Recently in Law Category

This is rich. A self described anti-feminist lawyer has decided to sue Columbia University for offering women's studies courses because they are discriminatory towards men.

The NYT's City Room blog reports that Roy Den Hollander (pictured) -- "a Manhattan lawyer and a self-described antifeminist" who in the past year has sued nightclubs for favoring women by offering ladies' night discounts and has sued the federal government over a law that protects women from violence -- is now setting his sights on Columbia University. Today, Den Hollander filed a suit against Columbia in the SDNY for offering women's studies courses, which he sees as discriminatory toward men. His suit accuses Columbia of using government aid to preach a "religionist belief system called feminism." A Columbia spokesman declined to comment to the NYT.

In Den Hollander's suit he calls women's studies "a bastion of bigotry against men" and said its women's studies program "demonizes men and exalts women in order to justify discrimination against men based on collective guilt." He reportedly writes in the complaint: "Federal financial aid, state funds and other assistance help proselytize feminism at Columbia," in violation of equal protection safeguards of the Fifth and 14th Amendments.

If his hatred for women isn't apparent enough by his suing the federal government around VAWA, it is clear because he has sued clubs for ladies night (as Ann has covered before). As Jay Smooth just pointed out, "ladies night is for the benefit of men, you idiot! Stop getting in the way of the patriarchy!" (/sarcasm). Obviously, he has never been to a club.

For a little background on what motivates this guy, the Gothamist has some gems from the piece that Ann links about his assault on "ladies night" in the New Yorker.

Den Hollander guy sure knows how to charm the ladies; you'll recall that last summer the New Yorker spent a night out with the divorcee, who explained his life mission: "What I'm trying to do now in my later years is fight everybody who violates my rights... the Feminazis have infiltrated institutions, and there's been a transfer of rights from guys to girls." Hence the Columbia lawsuit, in which Den Hollander maintains that the university should not be using government aid to preach a "religionist belief system called feminism."

This guy might have to get a Feminist Fuck You.

A highschool in Okeechobee, FL didn't allow their GSA to organize. They reached out to the ACLU who then filed a federal lawsuit. A year and a half later, the GSA won through one of the first decisions of its kind.

via Alternet.

In his first-of-its-kind decision on July 29, Moore ruled in Yasmin Gonzalez vs. School Board of Okeechobee County that not only can the club meet, but also that a school board "is obligated to take into account the well-being of its non-heterosexual students."

It is one of a kind in that it explicitly states protecting the rights of non-straight conforming students.

Also, via the ACLU website:

"Judge Moore's ruling that GSAs are beneficial to gay students and that they don't harm straight students is unparalleled. This is a clear victory for the students, for the Okeechobee GSA and indeed for all high school students in Florida," said Robert Rosenwald, Director of the ACLU of Florida LGBT Advocacy Project. "These are brave students who would not be silenced and did not tolerate discrimination. So many children cannot stand up for themselves, but hopefully this ruling will serve as warning to other Florida schools that equal access truly means equal access, and schools that choose not to follow the law will be inviting similar litigation."

Yes, this is your happy for today.

An 18-year old girl from Auckland has accused four players of the England rugby union team of raping her, and the team has gone into victim-blaming overdrive.

But what has since followed that night at the Hilton is a mountain of suspicion about the woman's intent and an insane thought from the football union's chief, Francis Baron, that this has all been a "sting". Yes, a plot by the "bitter" All Blacks to bring down English rugby.

...The British paper The Independent said those insiders believed the allegations of rape after the first Test in Auckland were "designed to destabilise" England. "If there had been any substance in the case it should have been dealt with," a Twickenham official said. "The whole episode has been unsatisfactory, but you have to remember that New Zealand are still bitter with us over their exit from the World Cup." (Emphasis mine)

Ri-ight. It's amazing how this young woman has been completely erased and dehumanized - she's just part of a larger plan to bring down a team, she was a willing participant, a groupie, a liar. I'm just so sick of it.

Jessica Halloran, who penned the above article about the case, notes that in the past decade, all English soccer players who have had sexual assault allegations made against them have had the charges dropped. And for the past 28 years, "not one professional footballer from any major Australian football code has been convicted of sexual assault." And something tells me it's not because they're all innocent.

