Feb

23

Anti-Choicers Target Women of Color: How Should Pro-Choicers Respond?

Filed Under abortion, activism, anti-choice extremism, class and economics, feminism, legislation, misogyny, paternalism, patriarchy, pregnancy, race and racism, reproductive justice, social conservatives, women’s health | 7 Comments

Earlier this month, Renee wrote a post about an Atlanta billboard targeting black women’s reproductive rights by pointing to the higher rates of abortion among black women, and claiming that abortion clinics are attempting to abort black children out of existence. It’s a great post, touching on many things that will come up here, and you should go read it.

It turns out this issue is about more than a billboard campaign — SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective clues us in to the fact that it’s also turning into an issue of legislation and public policy. Anti-choice legislators in Georgia have introduced HB 1155 – The Sex and Race Selection Bill, and while it sounds warm and fuzzy on the outside, SisterSong assures us that it’s not (pdf):

This bill seeks to ban the solicitation and targeting of women of color by abortion providers throughout the state.

This misleading issue of abortions for sex- and race-selection in Georgia means that we have to use facts and science to stand up for women of color without undermining our support for abortion rights or without enforcing racial stereotypes about women of color. Intent on driving a wedge between reproductive justice and racial justice organizations, and pro-choice advocates, the bill reflects the false assumption that abortion providers throughout the state “solicit” women of color. If implemented, this bill will adversely impact abortion providers by requiring them to prove that they are not targeting women of a certain race or ethnicity. This burden could result in delayed medical services, particularly for women of color. Additionally, this legislation would alter the racketeering laws of the Georgia Code to include abortion providers. This is unacceptable as abortion is legal in the State of Georgia, and the alleged abuses of this medical procedure are unfounded. Such a bill would have a terrible effect on women’s ability to access reproductive health care services throughout the state.

While explicitly targeting women of color and attempting to coerce them into abortions would obviously be a horrific, racist thing, as the press release states, there’s no indication that it’s an issue requiring legislation. Further, the legislation is not a benign preventative measure, but an effort to restrict abortion access further than it is already restricted. The women who would be impacted, as is always the case, are those who are already marginalized. It’s clear that proponents of this bill, and those behind the billboard, do not have black women or children’s best interests in mind. They are rather simply opposed to any and all abortions, and find that non-white targets are easy to hit, for a myriad of reasons.

For all of the above reasons, and because I always trust people on the ground to know what is best for their communities much better than I ever could, I strongly support SisterSong in their campaign to defeat HB 1155. As of yesterday, the bill was approved through sub-committee, but the full Judiciary Committee has suspended consideration and not yet voted. SisterSong is urging Georgia residents to call Chairman Rich Golick of the Non-Civil Judiciary Committee TODAY and urge him to VOTE NO TO HB 1155. His office number is 404.656.5943, and his email address is rich.golick@house.ga.gov. If you are someone who can take action, SisterSong has also prepared a list of talking points for your email or phone call (pdf).

But while we are on the topic, I’d also like to discuss the subject of these types of anti-choice attacks a little more closely.

Read more

Oct

12

Boss Admits to Firing Woman Because of Her Gender Identity

Filed Under LGBTQ, bigotry, discrimination, gender, human rights, legislation, misogyny, politics, trans, transphobia and trans misogyny, work | 7 Comments

Vandy Beth Glenn was fired in 2007 when she informed her boss her boss that she was a trans woman with plans to begin her transition. With Lambada Legal, she has since launched a federal lawsuit against her former employer, the Georgia General Assembly. (Yes, you did in fact read that correctly — her employer was a government body.) In an interview, she said:

“Mr. Brumby told me that people would think I was immoral. He told me I would make other people uncomfortable, just by being myself. He told me that my transition was unacceptable. And over and over, he told me it was inappropriate.”

Then, Brumby fired Glenn.

“I’m not sure I was really thinking anything in that moment other than utter shock,” Glenn told ABCNews.com. “That he was so matter of fact about it blew my mind.”

Now, Sewell Brumby has actually confessed to firing Glenn on the basis of her gender identity, while still claiming to have done no wrong (warning: transmisogynistic/transphobic language contained in the quoted text):

During the deposition, Brumby describes Glenn, who is referred to in court documents by her pre-transition name of [redacted], as not being very good at her job and not particularly well-liked. Brumby said several times that Glenn’s transition would have been disruptive to his workplace.

