Recently in Politics Category

Rea Carey, Executive Director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, spoke to the state of our movement at Creating Change today. Carey highlighted the many local, state, and national victories over the past year, the harsh losses, and the frustrating lack of action at the federal level, as well as an agenda for moving forward. Some highlights from her remarks, which received a standing ovation, after the jump.

A new kind of emergency contraception, ellaOne, works to prevent pregnancy up to five days after unprotected sex.

The EC sold in the U.S. is levonorgestrel, sold under the brand name Plan B; ellaOne is the drug ulipristal acetate, and it's only available in Europe. Though it's limited availability hasn't stopped anti-choicers in the U.S. from laying the groundwork for a fight.

Donna Harrison, president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, says that "this is a thinly-veiled attempt to get an abortion drug over-the-counter." A headline from LifeNews says the drug "causes abortions."

UK anti-choicers are chiming in as well, like Joanne Hill from the organization LIFE, who says that "more casual sex and more unintended pregnancy will inevitably be the result" of ellaOne.

Obviously, these are all the same arguments we heard when the FDA was considering approving Plan B for over-the-counter status, and the "it will make girls slutty" line is one we're familiar with from EC and Gardasil battles.

So while I'm happy to know ellaOne is effective, I'm not holding my breath for it to be introduced - or made available anytime soon - in the U.S.

The media (and abstinence-only organizations) are atwitter over a study that shows abstinence-only education can delay the onset of sexual activity.

Valerie Huber, Executive Director of the National Abstinence Education Association, for example, was more than a little pleased: "The core teachings of abstinence education include character building, goal-setting and exploring the emotional risks of casual sex. Abstinence education is the only curriculum that offers such a clear, risk-avoidance approach to sexual health."

But here's the thing: not all abstinence-only programs are created equal. And this program - which showed success in very young students (the average age was 12) delaying sex for up to two years - is nothing like the abstinence-only programs that were widespread under the Bush administration. This program didn't lie, shame, or even tell students to wait until marriage to have sex.

In fact, this program that abstinence proponents are falling all over themselves to tout, wouldn't have been eligible for funding under the Bush administration.

James Wagoner, president of Advocates for Youth, has more:

The abstinence-only program in this study would not have been eligible for federal funding during the Bush years because it did not fit the "8 point definition." The program goal was to help early teens avoid sex until they are ready--a totally different objective than the federally funded abstinence programs already proven ineffective by the long-term Mathematica study "which showed no impact on teen behavior."

In the [researchers'] own words: "It [the abstinence-only intervention] was not designed to meet federal criteria for abstinence-only programs. For instance, the target behavior was abstaining from vaginal, anal, and oral intercourse until a time later in life when the adolescent is more prepared to handle the consequences of sex. The intervention did not contain inaccurate information, portray sex in a negative light, or use a moralistic tone. The training and curriculum manual explicitly instructed the facilitators not to disparage the efficacy of condoms or allow the view that condoms are ineffective to go uncorrected." (Emphasis mine)

In fact, the researchers behind the study, Loretta and John Jemmott, are well-respected advocates of science-based sex education - so it's no surprise that their version of abstinence-only education would be so different from what most ab-only proponents are pushing for.

Even though this program was successful to a degree, however, we still have a moral responsibility to teach young people about contraception. Teenagers deserve the truth about sexual health - and as much information as we can possibly provide.

Related: The Guttmacher Institute has more (pdf) info about this study, and how the program differs from most abstinence-only education, and from Heather Corrina of Scarleteen: What's the Typical Use Effectiveness Rate of Abstinence?

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen are presenting their plan to repeal or "phase out" DADT to the Senate Armed Services Committee.

via Wapo.

Among the issues to be addressed by the group: whether gay soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines will face any restrictions on exhibiting their sexual orientation on the job; whether the Pentagon will be obligated to provide for their domestic partners; and whether straight military personnel could be compelled to share quarters with gays.

"I don't think anyone is underestimating the seriousness of the issue, or the complexity of it," said a senior military official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because Gates and Mullen had yet to testify.

DADT must be overturned immediately. As Wapo reports, gay rights groups are rightfully concerned that the military will dilly-dally on this process and end up taking longer and stalling.

Melissa Harris-Lacewell has an excellent piece up at the Nation about the necessity for DADT to be overturned, or else gays and lesbians are relegated to second class citizenship, comparing it to blacks that fought in both the Civil War and WWII.

On Monday the President of the United States is sitting down with Steve Grove from CitizenTube and will be answering a series of questions generated directly from their Youtube channel. They have about eight video questions up right now, but none of them are from women.

Submission guidelines are simple: Just click the submit a question button on the top right. If you are doing a video, keep it to 20 seconds or less and you can text questions as well, but they would prefer video. On the right hand side of the CitizenTube homepage there is a list of topics to ask from.

Let's let the POTUS know the women have questions about the future of this country like anyone else. If you put up a video, let us know in comments so we can watch and vote!

Check the YouTube blog for more information.

Chris Matthews on MSNBC: "I forgot he was black tonight for an hour."

First things first, race consciousness is not something you take on or off like a pair of glasses. Pundits may not have immediately followed Obama's speech with, "Well, he sure did talk about the economy well for a black guy," but that doesn't mean that their interpretation wasn't influenced by their own relationship to race, their subconscious stereotypes etc. There is no such thing as race-less political analysis, at least not in this country, at this time and place. (No such thing, I might add, as a gender-less political analysis either.)

What is important, and I think this is what Matthews was actually trying to articulate, though very badly, is that Obama's racial identity has become a more intrinsic part of the punditry's interpretation. There are great things about this...finally we are spending valuable airtime looking at his policies, his leadership styles, and his vision, rather than the campaign-era where every other thing out of a pundit's mouth was about identity politics (for the record, some of this forwarded a conversation about race in this country, although too much of it was inane and distracting). There are also dangerous things about this...guys like Chris Matthews can feign excitement over racism being over, when in fact, it is very much still at work in both our personal perceptions and our nation's most powerful institutions. Some might be attracted to the notion that if we don't say it at the beginning, middle, and end of every broadcast, than it's no longer an issue, but that's just not true.

At this point, in this country, there is no "beyond" race. There is the new capacity to background racial identity and prioritize other issues--the economy, healthcare, foreign policy--but all of these issues are inextricably tied up in race (and gender and class and...).