Today the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court injunction, allowing South Dakota's "informed consent" legislation to take effect. The legislation requires doctors to inform women seeking abortions that the procedure "ends a human life." Because, you know, women are stupid and are just getting abortions willy-nilly, without thinking about it much. We need to be told "the truth," because clearly no woman is aware that carrying a pregnancy to term is an option.

Last April, Sarah Blustain wrote about this case and other "informed consent" laws for the Prospect:

This line of thinking makes clear that women are too ignorant to realize that they are carrying some sort of nascent life in them, and too weak to possibly decide for themselves whether to have an abortion. Even worse, drafters of the South Dakota law do not think women are competent to state whether they have absorbed all of this helpful state information properly: The law would require the doctor to certify, in writing, that he "believes she [the pregnant woman] understands the information imparted."

"Informed consent is good," says Yale's Reva Siegel (who wrote about these issues with me in TAP last year), "but not if the only abortion decision the movement recognizes as 'informed' is the decision to carry a pregnancy to term; if this is the premise on which the regulation and litigation rests, then the law is premised on an offensive view of women seeking abortion -- weak and confused and failing to conform to their natural role as mothers -- and will function to pressure and intimidate those women."

Ugh. The case is now headed back to the lower court.

Related:
The politics of "informed consent"
Mandatory ultrasounds and "informed consent"

I'm ashamed to admit this is four days overdue. But better late than never. Monday, June 23rd marked the 36th - yes 36th - anniversary of Title IX, the U.S. law stating that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."

Title IX has been largely associated with the rights of girls and women's to participate in sports in school, but most don't know there's 9 other issue areas that are really important:

• Access to Higher Education
• Career Education
• Education of Pregnant and Parenting Teens
• Employment
• Learning Environment
• Math & Science
• Sexual Harassment
• Standardized Testing
• Technology

In the meantime, check out Courtney's Thank You Thursday to Title IX and all of the wonderful stories in comments of how Title IX affected Feministing readers. Feel free to add more in comments here.

A Supreme Court ruling made on Wednesday may make it easier for murders from intimate partner violence to go unpunished.

In Giles v. California, victim Brenda Avie called the police three weeks prior to her death, reporting that her boyfriend Dwayne Giles choked her and threatened her life. A trial court convicted Giles for murder which the California Supreme Court upheld, but the Supreme Court justices threw out the conviction in a 6-3 ruling. And it was because Avie wasn't available to be a witness:

The case revolved around the Sixth Amendment, which affords people the bedrock right to confront and cross-examine witnesses who give testimony against them. At issue is whether defendants forfeit their confrontation rights by doing harm to people whose statements are introduced in judicial proceedings.

So because she had made the prior report about his violent behavior and wasn't available for Giles to cross-examine, the conviction was thrown out. The exception of the amendment is if the prosecutors can prove that the accused purposefully killed the victim to keep them from testifying.

And Justice Breyer argued just that in his dissent: "The defendant here knew that murdering his ex-girlfriend would keep her from testifying; and that knowledge is sufficient to show the intent that law ordinarily demands."

What are people's thoughts on this? I find this really upsetting, but I'm no law expert.

Thanks to Jenny for the link!

This was the headline to a recent CNN update on the R. Kelly trial. This possible "vixen" was as young as 13 years old at the time of the taping. Check out this gem by Kelly's defense attorney:

He juxtaposed that image with the female in the video, who takes money from the man before having sex with him. 'The woman on that tape is getting paid,' he said. 'The woman is a prostitute, not a victim.'

Disgusting.

Huh?

The head of a New York law firm which prides itself as "dedicated to the empowerment of women in the workplace" is being sued for sexual harassment. You just have to love the first line in this article:

A top New York attorney known for representing women in sexual harassment cases is a chauvinist with genital piercings, a lawsuit alleges.

Not just a chauvinist, but with genital piercings. For shame! (Sarcasm included)

Not a person.

Anti-choice activists in Colorado have apparently submitted 131,245 signatures to the Colorado secretary of state supporting their "personhood" amendment which would define a fertilized egg as a person. Only 76,047 are needed for the measure to be placed on November's ballot.

The secretary of state has 30 days to review and signatures and place on the ballot, so we need to start taking action in the meantime. Check out NARAL Pro-Choice Colorado for more information about this very real and threatening measure.