“I think it would have been, I suppose, an unusual and notorious event. And I think when unusual and notorious events happen in the workplace it distracts the people in that workplace and takes away from the performance of their job duties,” he said.

Although the legislative cousel office has four one-stall gender-neutral bathrooms, Brumby was concerned about what would happen if Glenn were to use one of the public women’s bathrooms. He also expressed personal concerns about his reactions to Glenn’s transition.

“I think it would have made it very uncomfortable and emotionally upsetting for me to communicate with [Glenn's male name redacted] under those circumstances, and I imagined that some other number of our employees would feel likewise,” he said.

“It makes me think about things I don’t like to think about, particularly at work … I think it’s unsettling to think of someone dressed in women’s clothing with male sexual organs inside that clothing.”

Brumby couldn’t explain to Cole Thaler, the Lambda Legal attorney representing Glenn, why it was upsetting.

“It’s not something that I enjoy thinking about, and I think it would have been unsettling to have a constant reminder to think about something I don’t like to think about,” he said.

Brumby called her transition unnatural, but said he didn’t make moral judgments while acknowledging others would. He said that some in the legislature would view Glenn’s transition as “liberal or ultra-liberal” and could lose faith in the office’s required neutrality.

Shorter Brumby: In addition to generally being a transphobic bigot, I also can’t stop thinking about the genitalia of the women who work in my office, and see this as a reason why they should be fired instead of myself.

Read more

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?”

Read more

Oct

5

U.S. Fence Causes Increase in Border Crossing Deaths

Filed Under bigotry, human rights, immigration, legislation, politics, race and racism, violence against women and girls | 4 Comments

u.s./mexico border fence

A recently released study by the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties and Mexico’s National Commission on Human Rights (h/t abbyjean) shows that there has been an increase in migrant deaths at the U.S.-Mexico border in the past year:

Marking the 15th anniversary of the misguided border strategy known as Operation Gatekeeper, the report makes visible the following:

  1. In the past 15 years, as many as 5,600 people have died.
  2. These deaths were anticipated in the design of the U.S. border strategy, which deliberately pushes migrants away from inhabited areas into harsh desert and mountainous terrains.
  3. The rate of deaths has increased despite the economic decline and a drop in migration.
  4. The number of rescues has decreased despite a massive increase in Border Patrol agents.

And of course this study is only looking at deaths, and therefore leaves out injuries that don’t result in a fatality, as well as the extraordinarily high rate of sexual assault committed against women crossing the border.

Though it’s important to have the numbers, both to be able to quote them and to be able to attract media attention, none of this should come as a surprise. In fact, advocates for immigrants rights have long warned that exactly this would happen in the event of “border security” being increased, and particularly in the event of the border fence being expanded. It’s only logical: people do not attempt to cross the U.S. border in hopes of finding work without documentation unless they’re facing some sort of desperation, and fences don’t make desperation go away, make the legal route to U.S. entry any less expensive or any more accessible, or put food on family’s tables. Build a fence, and many people will find another, more dangerous way — and those who authorized and built the fence knew that damn well at the time they did so.

Read more

Aug

22

Bill in the Bahamas Attempts to Outlaw Spousal Rape

Filed Under International, feminism, human rights, legislation, misogyny, patriarchy, rape and sexual assault, violence against women and girls | 4 Comments

Until the 1970s, spousal rape (or marital rape) was legal in most of the United States. It wasn’t until 1993 that the last U.S. state (North Carolina) made spousal rape a crime, and there are still numerous states that treat spousal rape as a lesser crime than rape committed by anyone else. Given this history and these current attitudes in a country that is often portrayed as some kind of bastion of women’s rights, it’s wholly unsurprising that many women around the world are still fighting for their right to not be legally raped by their husbands.

One such place where women do not currently have the right to bodily autonomy in marriage is the Bahamas. And women attempting to reform the law are sadly and predictably facing steep opposition:

The bill, which is designed to outlaw marital rape, was tabled in the House of Assembly last month.

However, many Bahamian men, like taxi driver Pemmie Sutherland, say the bill is “simply unnecessary.”

“It is ridiculous for them to try to make that a law, because I don’t think a man can rape his own wife. After two people get married, the Bible says that they become one – one flesh. How is it possible to rape what is yours?” asked Mr. Sutherland.

Elvis Russell told the Journal that he does not support the bill either because there is no such thing as rape within a marriage.