@baratunde Obama says we'll double our exports. Someone remind him all America makes is youtube cat videos

@jamiekilstein Please don't bomb who ever comes into first place

@LilianaSegura In a just world, Obama would use his platform tonight to honor Howard Zinn.

I couldn't help but lead in with some of my favorite tweets from the State of the Union. Obama really needed to pull out all the proverbial stops tonight. He needed to overcome criticism from just about every angle about his inability to get legislators to overcome partisan rancor and showboating. He needed to answer the frustration and lack of faith growing in the American people, who are facing the daily effects of a continuously shaky, though somewhat strengthened, economy. He needed, in short, to re-seed some sense of optimism and trust.

I don't think he succeeded fully, although I also wouldn't say he failed completely. He showed up. He spoke strongly. He seemed genuinely fed up. But something about his demeanor and language tonight seemed rife with a sort of "tough guy" posturing that I actually found fear-inducing rather than reassuring. When referring to Iran, when talking about off shore drilling (seriously?), when chastising the sea of suited elected officials before him, he sounded a lot like a beleaguered father trying to get his kids back in order and reassure his wife that everything would, indeed, be okay even though it looks really, really bad.

Did anyone else get this sense?

I don't want another "big daddy" or "super protector" president. Instead, I was looking for a truly innovative way of talking about change. Maybe that seems naive, but I really did think that in this perfect storm of crises, there was a real opportunity for Obama to talk about the way in which we all have to think about and fight for change in this new world that we're all living in. It's gotten even more charged, even more complex, even more urgent, and it's our leader's job to frame that intensity. He paid lip service to it at times--referencing the decade that has led us into this mess, talking about how he's willing to take an unpopular stand, continuously bringing it back to struggling Americans--but it struck me as showmanship, as a true performance. He's always been charismatic, but this felt uninspired to me.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Campaign finance reform is famously one of the most convoluted and complicated issues in politics. But there's nothing ambiguous about the most recent development in the long saga of regulating campaign contributions: the Citizens United decision. It's bad for progressives, and bad for women.

Last week's ruling reverses previous limitations on corporate spending, and allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns based on the legally shaky premise that corporations' "speech" should be protected by the First amendment.

But, as David Kairys points out on Slate in one of the most persuasive arguments against the ruling I've read so far, money isn't speech and corporations aren't people. He sums up the consequences of the Court's latest decision like this:

The Citizens United decision will make it harder to achieve reforms opposed by major corporations and change business as well as politics. Increasing the constitutional rights of corporations beyond their business purposes is really about increasing the rights and power of corporate managers...Taken as a whole, the conservative court's First Amendment jurisprudence has enlarged the speech rights available to wealthy people and corporations and restricted the speech rights available to people of ordinary means and to dissenters.

And he's not the only one highlighting these consequences. The NY Times reports that President Obama called it "a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans."

So we already know that the decision is bad for "everyday Americans". Many have argued that it's bad for democracy. But what effect will it have on women?

Thanks abstinence only education!

A new report from the Guttmacher Institute shows that the teen pregnancy rate has risen for the first time in more than a decade. And guess who's to blame...

These new data from the Guttmacher Institute are especially noteworthy because they provide the first documentation of what experts have suspected for several years, based on trends in teens' contraceptive use--that the overall teen pregnancy rate would increase in the mid-2000s following steep declines in the 1990s and a subsequent plateau in the early 2000s. The significant drop in teen pregnancy rates in the 1990s was overwhelmingly the result of more and better use of contraceptives among sexually active teens. However, this decline started to stall out in the early 2000s, at the same time that sex education programs aimed exclusively at promoting abstinence--and prohibited by law from discussing the benefits of contraception--became increasingly widespread and teens' use of contraceptives declined.

Heather Boonstra, Guttmacher Institute senior public policy associate, calls the reversal "deeply troubling."

"It coincides with an increase in rigid abstinence-only-until-marriage programs, which received major funding boosts under the Bush administration....Fortunately, the heyday of this failed experiment has come to an end with the enactment of a new teen pregnancy prevention initiative that ensures that programs will be age-appropriate, medically accurate and, most importantly, based on research demonstrating their effectiveness."

I'm a bit less optimistic than Boonstra - because while we have made inroads in terms of limiting funding for abstinence-only education, we still have a cultural battle ahead of us.

Last week, a pretty horrific week in progressive politics, also marked the anniversary of President Obama's inauguration.

I was one of the thousands of people on the Mall on that cold, cold day last year. Despite the economic turmoil, I was also one of those people with a lot of hope for what the new administration might mean for our country and our progressive agenda.

It's been a tough year.

A lot of folks have been reflecting on how Obama is doing after herhis first year. Many people point out that a year is nothing in political time--it will take years before we can really judge Obama and the success or failure of the changes his Administration is trying to make.

But as one of the people who supported his campaign and watched my generation leave their jobs to go out and work to get him elected, I can't wait ten years to decide what I think.

It's easy to focus on the big news items--like health care reform--and judge Obama solely on the progress (or lack there of) of those agenda items.

If we were judging solely on those issues, it'd be hard to say anything too positive. The health care reform situation has been a collective hot mess and it doesn't look like Obama has been willing to put himself on the line for things that I care about--a public option, protection and advancement of reproductive rights, coverage for immigrants.

But in reality, I think it's the little changes, the ones we don't hear about, that might make more of a difference.

Australia has declared 2010 to be the "Year of Women in Local Government," launching an empowering new website to promote the initiative. The most common statistic cited in the speeches surrounding the program shows that in 2009, women accounted for less than 30 per cent of councilors, 20 per cent of senior managers and only five percent of CEOs.

The Government's commitment includes:
- $250,000 for a three-year 50:50 Vision: Councils for Gender Equity program which will audit councils and shires to determine the status and role of women in leadership roles as well as their participation in the workplace.
- $100,000 in scholarship funding to enable senior women in local government to participate in the new Executive Leadership Program being developed by the Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government and the Australia and New Zealand School of Government;
- $100,000 to improve the collection of data and reporting on the status of women in the local government sector; and
- $40,000 to the Local Government Managers Australia for their 2010 Management Challenge, which will involve around 130 councils identifying strategies to promote gender equity in their councils.

"Just 55.2 per cent of women were in the workforce and, of those, fewer than half were in full-time jobs."