My friend and colleague and (hero and rockstar writer) Jeff Chang spreads the word on the fate of the Jena 6 and the case that is being mishandled and more so as the mainstream media fails to pick it up. There have been new developments and we must get the word out.

This Friday, special judge Thomas Yeager will consider a motion made on behalf of the Jena 6 to remove Judge J.P. Mauffray from their cases. Mauffray had previously denied motions by 5 of the defendants to recuse him from their cases. But last week, the Louisiana Third Circuit Court of Appeals appointed Yeager to preside over this unusual hearing in Mauffray's own courtroom.

We have touched on Jena several times if you want background. You can also read Jeff's full post here which gives a good background. Spread the word and let's keep this up on the blogs at least since the mainstream media is failing us.

Mattilda Bernstein Sycamore, editor of That's Revolting! Queer Strategies for Resisting Assimilation, has an interesting piece in Alternet where she argues that "gay marriage does nothing to address fundamental problems of inequality."

What is needed is universal access to basic necessities like housing, health care, food, and the benefits now obtained through citizenship (like the right to stay in this country). Legalized gay marriage means only that certain people in a specific type of long-term, monogamous relationship sanctioned by a state contract might be able to access benefits. While marriage could confer inclusion under a spouse's health-care policy, it does nothing to provide such a policy. Marriage might ensure hospital visitation rights, but not for anyone without a spouse. Marriage may allow for inheritance rights between spouses, but what if there is nothing to inherit?

What do you think?

This is big.

Less than a year after she was appointed by George Bush to lead the nation's family planning office, contraception-hating wingnut Susan Orr announced her resignation on Wednesday.

Her resignation shortly followed after the the Family Research Council, the organization she was formerly employed with (along with 80 other conservative groups) called on George Bush to reinstate a "domestic gag rule." Like the Global Gag Rule, this means that eligibility for Title X funds (which covers a huge chunk of our nation's family planning clinics) will require that centers don't refer patients for abortions or share facilities with abortion providers.

Title X is the only federal funding program that provides contraceptive services to low-income individuals, and Susan Orr's job was to watch over its management. The Family Research Council are working hella hard to get this "domestic gag rule" passed, and if Bush decides to leave us with this gift before he leaves office, a lot of clinics and a lot of low-income women and men are going to be fucked.

Check out RH Reality Check for more background on this, and take action here; tell Secretary of Health and Human Services Mike Leavitt that the gag rule has no home here.

New York currently has no designated funding stream for comprehensive sex education in schools, but the Healthy Teens Act will make information available to fund sex education in the state. This means school districts, BOCES, school-based health centers and community-based organizations would be able to apply for grants to develop and implement programs that will give students real sex ed.

So if you're a New Yorker, let Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno know that New York schools need support for comprehensive sex ed.

Not two months after charges were dropped against an Oklahoma man who took photos up a 16-year-old girl's skirt while she was shopping at Target, a similar Florida case has been thrown out which charged a man who used a mirror to look under a woman's skirt at Barnes & Noble:

Defense attorney Katheryne Snowden argued that the voyeurism charge should be dropped because Presken's accuser didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place under Florida law.

The law under which Presken was charged states, 'It is illegal to secretly observe someone with lewd, lascivious and indecent intent in a dwelling, structure or conveyance, and when such locations provide a reasonable expectation of privacy.'

This is the same reason the Oklahoma case was thrown out, in which Appeals Judge Gary Lumpkin wrote in his dissent:

"What this decision does is state to women who desire to wear dresses that there is no expectation of privacy as to what they have covered with their dress. . . In other words, it is open season for peeping Toms in public places who want to look under a woman's dress." (Emphasis mine)

Looks like he was right.

Regina McKnight - the South Carolina woman who was who was convicted of homicide after she gave birth to a stillborn baby - has had her conviction overturned.

McKnight was the first woman in South Carolina to be convicted of homicide by child abuse due to a stillbirth. Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women (NAPW), says that McKnight "was convicted on junk science and was not fairly represented at trial."

NAPW, who has been instrumental in bringing attention to cases like McKnight's (of which there are far too many), has the full story.

Feministe, the Oklahoma Women's Network Blog, RH Reality Check and the ACLU also have more.

That's right, spitting.

An HIV-positive man convicted of spitting into the eye and mouth of a Dallas police officer has been sentenced to 35 years in prison.