“Even if a woman says no to her husband it still can’t be considered rape because she is his wife. He already paid his dues at the church and she already said ‘I do,’ so from then on, even if [a man] forces sex on his wife, it isn’t rape,” he said.

The article then continues by reminding us that misogyny and patriarchy upholding are not the sole domain of men, by quoting several women who oppose the law by expressing similar views to the ones above.

Read more

May

28

Anti-Choicers Push South Carolina “Born Alive” Bill

Filed Under abortion, anti-choice extremism, legislation, reproductive justice, women’s health | 7 Comments

Via Daisy, I’ve learned of a new bill moving through the South Caroline legislature being referred to as the “born alive” bill.  The legislation would purportedly prevent “abortion” through the method of allowing a fetus/baby born alive to die without medical treatment.

A bill that would prevent a fetus from being thrown away as medical waste or to die outside the mother’s body as a form of abortion moved one step closer to law this morning after it passed a Senate subcommittee.

Senators amended the House-passed bill to note that nothing in the legislation affects state or federal laws on abortion or affects generally accepted medical standards.

The “born alive” bill now moves to the full Judiciary Committee.

The legislation defines a person as anyone who is breathing or who is born with a beating heart, no matter the means of birth or whether the result of an abortion.

If this bill sounds vaguely familiar to you, it’s likely because you’re thinking of a very similar one that was considered in Illinois — and which then Senator Obama was lambasted for opposing.

The question, of course, is what this bill is about.  Because if you know very much about abortion, you’ll know that the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed before it’s even remotely possible that a fetus could be born alive, and that with those abortions that are performed past that point — almost universally for medical reasons — a fetus being “born alive” is ridiculously rare.  In fact, the discovered fetus that spurned this legislation may not have been aborted at all, but miscarried — there’s seemingly no evidence where it came from.  Further those who know anything about medical ethics also know that doctors are already required by oath to provide medical treatment in such a circumstance.

Which means two things: 1. the bill is unnecessary because it legislates a situation which virtually never occurs and 2. even if the situation did arise at an even remotely frequent rate, this law wouldn’t change anything.

So, what’s the point?  Well, many would argue that it’s to extend the definition of personhood to include fetuses and thus undermine abortion rights.  It’s certainly possible, but if the definition described in the article quoted above is correct, it explicitly excludes unborn fetuses, as they do not breathe and, um, have not been born.  So while that’s always the first suspect, I’m not seeing it here.  Others could argue that it’s to scare doctors away from performing abortions.  But again, this would only work if aborted fetuses being born alive was an even remotely frequent occurrence, and if doctors were actually willing to then throw them out with medical waste while still breathing, therefore giving them something to worry about.  And you could say that it’s about undermining women’s health and safety by forcing doctors to use different methods of abortion, but the current methods work just fine and ensure that the chances of such botched abortions are negligible at most.

Therefore, I think that this is all about something else entirely — politics, of course.  The point is to portray fetuses as “babies,” to further the myth that abortions regularly take place at the late stages of pregnancy, and to remind everyone of how icky the procedure is.  It’s also to further the myth that abortion providers are heartless, baby-killing monsters who just throw living fetuses out with the trash.  It’s to present the exceedingly rare occurrence of an aborted fetus being “born alive” as common, and for doctors to kill it outside of the uterus as similarly frequent.  And lastly, it’s to place pro-choice politicians in a bind — either accept and reinforce this myth, or risk also being portrayed as heartless monsters.

Which is, in the end, about undermining a woman’s right to reproductive health care after all.  Just in the court of public opinion, thus setting the stage for future actually restrictive laws, rather than in the law books.

May

20

New York Statewide GENDA Call-In Day

Filed Under LGBTQ, action alert, activism, bigotry, discrimination, gender, legislation, trans, transphobia and trans misogyny, work | 3 Comments

CALLING ALL NEW YORK STATE RESIDENTS!

You may have heard a whole lot about the marriage equality bill currently awaiting a vote by the state Senate. What you have likely heard significantly less about is GENDA, the Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act (pdf). GENDA would provide anti-discrimination protections on the basis of gender identity and expression in areas of housing, employment, and much more. The legal right to not be discriminated against is something that transgender New Yorkers currently live without.

Today, Wednesday May 20, is the statewide call-in day to help get GENDA passed! GENDA passed through the Assembly back in April (before the marriage equality bill). But now it’s still awaiting a Senate vote. This legislative session is ending shortly, so it’s absolutely vital that the bill be brought to a vote now.