Wow. Really?

I was kind of shocked to see Cindy McCain, wife of former presidential candidate Senator John McCain, pose for the NOH8 Campaign.

As Michael at Change.org notes, "it would have been really nice for Cindy McCain to have professed her love for gay marriage during the 2008 election, when her husband was not only running for President, but endorsing California's Proposition 8...But on the whole, this is a rather big to-do."

Indeed it is.

I love me some Jane Lynch. And she does not love President Obama right now. From a recent interview with The Guardian:

"Shouldn't there be safeguards against the majority voting on the rights of a minority?" Lynch wonders. "If people voted on civil rights in the 60s, it would have never happened. It took somebody like Lyndon Johnson going, 'F all of you! I'm going to do this.'" She pauses for a moment, then says, "Obama won't do it. He's a huge disappointment to me."

Via Gaytheists.

So how are folks feeling?

Today is the special election in MA to fill the late Senator Kennedy's seat and we need Martha Coakley to win. But while women's groups have thrown down support for her, it seems that she is not getting the support she needs from women voters. Dana Goldstein looks at why this might be so,

Coakley did not go out of her way, especially during the general-election campaign, to play up her feminist credentials. She never filmed a general-election ad that presented a positive image of herself as a defender of reproductive rights and civil liberties, as opposed to just attacking Brown on those issues. She also never fully embraced the message that her ascension to the Senate would be historic, putting the number of women serving in the upper chamber at 18, an all-time high. She has called her gender "secondary," eschewing the more emotional feminist appeal that Hillary Clinton made in the final months of her presidential campaign.

It is so hard to predict which is the most effective tactic, hiding your feminism or making it blatant, but Dana continues with the shifting mood of the country against repro rights after the health care debates, which has re-centralized value voter issues. Go read the rest of the article to get a clear picture of how gender is playing out in this race.

And sadly Brown's people are using sexist tactics and intimidating voters.

Today is a very important election. If you are interested in supporting getting the vote out but are not in MA, you can always phone bank.

Laura Flanders is the host of GRITtv, a daily current events and political news show that features some of the most intelligent conversation and analysis you'll find anywhere. Earlier this week we posted a video and transcript of GRITtv's episode about the experience of transgendered Americans, which is well worth a look if you haven't already watched it.

Flanders was born in the UK and graduated from Barnard College, where she majored in Women's Studies and History. She worked for the media watchgroup FAIR, where she was the founding director of their women's desk, analyzing how sexism influences news coverage.

Flanders is the author of several books, the most recent of which is Blue Grit: True Democrats Take Back the Politics from the Politicians, and the editor of a collection of essays called The W Effect: Sexual Politics in the Age of Bush. Now, she hosts GRITtv, which tackles the major political issues of the day as well as those issues that tend to get inaccurate, biased or not enough coverage. If you've already watched the transgender episode, I recommend her recent commentary on this week's Prop 8 trial in California.

It was a real pleasure to sit down and talk with Flanders, who, as you'll see from the interview, has some wonderful insightful things to say about feminism, gender and politics.

And now, without further ado, the Feministing Five, with Laura Flanders.

Remember last week when Hillary Clinton stood in front of the world and defended access to reproductive health care as a "basic right"?

"If we believe that human rights are women's rights and women's rights are human rights, then we cannot accept the ongoing marginalization of half the world's population," Secretary Clinton said one week ago today. "We cannot accept it morally, politically, socially, or economically."

In a time when many are quick to criticize the effectiveness of "Feminism, Inc," Secretary Clinton deserves recognition and thanks for her outspoken and unrelenting leadership in improving sexual and reproductive health worldwide, not criticism and flack.

This is crucially important. I know we're all used to letting our government know when they're doing something wrong- now it's time to let them know we appreciate that they've done right by us. We also need to let her know that we stand behind her as the United States turns these words into action through policy changes and increased funding for critical health services. Please take a moment to thank Secretary Clinton: Call 202-647-6575 or send an email. You can find contact information and sample text on the IWHC website here.

Well, lookie here. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight has some pretty telling info on marriage in this country:

Over the past decade or so, divorce has gradually become more uncommon in the United States. Since 2003, however, the decline in divorce rates has been largely confined to states which have not passed a state constitutional ban on gay marriage. These states saw their divorce rates decrease by an average of 8 percent between 2003 and 2008. States which had passed a same-sex marriage ban as of January 1, 2008, however, saw their divorce rates rise by about 1 percent over the same period.

Chart via FiveThirtyEight.

So I guess same sex marriage rights can't destroy the institution after all. But maybe discrimination can.

Some highlights from Sec. of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's remarks on the 15th Anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development:

Too often, still today in 2010, women and girls bear the burdens of regional and global crises, whether it's an economic downturn or climate change or political instability. They still are the majority of the world's poor, unschooled, unhealthy, and underfed. They are rarely the cause of violent consequences, but increasingly - of violent conflicts, but increasingly they bear the consequences of such conflicts. We've seen that from the Congo to Bosnia to Burma. And 15 years after the Cairo conference, far too many women still have little or no access to reproductive health services, including family planning and maternal healthcare.

There's a direct connection between a woman's ability to plan her family, space her pregnancies, and give birth safely, and her ability to get an education, work outside the home, support her family, and participate fully in the life of her community.

I just want to urge that we do not grow weary. I don't about you, but sometimes it can seem a little bit hard to take. It is also self-evident; it seems so obvious to the rest of us that this needs to be done, and we keep encountering obstacles of every shape and size. But please, stay with us and let's try to create institutional and structural change that does not get wiped away when the political winds blow. Let's try to create markets for these goods and ways of funding them and educational and instructional programs along with our commitment to serve that will give women everywhere a chance to take their own lives and their own futures into their own hands.

Read the whole speech here.

Thanks to 34 Million Friends for the reminder.

Ask the Republicans for Choice PAC. A new report by the Center for Public Integrity has revealed that one of the largest organizations working towards getting pro-choice GOP candidates elected to Congress has spent less than 5% of its budget on political campaigns in the last decade.

In the last five years, just half of one percent of the one million dollars Republicans for Choice has spent was toward a political candidate, committees or expenditures. Via the report:

By comparison, Federal Election Commission data show the average federal PAC in the recent 2007-2008 cycle dedicated about 35 percent of spending to contributions aiding federal candidates. A comparison to other PACs on both sides of the abortion debate shows that similar groups spend a much greater portion of their funds on candidates and campaigns.