Because a jury found that Willie Campbell used his saliva as a deadly weapon, the 42-year-old will have to serve half his sentence before becoming eligible for parole. He was sentenced Wednesday.

Gross and assaulting? Definitely. But a deadly weapon?! Didn't we debunk the HIV-saliva thing like a millions years ago?

Thanks to Auden for the link.

Valena Beety is an attorney and a board member of Students Active for Ending Rape (SAFER), an organization that works to empower students and hold colleges accountable for sexual assault in on- and off-campus communities.

Melanie Ross thought Daniel Day, her college classmate, was fun and a decent date - until they were having sex and she told him he was hurting her. She asked him to stop - and he didn’t. After that, Ross broke up with Day, and avoided him.

Unfortunately, because of events a month later, Ross is now suing Day for civil sexual battery.

Her lawsuit against Day is now on appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court, in part because of the victim-blaming actions of the trial court judge. Judge Phillip Brown, despite a Georgia rape shield law, compelled Ross to disclose every person she had ever dated, or engaged in any sexual activity with, including their names, dates of interaction, and contact information. This evidence was supposedly to show “consent;� the actual purpose was to humiliate the victim and discourage her and other victims from pursuing these cases. Under Georgia state law, and federal law, a victim’s sexual history with third parties is supposed to be irrelevant. The result of this case is that any victim who brings a civil claim for sexual battery in Georgia must be prepared to discuss all of her previous sexual partners. The judge ultimately found Ross was not raped in part because, as all that testimony showed, she was not a virgin.

The trial court judge not only dismissed Ross’ claims - he ordered her to pay $150,000 for the court costs of her attacker. The judge found there was no evidence to support her claims of rape, in large part because Ross did not remember anything from the encounter: “There’s no witnesses in there. There was no evidence. It’s a closed door. And there’s no possibility that there could be any proof that there was rape...�

This was after the judge had dismissed the evidence: Ross could have received lacerations and redness documented in a rape kit from shaving, and “[b]ruises can come with a bump into furniture or from other causes.� As far as the claim that Day gave Ross a rape drug, defense counsel responded, “neither Day, nor anyone else for that matter, would have to use any type of drug to convince Plaintiff to participate in sexual conduct.�

The judge found that since Ross and Day had previously had a sexual relationship, Ross should have known her claims were “frivolous... there was no reasonable belief that a court would accept Plaintiff’s claims...�

The nightmare of this case, for Melanie Ross and for all future rape victims in Georgia, is that she was forced to discuss in elaborate detail her sexual past, and then she had her claims dismissed in part because she wasn’t a virgin. Moreover, not only did Ross lose her case, the judge fined her $150,000 for bringing it in the first place - a fee sure to dissuade other victims from coming forward with their own claims. This case is currently being appealed to the Supreme Court of Georgia, which can choose to hear it or not - let’s hope they right this wrong before it hurts more victims.

NOTE: As noted by some of the comments in response to my posting on a Georgia state court case, I want to confirm that Daniel Day was charged with sexual battery, a civil charge, rather than criminal rape. Day was not charged with criminal rape, and has furthermore not been found guilty of civil sexual battery.

Just to add to what Jessica posted two days ago about the Michigan Supreme Court decision, the University of Michigan is trying to find ways around the decision.

After a lower court ruled that the gay marriage ban applies to benefits, some universities switched their benefits programs so that they were available not to domestic partners but to “other eligible individuals,� a category that would include many gay partners, but would also include others who live with but are not legally related to university employees. For example, the University of Michigan’s criteria include joint residence for at least six months, some joint financial ties such as checking accounts, and no legal relationship or marriage between the individuals involved.

After the Supreme Court decision Wednesday, the university immediately asserted that its new benefits are not domestic partner benefits and are thus not covered by the ruling. Further, the university said it had eliminated domestic partner benefits after the lower court’s decision. “The university believes all current benefit offerings are in full compliance with Michigan law. The university cares deeply about recruitment, retention, and maintaining a healthy workforce and we design our benefits with these principles in mind,� the statement said.

This is why these kind of referendums (like the 2004 ballot measure that created the MI law) are so insidious. I wonder how many of the people who voted against gay marriage would agree that same sex couples should be denied access to each other's health care.