Details on making your call(s) from the NY State Pride Agenda:

We need you to get on the phone and call the lead Senate sponsor Tom Duane and your Senator to tell them that you want them to bring GENDA to the Senate floor and pass it. We’re in the final stretch and it is vital that they hear from you.

With more than half of the Senators indicating their support for GENDA, we know that we have enough votes to get it passed in the Senate if it comes to the floor for a vote. So now is the time to call Senator Duane and your State Senator!

Talking Points:

Reach Tom Duane at (518) 455-2451 and find your Senator’s Albany phone number here. Call their offices on Wednesday to tell them that the time is now to end discrimination against transgender New Yorkers.

Remember to give them the number of the GENDA bill (S.2406).

Ask your Senator to vote for GENDA, and ask lead Senate Sponsor Tom Duane to bring the bill to the floor for a vote now.

Tell them about the broad support for GENDA statewide, including:

  • 78% of New York voters
  • Unions representing 2.1 million working New Yorkers
  • 27 Fortune 500 companies based in cities like Rochester, Corning, New York City and White Plains.
  • 344 clergy and lay leaders, representing over 20 different denominations

Working together, we can make this happen! Start making those phone calls now!

It sounds like Duane’s phone may be ringing off the hook, but calling your own senator (assuming it’s not Duane) should only take you a moment or two.

If you’re still wondering what to say, something along the lines of “I’m a constituent of Senator X, and calling to ask him/her to vote for GENDA, which is S.2406. GENDA would protect New Yorkers from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and has the support of 78% of New York voters” should be more than sufficient.

So get calling, and tell your like-minded friends and family, because every call is going to count.

cross-posted at Feministe

May

16

Canadian Provinces Deny Transgender Health Care

Filed Under International, LGBTQ, bigotry, discrimination, legislation, politics, trans, transphobia and trans misogyny, women’s health | 11 Comments

In the past few weeks, two Canadian provinces have denied transgender people funding for their basic health care needs in a country which touts a universal and public health care system.

First came Alberta, which previously covered sex reassignment surgery (SRS) (also known as GRS — gender reassignment surgery or gender reaffirmation surgery).  The province decided to delist (stop funding) SRS procedures, ostensibly as a part of their bid to address the current budget deficit.

Only problem is that cutting coverage for such surgeries amounts to only $700,000 in savings.  The overall heath care budget for Alberta is almost $13 billion; the deficit is approximately $4.7 billion.

Now comes Manitoba. The province currently only funds a couple of SRS-related surgeries and doesn’t even cover hormone treatments for trans people.  They have now just rejected a proposal (ads on site may be NSFW) to fully cover hormone therapies and SRS, citing “the economic downturn.”  This is despite the fact that the province has increased spending overall this year by 4.4% and still expects to have a $48 million surplus.

Both Alberta and Manitoba have claimed SRS and other specifically trans-related health services do not deserve coverage in this economic downturn while others still do based on the notion that such services are “cosmetic” and/or “unnecessary.”  Which means that they’ve clearly misunderstood the idea that just because not all trans people want or seek out the same medical procedures/care as a part of transition, or any procedures/care at all, it doesn’t mean that it’s not a necessity for a good bulk of those who do.   Either that, or they just don’t care — and don’t expect a vast majority of taxpayers to care, either.

What this is seemingly about in Alberta is pretending that they’re doing something about the damn budget by disparaging and harming an already oppressed and marginalized group.  They’re using that age old tactic of pretending that a certain group that society holds bigotry against is a drain on taxpayer money, while erasing the fact that trans people are taxpayers too, and that even if they weren’t, the point of the system is to guarantee health care for all.  And in Manitoba just doesn’t want to be bothered with extending full rights to all of its residents in the first place.

Of course, we have the same problem down here in the U.S., too.  First of all, we don’t have a public health care system to begin with, and so many trans people lack insurance, and those who do have it are often denied coverage for the care they need — again, because it’s seen as “a drain” and “unnecessary” and “too expensive.”  It’s seen as a “lifestyle choice” rather than a part of health care, and a very important part, and a necessary part, for many people.