Where did RFC's money go? Much of the group's spending has been for consulting companies owned by the PAC's chairwoman, Ann E. W. Stone. Those firms -- along with payments to reimburse Stone's expenses for travel, entertainment, and automobile repairs -- comprise more than two-thirds of RFC PAC's expenditures since 2006. And hundreds of dollars more went to pay for Stone's parking tickets.

Stone says that her group's overhead is high because, unlike most political action committees, it does not have affiliated interest groups to share administrative expenses. And she notes that much of the organization's activity goes beyond the election of political candidates.

Smells like bullshit to me, especially after checking out the "Politics" section of their website which hasn't been updated since 2004. And their "Projects" page is, well, I'll let you see for yourself:

We all know that the pro-choice Republican community is generally not as, well, vibrant in numbers as their Democratic or Independent counterparts. But if any of pro-choice Republicans are wondering where their elected pro-choice GOPers are, you might want to ask these folks -- although I'd expect their answer to be as empty as their website.

Via TPM.

Via Air America:

Amanda Simpson, a Raytheon employee, former test pilot, and one-time Congressional candidate, made history today when she became the first-ever Presidential appointee who is transgender. Simpson, who underwent her transition while employed at Raytheon, will serve as a Senior Technical Adviser at the Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security.

More at HuffPo

via Amanda Hess, I see that Rock the Vote is running a campaign asking young people to pledge that they will "hold out for health care":

"We pledge ourselves to the health and liberty of young Americans and to government for the people ... and to never fucking you if you are against us," the video announces. "We will vote against you, work against you, and once again, just in case you forgot, never ever, never ever, never ever, never ever fuck you."

At its core, this is basically the Lysistrata approach -- a reference to the Greek comedy in which women withhold sex until men negotiate peace. As Jaclyn Friedman wrote this week in a similar vein,

It's time for drastic action. And considering we won't have the chance to vote these fools out of office for nearly a year, we're going to have to get creative. Possibly, a little Greek. And so I humbly submit to you the question: WWLD? What Would Lysistrata Do?

The thing is, I like sex too much to suggest a full-on sex strike. And honestly, I don't want to perpetuate the idea that sex denial hurts men more than it hurts women, because I don't believe that's true. But it's half-past time for drastic action, so here's what I propose:

Stop having sex with partners who think your reproductive health is negotiable.

This is obiviously not a new concept. Jill at Feministe made a similar argument a few years ago. Kenyan women went on a sex strike earlier this year. And some of the presidential campaign messaging suggested women not sleep with dudes who weren't voting for Obama.

With varying degrees of seriousness, I admit I have advised friends not to have sex with people who don't believe they should have reproductive rights. But honestly, I think that's a better personal strategy than a political one. As Renee wrote in response to the "Girls say YES to boys who say OBAMA" posters,

The idea that women's bodies can and should be offered as a reward for good behaviour has been with us for centuries. It's appearance as a campaign slogan only proves how far we need to progress as women.

Which is why, despite having some pretty strong personal beliefs about the required political views of my sexual partners, I can't get behind any effort (tongue-in-cheek or not) to use sex as a means of widespread political leverage. Especially when it comes with bonus pro-abstinence and anti-trans messaging like the Rock the Vote campaign.

Michelle Goldberg has an interesting theory:

Thinking about what the last year and the last decade has meant for American women, I kept coming back to the increasingly cruel physical scrutiny that they're subject to. Impossible beauty standards seem like a subconscious cultural reaction against women's growing power. It's fine for women to do everything men do -- as long as they stay skinny, sexy, young, and soignée at the same time. The surveillance culture of the Internet and the tabloids sends a message to all women that to let oneself go for even a moment is to open oneself up to a psychotic Greek chorus of abuse. Even as our politics get a little bit better for women, the broader public climate grows more unforgiving by the day.

Read the rest here.

You may have missed it amidst all the news about the health care reform debacle, but quite a bit has happened in the past week about immigration reform. Here is a quick round up of what's been going on on immigration.

It's long been said that once health care reform was dealt with, immigration would be the next big issue to tackle. Folks have also predicted that the fight for immigration reform will be even more difficult than health care (hard to fathom). The Obama Administration had made promises to tackle the issue this year.

Representative Gutierrez introduced a comprehensive immigration reform bill last week in the House of Representatives.

Others are claiming that the bill is DOA (dead on arrival) because the House leaders are hesitant to take on such a controversial issue during an election year. The Dallas Morning News reports:

Last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi quietly assured freshman Democrats and other vulnerable lawmakers that she won't allow a floor debate on immigration unless the Senate acts first. Backbenchers are frustrated at being forced to cast politically delicate votes on issues like cap-and-trade, only to see the bills stall in the Senate.

USA Today caught flack for an article about immigrant students where it referred to them as "illegal students." A campaign called USA Today Fail has been created to fight back.

Finally, a check out the Media Consortium's blog The Diaspora for more on what's happening with immigration reform.

This weekend, the Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scrambled to find a compromise on a health care bill that would satisfy all sixty Democrats, guaranteeing enough votes to pass the legislation without fear of a Republican filibuster.

Last week we heard about Senator Joe Lieberman's stand-still which killed the public option and the Medicare buy-in for people over 55, which had been the public option compromise.

This weekend, despite the fact that Senator's had defeated Senator Ben Nelson's anti-abortion amendment previously (which looked a lot like the amendment from Representative Stupak that made it into the house bill), Reid negotiated this compromise, via the New York Times:

Under the agreement, states could choose to prohibit abortion coverage in the insurance markets, or exchanges, where most health plans would be sold.

But if a health plan did cover the procedure, subscribers would have to make two separate monthly premium payments: one for all insurance coverage except abortion and one for abortion coverage.

It's been harrowing to watch this bill fall apart, or progressively whittle away all the pieces of the legislation that most liberals have said are non-negotiable. A number of national reproductive rights organizations have denounced the bill because of the anti-abortion provision, with Planned Parenthood going as far as to oppose the legislation (so does Shark Fu).

The compromise was denounced by advocates of abortion rights, including the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the National Organization for Women, Naral Pro-Choice America and the National Women's Law Center.

"We have no choice but to oppose the Senate bill," said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.