Thanks to Rose for the link

(Trigger warning.) In 2003, 21 year-old Ramona Moore - a student at Hunter College in New York - told her mother she was going to Burger King down the street and would be right back. She never came home.

Moore was held in a basement a few blocks away where she was raped and tortured for four days before her captors beat her to death. The police, who Moore's mother begged for help, did nothing to find her.

Sean Gardiner at The Village Voice has a huge piece not only on the police's mishandling of Moore's disappearance - but also how it has sparked a historic racial bias case against the city.

Moore's mother Elle Carmichael is bringing forward a a civil-rights lawsuit claiming that the NYPD has a "practice of not making a prompt investigation of missing-persons claims of African-Americans, while making a prompt investigation for white individuals."

Not exactly shocking news, of course, but the case would be the first of its kind.

To prove racial bias, Carmichael's team would have to "show it's happened in a pattern of instances," says NYU law professor Paul Chevigny. And the only way Chevigny can think of to do so would be to take a large sample of missing-persons cases, identify the race of the people involved, and then determine whether there really is a pattern.

Carmichael's lawyer, Robert Barsch, is apparently attempting to do just that. He tells the Voice that he has heard from a number of black people who have also had their attempts to have police open up missing-persons investigations ignored. And he plans to point to the [Svetlana] Aronov case as a prime example of the flip side of that coin. After all, the NYPD tried harder to find Aronov's dog than they did Romona Moore. (Link added)

Tried harder to find a dog. "If this was a white kid, they would never had done this," Carmichael told Gardiner.

"I had to say to the detectives one day: 'You know, I feel the same emotions and pain as a white person.' "

Read more about Moore and the case against the NYPD at What About Our Daughters? and The Feminist Underground.

It seems that banning same sex marriage just wasn't enough for Michigan. The state Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments and universities can't offer health benefits to same sex partners of employees.

The court ruled 5-2 that Michigan's 2004 ban against gay marriage also blocks domestic-partner policies affecting gay employees at the University of Michigan and other public-sector employers.

The decision affirms a February 2007 appeals court ruling.

Charming.

h/t Delightfully Dawgmatic.

Mildred Loving passed away last week, a black woman who had married a white man and couldn't live in the state that she resided in, without getting arrested because interracial marriages were illegal. That was in 1957, not that long ago. After returning to Virginia, they were charged and sentenced for engaging in miscegenation and had to relocate to DC where they filed a motion against the judgment which led to ultimately striking down anti-miscegenation laws nation-wide.

I have never been a big fan of marriage, but if the government wants jurisdiction over marriage and it is considered a protected right, when someone legally can't get married it is a violation of their guaranteed rights. It is pretty crazy that this was only a few decades ago, but the battle for marriage rights continues today.

(h/t Angry Black Bitch)

Thank god.

After the highest court of Maryland reheard the case which made the horrifying ruling that a woman cannot be raped once she has consented to sex, the court has overturned the decision and broadened the definition of rape to, um, rape:

With this expansion of the legal definition of rape, Maryland joins seven other states whose courts have determined that a woman can revoke her consent after intercourse begins.

'This goes to the heart of women's autonomy,' said Lisae C. Jordan, legal director of the Maryland Coalition Against Sexual Assault, which filed a brief in the matter. 'It says that, yes, women do have the right to make decisions about something as intimate as sexual intercourse.'

The Maryland Court of Appeals' opinion in a rape case from Montgomery County overturns what defense attorneys and a lower appeals court said was existing common law and the high court's own 1980 opinion.

Like Jessica said, it's hard to believe that this was actually up for debate in the first place, but at least the right decision was made. (Nearly two years later.)

This is vile.

Now that Senator David Vitter is likely to get a pass for this past summer's scandal with having a connection to the "D.C. Madam" prostitution ring, prosecutors are having their day in court with D.C. Madam and 15 other women who worked with her in a pointless , slut-shaming witch hunt.

Prosecutors are making the women recount sexual experiences with their clients, condescendingly poking and prodding into personal and irrelevant details. Prosecutor Catherine Connelly even asked DC Madam:

'Did you specifically discuss what happened when you went in the shower?' the prosecutor wanted to know.

The witness explained, 'I was having sex.'

'What would happen if you were menstruating?' Connelly asked.

Because a lady's bleeding has everything to do with money laundering! For this, women's careers will be ruined; a young naval officer on the stand yesterday was put on leave from the navy after being forced to talk about when she was "aggressive" or "submissive" with a client.