In other words, it’s really just another way that cis-controlled society and power structures can illegitimize trans identities as less real.  It’s a means of valuing cis health and lives way high above trans health and lives, not to mention placing physical health above mental health.  It’s saying that those “15-20″ people in each province who would seek out SRS each year just don’t fucking matter.  And on top of all that, it’s also scapegoating.

It’s the height of transphobia, and it’s going to have a very real, extremely harmful impact on the lives of those affected.  And thanks to the fact that transphobia is inherently dehumanizing, the powers that be just don’t give a shit.

May

11

Northern Territory Legislates Consensual Teen Sex

Filed Under Australia, International, assholes, bigotry, discrimination, human rights, legislation, race and racism, rape and sexual assault, reproductive justice, sex and sexuality, violence against women and girls, women’s health | 6 Comments

Via Queen Emily comes this story out of the Northern Territory, Australia.  The government has decided to enact a law that forces anyone — from doctors to parents — to report any any sexual activity taking place among those who are under the age of 16. Because that sex is always illegal.  Regardless of consent.  Emphasis mine:

The Northern Territory Government says its Care and Protection of Children Act is all about keeping kids safe.

But the AMA is warning the act’s mandatory reporting requirements go too far and Dr Paul Bauert from the AMA’s Northern Territory branch is deeply concerned.

Until now, NT laws were similar to what operates in the other states; it was mandatory to report suspected child sexual abuse.

But now health workers must report sexual activity among under-16s to a team that includes police and staff in the Territory’s department of health and families.

Failure to do so could result in a fine of up to around $20,000. And it is not just doctors who will have to report.

“This applies to everybody,” Dr Bauert said. “Parents, brothers and sisters, mates.”

The legislation has been in place for months but it was only late last week that the Northern Territory Health Department told staff to comply.

They were told to report anyone under 16 who is sexually active, even if that person’s sexual partner is also under 16 or of the same age, and regardless of consent.

“Any person who has sexual intercourse with someone under the age of 16 is guilty of a crime and liable to imprisonment for 16 years,” Dr Bauert said.

Yes, you read all of that correctly.  Teenagers who have sex with each other are now facing potential imprisonment of up to 16 years.  The thing is, we’re not even talking about where statutory rape laws ought to draw the line, and whether or not there should be “Romeo and Juliet” clauses, etc.

No, we’re talking about the possibility of two consenting 15-year-olds facing jail time for “raping” each other.  Way to trivialize actual fucking rape.  And we’re talking about parents facing huge fines if they know about that sexual activity and don’t report their own children.  And we’re talking doctors who can’t give out factual and needed sexual health care without having to report their patients to the police.

Read more

May

7

Equality and Justice for Whom?

Filed Under LGBTQ, activism, events and excursions, legislation, politics, trans, transphobia and trans misogyny | 16 Comments

Last Tuesday, I attended Equality & Justice Day in Albany.  It is the LGBT lobby day for New York, run by the Empire State Pride Agenda.  I generally had a good time, and was glad that I attended to show my support.

But I also noticed something throughout the day that, while I may not be in the best position to do so as a straight and cis person, seemed to me to deserve a strong critique.

I wrote earlier that the main bill I am concerned about seeing pass is GENDA. The Gender Expression Non-Discrimination Act would protect people from discrimination on the basis of gender identity and expression in the areas of employment, housing, credit, and more.  Right now, in New York, no such protections exist for trans or otherwise identifying gender variant people — despite the fact that such protections are in place (as they obviously should be) on the basis of sexual orientation.

Last year after Equality & Justice Day, I was surprised and pleased to see that GENDA, while it did not ever reach the Senate floor with Republicans in charge, was given seemingly equal attention to marriage equality and DASA (Dignity for All Students Act).  It could be that I’m simply more aware of trans issues and their marginalization within supposedly LGBT communities than I was last year — though I was already aware of this issue last year, and for that reason made a specific point to watch out for its presence.  But whatever the reason, I noticed a significant shift, and I feel obligated to mention it.

It started, or at least it became noticeable to me, when Governor Paterson came out to give his speech as the first official speaker.  It was a great speech, it really was, and I was happy to see him there.  Except.  Well, it was a great speech if we were only there to talk about marriage equality.  Because that’s all his speech was about.  And that’s not the only reason we were there.

Of course, it’s entirely possible that the Pride Agenda had no control over the content of the Governor’s speech.  When it’s the governor speaking, does an organization have any say in the topic of his remarks?  I really honestly do not know.  But it seemed to set a tone.

Read more

Next Page →