It looks like the bill is all but passed in the Senate. We'll have to see what this means for committee, when the Senate and House bills must be combined into one. There are bad abortion coverage provisions in both versions now, and a public option only in the House version.

Folks paying attention to the news lately may have noticed that there is a big Climate Summit happening in Copenhagen right now. Here is a brief round up of the news on Copenhagen and the work going down there. Things are getting heated up (no pun intended) in preparation for the final week of the summit and appearances by many of the world's major leaders, including President Obama.

Check out Gender CC for resources and information about the links between gender and Climate Change.

Quite a few people have been arrested during the rallies and protests that have been staged in conjunction with the Climate Summit. Most of the protesters are demonstrating in reaction to what they see as inadequate and delayed action on climate change.

In a breakthrough today, Canada announced that it would accept the concept of climate debt. For more on this concept, read this TIME magazine article. UPDATE: It appears this "announcement" from Canada was actually a hoax fueled by fake press releases. What's worse is the Uganda delegation fell for it as well, and issued an elaborate response that you can see on video at the link above.

A delegation representing 133 countries walked out of the negotiations this morning over concerns that the Kyoto Protocol would be abandoned. More on this here. Talks has since resumed.

A representative from the island nation of Tuvalu pleaded yesterday for legally-binding agreements to be made at the summit, to save his island nation from the effects of global warming. He also pointed out the control that the US Senate has over the fate of his country.

Finally, The Media Consortium's The Mulch blog has a round up of the happenings in Copenhagen.

For more on the Summit, check out the official website.

Annise Parker, center, with her partner, far right second from right, and their two adopted daughters with supporters. From the Dallas Voice.

Running on issues of public safety, auditing city departments to cut waste and fraud, and not raising taxes, Annise Parker became Houston's mayor on Saturday night, winning a runoff election against fellow Democrat Gene Locke. As Houston's first "out" mayor, Parker has been lauded by progressive organizations nationwide.

Some, though, noticed the absence of LGBT issues from her platform. There is an argument to be made that Parker's acceptance of campaign donations and endorsements from groups like the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund and Human Rights Campaign necessitate a louder, stronger endorsement of equality and The Gay Agenda.

Still, the overall lack of LGBT issues or discussion from Parker's campaign is understandable. Just as congressional electability in a conservative district forces Democrats to remain silent about party affliation, mayoral electability in a state known for its active evangelical population requires talking about non-LGBT issues. Locke and Parker had to court the GOP vote, even expecting an endorsement from Republican groups before the runoff.

But how should queer critics both celebrate diversity in leadership and allow Parker media attention as Houston's mayor, not just as Houston's card-carrying lesbian mayor? Is it unreasonable for a candidate to want to be identified by her qualifications and record on safety first, and her sexual orientation second? The problem with ignoring Parker's lesbian identity is that it would require ignoring the virulent anti-gay campaign waged against her.

Jehmu Greene is the new President of the Women's Media Center. The WMC was founded in 2005 by Jane Fonda, Robin Morgan and Gloria Steinem, whose goal was to make women visible and powerful in the media. As readers of Feministing know all too well, women and people of color are drastically underrepresented in the media, and the WMC aims to change that by campaigning for just and accurate reporting of gender issues, and by teaching women how to find and use their own voices. Jehmu is a graduate of their Progressive Women's Voices program, a year-long media training of which our own Courtney Martin is also a graduate.

Greene, who grew up in Austin, began her political career by working on Governor Ann Richards' 1994 campaign, and followed that up by running the women's office at the Democratic National Committee. She is the former president of Rock the Vote and a member of the board of directors of The American Prospect, where Feministing's Ann Friedman is a writer. In all, Greene has worked on over 20 political campaigns, including Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign. Greene has worked in LA and in DC, but her new role as the WMC brings her to New York City for the first time, which is something of a change for a woman who says she thinks of herself as small city girl. But "with this challenge and this opportunity," she say, "nothing would stop me."

And now, without further ado, the Feministing Five, with Jehmu Greene.

As usual she brings it with personal experience and feminist authority in her measured, thoughtful and generous way.

Being a part of the WaPo's contest didn't change how I feel about the value of training women to enter public debate in greater numbers. It did, however, remind me of just how deeply the gender imbalance on op-ed pages is rooted. It's not all about submission rates or saying yes when producers call; it's also about old, tired, and stubbornly persistent perceptions of gender and authority.

Reading the comments that amassed following my writing throughout the three-week experience and, especially, after my video appearance, was a sobering reality check about how far we still have to go in changing cultural mores on who gets to speak about "political issues" and how they get to speak about them.

Please go read the rest.

Glenn Beck is an asshole. And I am not Sarah Palin fan, but seriously...sexism is sexism and telling someone to get back in the kitchen because they are a woman is sexism, regardless of their politics.

via RawStory

Beck apparently likes the idea of a Beck-Palin ticket, but a Palin-Beck ticket? Not so much.

"I was just thinking, what, I'm going to take a back seat to a chick?" Beck quipped, to laughter from the studio. "Go shoot a bear, make some stew, I'm hungry in here."

In an interview with Newsmax last week, Palin "wouldn't rule out" running with the controversial talk show host in 2012.

"So while she's considering it ... I just want her to know, I'm ruling it out. A Palin-Beck ticket, I'm absolutely ruling it out," Beck said. "I'm just saying, Beck-Palin, I'll consider. But Palin-Beck -- can you imagine what an administration with the two of us would be like? She'd be yapping or something, I'd say, 'I'm sorry, why am I hearing your voice? I'm not in the kitchen.' I mean, you'd have to live up to the evil conservative stereotypes, you'd have no choice but to do so."

Infuriating.

In the past week, much has been written about Senator Harry Reid and how he rode in on his white horse to save women from the evils of the Stupak Amendment. While it may seem like some of the Stupak-Pitt storm has cleared, women's rights advocates should keep in mind that the awful amendment that banned federally sponsored insurance plans from covering abortions could be reincarnated during what remains of this never-ending process. One of the perks of studying public policy as a graduate student is that I have access to a lovely network of folks who live for the procedural aspects of policymaking. As such, here are some notes from conversations in the past week about the possible ways Stupak's Amendment could have a second coming.

It should first be noted that Stupak's Amendment could be added at any given moment during Senate debate over the next few weeks. It is true that Harry Reid can limit the number of amendments that can come forth. However, a Stupak comeback is still possible.

