people are asking is “Why?” No, no, not “Why do insurance companies do this?” — I think we know that answer — but “Why does it deserve special attention and outrage?”
Sep
25
The Deal With Disability
Filed Under blogging, disability, discrimination | 1 Comment
Via Womanist Musings, I’ve come across a great blog called The Deal With Disability. The blog is written by Eva, a woman with cerebral palsy, and chronicles her experiences with how people treat her — from ignoring her, to being over-bearing and patronizing, or treating her like a child. Sometimes she writes about the experience; other times she actually records the interaction with a camera mounted discreetly on her wheelchair, and posts it along with commentary. The interactions are at turns funny, revealing, and appalling, or all at the same time.
One particularly popular video, of Eva and her aide out at a restaurant with a pushy and hovering waitress, is below:
Though a somewhat extreme example, this particular video shows a lot of common reactions to people with disabilities all at once, from ignoring social cues that would otherwise generally be acknowledged, invading personal space in a rather extreme way, treating disability as something to “feel better” from, and more.
While obviously chronicling Eva’s experiences, and therefore not covering the experiences and treatment of people with other wide-ranging disabilities, the blog exposes a great number of common and entrenched able-bodied prejudices. What it shows is that many able-bodied people respond to people with disabilities in a way that is intended to be helpful, polite, and/or friendly without considering how they would feel if someone was treating them the exact same way — one of the surest signs of privilege and prejudice. I know that I’ve seen myself in several of the interactions, and imagine that many other able-bodied people and people with disabilities different from Eva’s will see themselves, too. In line with Eva’s stated goals with the bog, it has helped me to recognize some of my own ableist assumptions, and the harmful behavior they can spawn. (And some comments on the blog also inadvertently expose defensive and self-righteous able-bodied privilege.)
Eva explains why so many common reactions to her as a person are misguided and offensive, and takes the time to also point out how things can and should go differently if only others would treat her with the same basic respect they afford to most able-bodied people. For anyone interested in social justice and breaking down privilege (whether their own, other people’s, or both), I’d call it a must-read.
Jul
3
Sexual Abuse of Female Inmates in Oklahoma
Filed Under disability, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, sexual exploitation and harassment, violence against women and girls | 6 Comments
Trigger Warning
There are some extremely horrifying allegations coming to of Oklahoma regarding the treatment of female inmates by male jailers. The allegations include sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape, and more:
Four former Delaware County jail female inmates have filed a civil lawsuit in Tulsa federal court accusing the sheriff of covering up such crimes as rape and sexual battery as well as blackmail attempts and death threats committed against them by jailers.
Those filing the suit Wednesday were Sherry England, Katrina Rogers, Cynthia Craig and Marie Watson.
Craig, 40, described in the lawsuit as “mentally disabled,” said then-reserve deputy Bill Sanders Sr. raped her several times in one day in a jail shower. Craig said she was afraid to scream because Sanders told her “he would send her down the river.” She said the deputy forced her to scrub her body while he watched.
. . .
England, 49, states in the lawsuit that jailers would “bargain” with female inmates. Inmates who exposed their breasts were given cigarettes, cupcakes, candy and personal items they could not obtain while they were in jail, England states.
England states that when she refused to show her breasts, she was shown “deliberate indifference to her medical needs.”
She states she is an epileptic who requires medication to prevent seizures. She states that she had five seizures during her 18 days in the jail.
There’s a lot more, and I recommend that you go read the entire article. Perhaps even more appalling than all of the allegations of abuse is the allegation that the sheriff rehired Sanders, the man responsible for a vast majority of the abuse mentioned in the lawsuit, despite his history of “sexual misconduct.”
Jun
15
Man With Mental Disability Sentenced to 100 Years for Sexual Assault
Filed Under bigotry, courts, disability, discrimination, rape and sexual assault, stereotypes | 14 Comments
Recently, an 18-year-old man was convicted of sexually assaulting a six-year-old boy. Terrible story, surely, but one that is unfortunately not particularly unusual. That is, until you hear that the perpetrator has a mental disability. And that he received a 100 year sentence.
Attorneys and advocates are questioning why an 18-year-old East Texan with profound mental disabilities was sentenced to 100 years in prison in a child sex abuse case.
They say the case of Aaron Hart was mishandled from start to finish and raises questions over how to deal with the mentally disabled when they encounter the criminal justice system.
After a neighbor found Hart fondling her 6-year-old stepson in September, the East Texas teenager pleaded guilty to five counts, The Dallas Morning News reported Wednesday.
Hart has an IQ of 47 and was diagnosed as mentally disabled as a child. He never learned to read or write and speaks unsteadily. Despite being a target of bullies, he was courteous, well-behaved and earned money by doing chores for neighbors, supporters said. His parents say he’d never acted out sexually.
“He couldn’t understand the seriousness of what he did,” said his father, Robert Hart. “I never dreamed they would think about sending him to prison. When they said 100 years — it was terror, pure terror, to me.”
Aaron Hart pleaded guilty to charges including aggravated sexual assault and indecency by contact, and his case went to a jury for punishment. Jurors had the option of probation, former attorney Ben Massar told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
But during sentencing, Lamar County Judge Eric Clifford decided to stack the sentences against Hart after jurors settled on two five-year terms and three 30-year terms in February. At the time, Hart had already been on probation on a misdemeanor theft charge and had faced a misdemeanor charge of criminal mischief, Massar said.
This is going to require a big, deep breath on my part, because as I’m sure you all know, I’m not used to advocating lesser sentences for those who have committed acts of sexual violence. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever done it before in my life. But it’s exactly what I find myself needing to do right now, despite the fact that quite a few of you may strongly disagree.