And this is just the beginning. Over 100 other previous sex workers will also be publicly named.

We all know who should really be ashamed here.

This makes me want to tear my hair out. Remember the Nebraska judge who banned the word 'rape' from a rape trial? (You know, so the accuser was forced to use words like "intercourse" and "sex" to describe the attack. Charming.) Well, according to an appeals court, that's all fine and dandy.

The lawsuit argued that Lancaster County District Judge Jeffre Cheuvront violated Tory Bowen's constitutional rights in barring her from using certain words during her testimony in the trial, in which she said Pamir Safi sexually assaulted her.

While Cheuvront barred Bowen from using phrases and words like "rape kit" and "victim" in her testimony, he allowed Safi's attorneys to use words such as "sex" and "intercourse" when describing the encounter between Safi and Bowen.

Even worse, of course, was that the jury wasn't told about the banned words.

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate had this to say when news of the case first came out: "The fact that judges are not rushing to ban similarly conclusory legal language from trial testimony—presumably one can still say murder or embezzlement on the stand—reflects not just the fraught nature of language but also the fraught nature of rape prosecutions. We as a society still somehow think rape is different—either because we assume the victims are especially fragile or because we assume they are particularly deceitful. Is the word rape truly more inflammatory to a jury than the word robbery?" Indeed.

Bowen (who made her name public), has been an inspiration through this disgustingness. First, she refused to abide by the judge's rule: "I refuse to call it sex, or any other word that I'm supposed to say, encouraged to say on the stand, because to me that's committing perjury. What happened to me was rape, it was not sex."

Then, after there was a mistrial (because of the controversy over the word ban), Bowen sued. I'm just so disappointed that it's come to this end. But kudos to Bowen for not taking shit - she is one amazing woman.

A forewarning: This is about as bad as it gets.

A Maryland man with bipolar disorder with a history of suicide attempt murdered his children this weekend after a court refused to submit a permanent restraining order requested by their mother partly because she was still "having sex" with him in fear for her and her childrens' lives.

While the psychologist's report claiming that Mark Castillo was not someone of harm to his children was a factor in the decision, Amy Castillo said that her husband told her "the worst thing he could do to me would be to kill the children and not me so I could live without them," which she wrote in the petition for the order.

Nonetheless, Judge Joseph A. Dugan Jr. said, "I am not satisfied that indeed there is clear and convincing evidence of abuse in this case." And brought up the fact that Amy continued to "have sex" with her husband, including "twice on the day he allegedly talked about killing the children," despite Castillo testifying that she was - very understandably - scared of him and worried that if she didn't, he would suspect she was taking action against him.

This is beyond horrid. To discredit a woman for being raped to save her and her childrens' lives is unbelievably heinous. I wonder if Dugan has that on his conscience now that her children are dead. Fucking horrible.

Thanks to Sarah for the tip, who is from the same neighborhood.

RH Reality Check had a great feature for April Fool's yesterday with a focus on how crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) fool women into believing that they're all-options clinics, not to mention load them with a ton of dangerous misinformation. And surprise surprise - these illegal and harmful practices are heavily funded by the Bush administration.

Kierra Johnson of Choice USA wrote a piece about CPCs and their efforts with the National Abortion Federation to support a bill that Senator Menendez proposed yesterday, Stop the Deceptive Advertising in Women Services. Call your senators to support the bill.

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle has signed a new law that will allow victims of domestic violence to break rental contracts without punishment.

Supports say the law removes a hurdle that often prevented victims from getting help and leaving abusive relationships.

“If you’re required to stay with an abuser because of a lease you can feel trapped in your residence,� said Kathryn Chapman, executive director of the Golden House shelter in Green Bay.

Naturally, landlords aren't too pleased, because they feel like the law "burdens" them. I get it, but sorry - I don't trump being "burdened" over not being killed by your partner.

Josh Freker, policy director for the Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said the bill’s sponsors worked with landlords so the provision wouldn’t be a burden to them.

Freker said anyone breaking a lease under the provisions of the bill would have to show documentation, such as a criminal complaint or restraining order.

For more information on the employment and housing rights of domestic violence survivors, check out women's legal rights organization, Legal Momentum.