Lambda Legal has filed a lawsuit to prevent AZ from stripping domestic partner benefits from gay and lesbian state employees.

Arizona lawmakers included a provision stripping domestic partner health benefits from state employees as part of a last-minute budget deal signed by Governor Jan Brewer in September, while retaining spousal health benefits for heterosexual workers.

Via Feminists for Choice:

Charming. Video from Media Matters.

Via Broadsheet.

Regular readers will have noticed that in recent months, Feministing has brought in a number of new contributors: Ariel, Jos, Lori, Rose and myself. No doubt you're getting to know them by reading their posts and engaging with their ideas in the comments section, but I also suspect that you might want to know a little more about these wonderful women (I know I do!). Over the last few weeks, I've been interviewing my fellow new contributors so that you and I can get to know them a little better. This week, last but not least, I interviewed Rose Afriyie.

Rose is a first generation Ghanaian American who grew up in the Bronx and the Poconos. She got her B.A. at the University of Pittsburgh and is now at the University of Michigan pursuing her Masters in Public Policy, focusing on Science, Technology and Public Policy. Rose is particularly interested in sexuality and in how racial and gender inequities affect access to technology and, in turn, in participation in civic life. She has worked as an organizer with NOW and before she joined the Feministing crew this September, her writing was published in The Chicago Tribune and in her college paper, where she was a sex columnist, which officially makes her the coolest older sister ever (she's one of five siblings).

And now, without further ado, the Feministing Five, with Rose Afriyie.

Courtney mentioned in yesterday's What We Missed that the Senate HCR bill does not have the same vicious right-wing vitriol of the Stupak-Coathanger Amendment. mcjoan at DailyKos has a full break down of some of the key provisions in the Capp Amendment which is replacing the Stupak-Pitt Amendment.

Tracy-Flora Clark at Broadsheet tells us,

The key details of the Senate bill are as follows: Both public and private plans are allowed to offer abortion coverage. It empowers consumers to use government subsidies to purchase insurance that covers abortion, but requires that their premiums (and not federal funds) pay for the actual procedures. The Health and Human Services Secretary is charged with evaluating plans to ensure that taxpayers do not pay for abortions. And, while the bill requires at least one plan in each state to cover abortion, it also includes a conscience clause stating that healthcare providers cannot "be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness ... to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."

This move is a much better option, although as mcjoan mentions it feels hard to celebrate the continuation of the Hyde Amendment, but it is not as aggressive as the Stupak-Pitt Amendment. Our reproductive rights will be used as bargaining chips and some are saying it is unlikely that Stupak will be in the final version of the Bill.

But to prepare for any impending disaster, There will be a National Day of Action on December 2nd in D.C., along with a November 21st Rally in PA, November 23rd in DC and December 4th through NOW-NY to stand up against the Stupak-Pitt Amendment.

Leave any actions near you in comments.

Related:

Study: Stupak will end abortion coverage "for all women"
From Hyde to Stupak, over 30 years of limiting access to abortion
Beyond Stupak: The next phase of the abortion debate
Whose health care victory?

If you're sick of hearing about Sarah Palin's new biography, Going Rogue: An American Life, consider checking out the anthology, Going Rouge: Sarah Palin, An American Nightmare.

Edited by Richard Kim and Betsy Reed of The Nation, Going Rouge is like the liberal intervention to Palin's oh-so-tiresome narrative.

The book has contributions from Max Blumenthal, Juan Cole, Eve Ensler, Michelle Goldberg, Jane Hamsher, Christopher Hayes, Naomi Klein, Dahlia Lithwick, Amanda Marcotte, Rick Perlstein, Katha Pollitt, Frank Rich, Hanna Rosin, Rebecca Traister, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Patricia Williams, and even one from me!

If you're interested, check out this episode of GRITtv after the jump where Laura Flanders chats with Rebecca Traister, Richard Kim, Max Blumenthal and Shannyn Moore about Palin and the book.

A new study from the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services reports that "the Stupak/Pitts Amendment will have an industry-wide effect, eliminating coverage of medically indicated abortions over time for all women, not only those whose coverage is derived through a health insurance exchange."

From Brian at TPMDC:

In other words, though the immediate impact of the Stupak amendment will be limited to the millions of women initially insured through a new insurance exchange, over time, as the exchanges grow, the insurance industry will scale down their abortion coverage options until they offer none at all.

...Furthermore the study finds that the supposed fallback option for impacted women--a "rider" policy that provides supplemental coverage for abortions only--may not even be allowed under the terms of the law. "In our view, the terms and impact of the Amendment will work to defeat the development of a supplemental coverage market for medically indicated abortions. In any supplemental coverage arrangement, it is essential that the supplemental coverage be administered in conjunction with basic coverage. This intertwined administration approach is barred under Stupak/Pitts because of the prohibition against financial comingling."

Read the whole report here. And spread the word - please tweet or email this post to your friends.

A petition filed by an anti-same-sex marriage coalition led by Bishop Harry Jackson was rejected today by the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics. The petition called for DC to recognize "only marriage between a man and a woman [a]s valid."

[T]he Board held that such ballot measures do 'not present a proper subject of initiative because it would authorize discrimination prohibited under the Human Rights Act ("HRA").'

The Board's reasoning in today's decision also turns on the existing law established by the Jury and Marriage Amendment Act of 2009, the one that allows the District to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.

Council member David Catania said of the decision, "The proposed initiative would have stripped legally married same-sex couples of their vows. Those who proposed the initiative were attempting to write discrimination into our law, and I am pleased that the Board rejected this effort as an impermissible trespass on the human rights of District residents."

Yes, I'm aware that rotary phones are largely a thing of the past, but I still have affinity for them after growing up with one that looks just like this (but was a horribly awesome beige color).

Today and Thursday evening from 6 to 9 PM EST, NARAL Pro-Choice New York is holding phone banks to call in Senators in battle ground states and ensure the Stupak amendment won't be in the Senate bill or the final health care reform bill.

The great thing is that you do NOT have to be in New York to join the phone banks - all you need is internet and a phone and the folks over at NARAL Pro-Choice New York will guide you through it.

Email their awesome Community Organizer Lalena Howard to sign up.