And the reason I find myself having to do this is that I do not believe, not for a single solitary moment, that Aaron Hart was sentenced so harshly because of what he did. Every fiber of me believes that he was sentenced this way because of who he is — a person with a mental disability.
May
26
Serial Rapist Convicted of Raping His Daughter
Filed Under Australia, International, courts, disability, media, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 8 Comments
Strong Trigger Warning
Sometimes these stories are just too horrible to convey in words. The rapist in the story below (h/t Lauredhel) had a long history of sexual abuse towards his vulnerable female family members:
At the time of the offences, the man had been out of jail for a year after serving 10 years for repeatedly raping his step daughter from the time she was 10 years old.
The court heard the man, who cannot be named to protect the identity of his victims, was in a relationship with a woman from 1979 to 1983 and they had a daughter in 1982.
He left that woman to begin a relationship with the woman’s 17-year old daughter from a previous relationship.
The 17-year old already had a three-year old daughter of her own, and when the little girl was nine, years old the man began a sexual relationship with her while living at a Sunshine Coast caravan park.
He raped the girl for the first time around her tenth birthday.
The abuse continued until 1997 when the girl was about 16 years old.
He also raped another 16-year old family member in 1996.
In 1997, the man was sent to jail for a total of 35 offences and was eventually released in 2007.
Let me first get the obvious out of the way, yet again: you cannot have a “sexual relationship” with a nine-year-old child. The correct terminology, by absolute necessity, is “the man began sexually abusing her.”
Secondly, rapists who show a history of repeated and continuous sexual offenses against those to whom they are close have a high rate of offending again. Which is why it’s a bad idea to let a child rapist convicted on 35 counts out of jail after only ten years. Because he just might rape his daughter when he gets out. Read more
May
1
Blogging Against Disablism Day: On Depression
Filed Under blogswarm, disability, discrimination | 30 Comments
Note: I was really hesitant to write this on Blogging Against Disablism Day, but it is a subject that has been on my mind a lot lately. It was after reading that writing on mental illness is very much welcome, that there is a language amnesty on this day, and specifically Amandaw’s comments encouraging people to hash out thoughts about what does and does not fit into disability that I decided to give this a go. I hope that it won’t end up being inappropriate.I have depression, and have to varying degrees for most of my life. I guess that it was officially diagnosed only a few years back, though I’ve shown serious symptoms that there was something “wrong” with me since around age 10 and had my first major depressive episode when I was 13. Though not given a specific diagnosis, I also get acute anxiety over things that many people seem to not even think about, and will often spend a lot of time feeling horribly anxious for literally no reason or for a very minor one.
When not simply exceedingly depressed, especially when my condition isn’t being controlled with medication, I’ll often have really severe, usually angry mood swings (please note that these do not include manic episodes). And in addition to the emotional results of all of this, I can have extreme trouble with motivation, concentration and productivity. I also have a lot of difficulty dealing with conflict, and to put it rather mildly, do not react at all well to stress.
I’ve never mentioned this here before, though you may have seen me mentioning it in passing on other blogs or on Twitter, despite the fact that it would have been exceedingly relevant to do so on more than one occasion. The answer is simple: I’ve seen the reactions to it. I’ve seen that daring to confess any sort of mental illness and/or instability can be used against you, especially in the blogging world where credibility is regularly attacked, and where women are often called irrational just for having an opinion. And that people with anything short of “normal” mental health are often called irrational just by existing.
I know that many types of mental illness qualify under disability. And after doing a decent amount of reading, I know that depression can, as well. It is, however, not a term that I am comfortable using for myself, for numerous reasons (mainly a fear of appropriation). And it’s not what I want to explore here. I’m more interested in how bias has helped to shape my understanding of depression, a condition that is, after all, quite common, and yet still stigmatized.
Apr
6
Things That Pain Me
Filed Under disability, discrimination, feminism, media, pop culture, stereotypes | 20 Comments
Seeing Yoko Ono appear on mainstream American television, appear not to discuss John Lennon but to talk about her own artwork, and even better being treated respectfully by the hosts of said television show . . . only to have her use that time to reinforce dangerous and pervasive myths about disability. Indeed, knowing that she was likely only invited to be on that show to discuss her own artwork and is being treated with respect because she is reinforcing dangerous and pervasive myths about disability.
Check out the video below, in which Yoko Ono appears on the Today Show to discuss Promise Piece, a new work of art in the form of a giant puzzle. The pieces will be auctioned off to benefit the organization Autism Speaks. Even worse, the condition of purchasing a piece relies on the promise that all pieces will be returned to be put back together once a “cure” for autism is found.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Now, there are many people who could be criticized for supporting Autism Speaks and organizations like it. That commercial on VH1 starring Steven Tyler, Robert Plant, Tommy Lee, and a bunch of other rock stars from the 70s and 80s, imploring you to “put an end to autism,” has been driving me up a wall for months now. There is also a boycott of Lindt Chocolate going on because of their support of Autism Speaks.
Indeed, I should have written posts criticizing those things. And, you know, they also would have been easier to write. I will admit with shame that I hesitated before writing this post. The last thing this world needs is more people going after Yoko Ono, right? But I also realized pretty quickly that once we start refusing to call out people who we like, people in fact who we love and greatly admire, what we’re doing can no longer in any respect be called “activism” or social justice work.
Subscribe to The Curvature
“Men, their rights, and nothing more; women, their rights, and nothing less.” — Susan B. Anthony