A Republican California assemblyman proposed a bill that would deem pregnant women "temporarily disabled" in the third trimester of their pregnancy and allow them access to handicapped parking. The bill failed, but I think this is really interesting.

The classification of differently-abled people is usually pretty stigmatizing. Disability rights activists have talked about the problem with being overly protective of differently-abled people while overlooking systemic problems in the care of people with disabilities and the lack of appropriate legislation to protect their individual rights.

People with disabilities are constantly fighting against a misinformed public, discrimination and the often erroneous belief that differently-abled people are helpless and can't make decisions for themselves. It is not OK, but we can agree that these assumptions are prevalent. So if that is the case, and we have politicians that want to classify pregnant women as "disabled" these same misconceptions apply on some level. There is then the belief that pregnant women are unable to take care of themselves, make choices for themselves, etc. Is the answer for society's mistreatment of both differently-abled people and pregnant women legislation that will classify women as "temporarily disabled?"

I don't think so. But then you think about what is possible, given the current laws with regard to differently-abled people and it is true that pregnant women sometimes have special needs and those needs should be protected by the government.

I just have a problem with calling people "disabled" and to extend that category to pregnant women. It is infantilizing, something the legal system loves to do to "vulnerable" populations through demoralizing and poorly phrased legislation. Isn't there a way to protect people's rights and allow them fair access depending on their abilities without saying they are disabled? And I am not overly concerned with the terms alone-but the meanings and assumptions that are attached to them.

In the wake of Spitzer's resignation there's been a ton of commentary (feminist and otherwise) about prostitution, trafficking, legalization, and a host of other related issues. I've been out of town and haven't found time to write a substantive post on the subject, but I've been reading a lot of interesting things 'round the internet:

First up, check out Nicholas Kristof's column from Sunday's Times: Kristen's story is "a dangerously unrepresentative glimpse of prostitution in America. Those who work with street prostitutes say that what they see daily is pimps who control teenage girls with violence and threats — plus an emotional bond — and then keep every penny the girl is paid."

Amanda forges ahead and opens what we all know can be a huge can o' worms for a sex-positive feminist: "But when degradation and harm are the work itself, struggling over labor standards becomes confusing. ... Which is why I tear my hair out at the people who focus on the exceptions, like Kerry Howley arguing that prostitution is about women who love sex so much they want to make it a career. That sort of argument serves only one purpose—to shame people with serious questions about prostitution into not asking those questions for fear we’ll be labeled as prudes. Well, I’m not taking the bait."

Safe to say Twisty's against decriminalization: "Note that the goal is merely to curb the male appetite for trafficked women. The message? Pay-for-rapists are here to stay! It is unfathomable that human society could exist entirely without a subclass of sex slaves." UPDATE: Twisty has a clarification.

Brad Plumer looks at what happened in Nevada and Sweden when they decriminalized prostitution: "[O]ur currently policies are grotesque, but honestly, I don't know what the ideal alternative is. I'd lean toward legalize-and-regulate as the least-bad option, although the idea of providing generous support for women who want to get out of the sex trade sounds like the best idea on offer. But if Sweden can barely manage it, good luck putting anything like that in place in the United States."

...and dnA has more thoughts on legalization.

The Sex Workers Project says: "To focus solely on the salacious scandal created by Mr. Spitzer’s alleged actions without attention to the realities and needs of sex workers does nothing to provide solutions for sex workers."

Jill takes on conservative John Derbyshire, who actually wrote that: "To a lover of liberty, it’s hard to see why a woman shouldn’t sell her favors if she wants to. Trouble is, weak or dimwitted women end up in near-slavery to unscrupulous men, and I think there’s a legitimate public interest in not letting that happen." Yeah, you read that right: "weak or dimwitted women."

Jill also points out that there is not an inherent contradiction in being a sex worker and a feminist.

What have y'all been reading/writing about this issue? I'd love to see more links in comments.

Bad first: A Florida House committee passed an Unborn Victims of Violence Act that defines an "unborn child" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb" and removes all language around viability.

The good news: The Oklahoma House voted by a tiny margin to reject a bill that would require parental consent before students receive sex education. They currently already send "opt out" forms to parents of children enrolled in classes that provide sex ed.

Some great news to end your week with:

Flanked by two survivors of sexual assault, one with tears welling in her eyes, Gov. Jim Doyle signed a long awaited bill Thursday that requires hospitals to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.