Via The Hotline, Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, after initially stating that despite being pro-choice, she was okay with the Stupak amendment has changed her tune, at least according to her Twitter feed.

Text: Oppose Stupak.Don't think we should change current law which is no public $ for abortions,but amndmt goes too far limitng private funds too

What's sad is that her new position is still not what many of us want--which is true access to all reproductive health services, regardless of income, ability to pay or health care plan.

But nice work to all those who put pressure on Senator McCaskill and her support of what is a truly terrible piece of legislation.

Want to stand with the pro-choice congresswomen opposing inclusion of Stupak in health care reform? Sign your name here.

Related:
Whose health care victory?
Rep. Wasserman Schultz: Confident Stupak will not be in the final version of the bill

Check out Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) on MSNBC today.

Transcript of Rep. Wasserman Schultz's comments after the jump.

Yesterday voters in Maine repealed the state's law allowing same sex couples to get married, making it the 31st state to block same-sex marriage through a public referendum. Unbelievable.

Evan Wolfson, executive director of the national gay-rights group Freedom to Marry, said the loss in Maine underscores "the fact that we need to continue those conversations and make ourselves visible as families in communities."

He added, "It shows we have just not done it long enough and deep enough, even in a place like Maine."

But Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, the conservative Christian group that is leading the charge against same-sex marriage around the country, read the outcome differently.

"It interrupts the story line that is being manufactured, that suggests the culture has shifted on gay marriage and the fight is over," she said. "Maine is one of the most secular states in the nation, it's socially liberal, they had a three-year head start to build their organization and they outspent us two to one. If they can't win there, it really does tell you the majority of Americans are not on board with this gay marriage thing."

I think Gallagher's quote - "this gay marriage thing" - really says it all. The contempt practically drips from the words.

Bloggers at Pam's House Blend have several posts up about the decision, and Adam at Tapped says there's a silver lining in all of this. What do you think?

UPDATE: AndyLC on the Community blog has more.

Lynn Hecht Schafran and Jillian Weinberger of Legal Momentum (a women's legal defense and education fund) say that recent reports from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) underestimate the number of rapes among persons with disabilities and women.

Schafran and Weinberger point specifically to two reports, Crime Against Persons with Disabilities (2007) and Female Victims of Violence (2008), arguing that the methodology for both were flawed.

Crime Against Persons with Disabilities, for example, excluded institutionalized people with disabilities - a huge omissions considering that sexual assault and abuse happen at extremely high rates in institutional settings. Schafran and Weinberger also note that the statistic in the report related to reporting abuse to the police is only "based on 10 or fewer sample cases."

Female Victims of Violence - which showed that rape rates have decreased significantly recently, has similar methodological problems.

A number of you have rejected this weekend's profile of the Obamas' marriage (and accompanying slideshow) as yawn-inducing celebitician/politicity pop-love drivel. Alas, I have the will power of a goldfish, and so I was possessed not only to read the big long Presidential love exposé but to write about it. Here. Now!

Fortunately for you, I was much less interested in the intimate details of the Obamas' marriage than I was in the idea of the presidency as it was overwhelmingly, if inadvertently, presented throughout the article- as a partnership.

While I enjoy a juicy detail as much as the next, and yes, Presidential date night = cute, I couldn't help but notice this surprising theme woven throughout the article.

Regular readers will have noticed that in recent months, Feministing has brought in a number of new contributors: Ariel, Jos, Lori, Rose Afriye and myself. No doubt you're getting to know them and their expertise by reading their posts and engaging with their ideas in the comments section, but I also suspect that you want to know a little more about these wonderful women (I know I do!). So, over the next few weeks, I'll be interviewing my fellow new contributors, so that you and I can get to know them a little better. This week I interviewed Ariel Boone.

Ariel is in her third year at Cal Berkeley, where she is completing a double major in Music and Political Economy. She grew up in Davis, CA, and was heavily involved with student activism during her high school career. At Berkeley, she is even more heavily involved in student activism, and her list of extracurricular activities reportedly makes her parents wonder how on earth she gets her schoolwork done. In addition to being a Senator in the Associated Students of the University of California and a member of Cal Students for Equal Rights and a Valid Education (CalSERVE), Ariel spends her summers doing a dizzying number of jobs and internships, working on a wide range of issues, from national security to reproductive rights.

Ariel is a self-described policy wonk and a huge West Wing fan (check out who her favorite fictional heroine is). She started contributing to Feministing this August, when she covered for Miriam when Miriam was on vacation. And I speak for all of us when I say that we're might glad that she stayed on.

And now, without further ado, The Feministing Five, with Ariel Boone.

About. Damn. Time.

Via The Advocate and Akimbo:

"The United States is one of a dozen countries that bar people with HIV from entering the country," Obama said as he announced the lifting of the U.S. policy banning travel and immigration to the U.S. by people who are HIV-positive.

"If we want to be the global leader in HIV, we need to act like it."

This should go a long way towards battling the seemingly ubiquitous stigma and discrimination HIV-positive people face worldwide. What a great way to end the week!

Lambda Legal made this great documentary that tells the story of the Supreme Court victory in Lawrence v. Texas that struck down state sodomy laws.

Click here to find out more about the film and how you can host a screening at your school or organization.

h/t Audacia Ray on Twitter.

Peggy Robertson was denied insurance coverage because she previously had a c-section. But her super kind and thoughtful insurance company told her that if she got sterilized, they would give her coverage. Seriously.

Another video about Robertson's story after the jump.

Hilarious.

Remember Robert McDonnell's Master Thesis which contended that working women and feminists are "detrimental" to the family? In efforts to avoid this Republican candidate from governing his anti-women wackness over the state of Virginia, NARAL Pro-Choice Virginia did an awesome video asking folks if this is the kind of governor they'd want.

Working Women for Virginia also have an ad and Facebook campaign against McDonnell. Good stuff.