"This is one bill I've been working to get on my desk for a long, long time," Doyle said.

He credited rape survivors like Linda Gage and Amanda Harrington, who provided testimony before the state Legislature and appeared next to him at the bill signing, with being instrumental to the bill's passage.

"I would like to recognize all of the survivors who have been willing to come forward with their stories ... and to tell what they went through," Doyle said. "The survivors really made this happen."

It's kind of unbelievable that anyone would want to fight against a law that would ensure rape survivors are treated with respect and given all the necessary medical options they need. But in any case, I'm glad to see Wisconsin took this important step in fighting for women's health.

Gage said the new law "tells me, my daughter and the women of Wisconsin that our health and well-being does matter to our state government."

Find out more at BushvChoice.

As many of us already know, Bush's budget proposal for 2009 includes a $120 million cut from the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). Joe Biden has a bill on the floor of the Senate today requesting $100 million to be restored to the program. Tell your senator to vote for this much-needed amendment.

New York is introducing a bill to the City Council this week that would expand protections of victims of intimate partner violence to unmarried couples. Only married/divorced couples or blood relatives can currently seek a civil order of protection from a family court. The bill would allow same-sex and unmarried couples to get the order without having a criminal proceeding first, which is known to possibly escalate violent behavior.

"We will continue to advocate on the state level for a broader definition of family, but we can't wait for the state to act," said Christine Quinn, speaker for the City Council.

Check out more information on intimate partner violence in LGBT relationships.

Attention, dildo-lovers of Texas! You no longer have to pretend your vibrators are for "educational purposes." A federal appeals court has overturned the state's sex toy ban!

But I have to ask: WTF is up with this picture and caption in the Washington Post?

As if someone could, in a fit of rage, purchase a vibrator and really do some damage? (Actually, no joke, Mississippi has deemed sex toys more of a threat to public safety than guns.) I suppose the idea of women having extreme sexual pleasure all by their lonesome is really quite a threatening idea to some people.

Jill has the right idea in celebrating the repeal of the Texas ban by reposting the classic Molly Ivins video:

As Texan Amanda says, "Praise the lord and pass the AA batteries."

This just pisses me off. An anti-choice group in Rapid City, SD is suing the school district because of a middle school that didn't allow them to use the auditorium to feature an anti-choice speaker.

The suit is claiming that the school's community-use policy is "unconstitutionally vague" and impinges on free-speech rights. This "unconstitutional" policy that the middle school dares to apply says that "use of school facilities will be granted only when a proposed activity is suited to the available facility," as well as that the school "shall not be used for political purposes" and lastly, that requests to host politically-related events will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

The good thing is that the district doesn't seem to be wavering. An attorney for the district said its officials believe the policy is sound and are filing a response to the suit.

This week, the anti-choice bills in Indiana are on a roll.

The Senate voted on Tuesday to pass a measure that would allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense emergency contraception, specifically "prescriptions that they believe will be used to induce an abortion or assist in a suicide." Lovely how the two are conveniently placed together.

But that's not all, folks. The Senate also voted to pass a "contentious" bill that would require state physicians to tell women seeking abortions that there is "differing medical evidence concerning when a fetus feels pain," as well as state that "an embryo formed by the fertilization of a human ovum by a human sperm immediately begins to divide and grow as human physical life."

Apparently the language was toned down from the original bill, which we're SO grateful for. As long as "human physical life" and "when a fetus feels pain" is in there, they're good to go. Fuckers.

Here's something you may not know (I certainly didn't): A new civil rights bill introduced in Congress last week makes it easier for students to sue schools where they were sexually harassed or abused, if the school didn't respond reasonably.

From Students Active for Ending Rape (SAFER):

As the law currently stands, students have fewer protections than employees and so schools have less incentive than workplaces to curb their employees and educate against hostile environments. This excellent position paper explains why the changes are absolutely crucial. (Found via a Feminist Law Professors link.)

SAFER, an organization which aims to improve schools' sexual assault prevention and response activities, is encouraging people to call their representatives about the bill and specifically mention the student sexual harassment provisions: "Our elected officials need to know that we care and that we’re paying attention. If this bill were to pass, it could be a powerful tool for fighting administrations that turn a blind eye to sexual assaults and rape culture on their campuses." Indeed.