With Olympia Snowe's surprise vote this week during the passing of the Senate Finance Committee's health care reform legislation, conservative pundits are taking any sexist shots they can at a woman with power who, like, uses it. Media Matters has a good round up, which are pretty ridiculous:

Savage dubs Snowe "Jezebel." After airing a clip of Snowe discussing her vote, Savage played a portion of the song "Jezebel" by Frankie Laine that included the lyrics, "If ever the devil was born without a pair of horns, it was you. Jezebel, it was you." Savage added, "Jezebel is Olympia Snowe. Of course she has thrown over with the turncoats who have stabbed America in the back, dragging us into a socialized medical system against the will of the majority of the American people." [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 10/13/09]

Limbaugh: The "voice of the new castrati, those who have lost all manhood, gonads, guts, and courage" applaud Snowe for health care reform support. Anticipating that Snowe was "going to vote yes" on the Finance Committee's health care reform bill, Limbaugh attacked Snowe by praising the "bipartisanship" of the bill using "the voice of the new castrati." Limbaugh described the "new castrati" as "those who have lost all manhood, gonads, guts, and courage throughout our culture and our political system." Limbaugh has previously described the "new castrati" as supporters of Hillary Clinton. [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/13/09]

Not to mention Jim Quinn dedicated the Garbage song, "Stupid Girl" to Snowe and Limbaugh referred to Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins by saying, "'Women, damn it.'"

And I doubt this is the end of it. Misogynists, damn it.

Via ThinkProgress:

In 2005, Jamie Leigh Jones was gang-raped by her co-workers while she was working for Halliburton/KBR in Baghdad. Jones was prevented from bringing charges in court against KBR because her employment contract stipulated that sexual assault allegations would only be heard in private arbitration. Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) proposed an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court." Check out his speech from the Senate floor yesterday:

The amendment passed by a 68-30 vote. Jones commented: "It means the world to me. It means that every tear shed to go public and repeat my story over and over again to make a difference for other women was worth it."

Yesterday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that she would not run for president again.

"This is a great job," Clinton said in the [NBC] interview broadcast Monday. "It is a 24-7 job. And I am looking forward to retirement at some point."

...Clinton also denied that her voice is not being heard in the administration, and said it is not her style to try and be the center of attention.

"I find it absurd," she said. "I find it beyond any realistic assessment of what I am doing everyday."

Clinton went on to say that she believes in "delegating power."

"It is just the way I am. My goal is to be a very positive force to implement the kind of changes that the president and I believe are in the best interests of our country. But that doesn't mean it all has to be me, me, me all the time. I like lifting people up."

This weekend, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill which designates a day, May 22, to recognize and memorialize Harvey Milk. (Schwarzenegger vetoed the same bill last year.)

That's the good news. The bad news is Schwarzenegger also vetoed two bills affecting trans people in California. From TransGriot:

AB 1185 would have allowed qualified transgender people born in California to return to the county of their birth to obtain a new birth certificate reflecting the correct gender, as well as any accompanying name change.

...Schwarzenegger also vetoed AB 382 which would have established protections for LGBT prisoners, which he said was "unnecessary."

67 percent of LGBT inmates in California report being sexually assaulted; the rate for sexual assault of LGBT prisoners is 15 times higher than the overall population. So yeah...real "unnecessary."

What do you think?

Campus Progress, those clever kids, have launched a campaign to get young activists to send an e-card to their grandparents about health care reform. You get to be a good citizen and a good grandchild in one fell swoop.

Go here to participate.

Women are now half of the American workforce. Officially.

You may not be surprised, but consider all of the implications. How does being a true equal in the professional world change the way we raise families, get treated in the media, spend money, vote, relate to men and one another, play, exercise, and worship? How does it change the way the next generation sees their own potential, both professionally and personally?

These are some of the questions that Maria Shriver, along with the Center for American Progress, the University of Southern California's Annenberg Center on Communication Leadership and Policy, and a crew of public intellectuals are exploring in a report to launch October 19 called "The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything." I wrote one of two conclusions--an attempt to summarize much of what the report argues and point towards a more equal, fulfilling future for both women and men. I was so honored to be asked!

The Center for American Progress explains that the report will "combine the work of economists and academics to address the consequences of women's more prominent economic status in the institutions that matter most in American life, including government, business, faith, education, and health. The report will also include data from research and on-the-ground reporting around the country, looking especially at the interplay between women and men in our society today."

NBC news is planning to include coverage related to the study over a full week of its evening newscast and three mornings on the Today show. In addition, there will be a conference in DC on launch date, where many of the authors of the report will be there to discuss their analysis. Details to follow!

John Derbyshire, a British-American conservative author with a new book out argues that women's right to vote should be repealed. Seriously. Yesterday on his radio show, Alan Colmes asked Derbyshire to articulate his argument. Think Progress with the transcript:

DERBYSHIRE: Among the hopes that I do not realistically nurse is the hope that female suffrage will be repealed. But I'll say this - if it were to be, I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep.

COLMES: We'd be a better country if women didn't vote?

DERBYSHIRE: Probably. Don't you think so?

COLMES: No, I do not think so whatsoever.

DERBYSHIRE: Come on Alan. Come clean here [laughing].

COLMES: We would be a better country? John Derbyshire making the statement, we would be a better country if women did not vote.

DERBYSHIRE: Yeah, probably.

It came as no surprise that his website pics look like mug shots. Check it out. If you'd like to email old Johnny boy about his laughably antiquated perspective, feel free: olimu@johnderbyshire.com.

More appalling shit from Derbyshire:
He thinks 36-yr-old women are over the hill,
also laments the fact that women go to the pool in bathing suits,
and says this about Sotomayor: "Judge Sotomayor may indeed be dumb and obnoxious; but she's also female and Hispanic and those are the things that count nowadays."

Thanks to multiple readers for the heads up.

Today is the last day of Food Desert Awareness Month, hosted by the National Center for Public Awareness.

Food Desert defined:

A food desert is a large geographic area with no or distant grocery stores. Often, food deserts have an imbalance of food choice, meaning more nearby fringe food such as fast food, convenience stores, and liquor stores. While these communities are without enough mainstream grocers, many do have community assets, disposable income, appropriate sites for sustainable grocery stores, and talented community leaders working to improve healthy food options.

This is a super important piece in the broader conversation about food politics. As people get more aware about where their food comes from and what's in it--folks in urban (or rural) communities that don't have options for food purchasing get left behind. There are some really great projects to bring urban gardening and farming to low-income communities, as well as farmer's markets and other fresh produce.

Ladonna Redmond has more to say in her article Food is Freedom in the Nation:

There are many Americans who have the resources to buy healthy food and still are denied access to it. This denial of access has created "food deserts," a term I despise but use for the sake of argument. The trouble with the term "food deserts" is that it describes lack in a way that indicates that the solution is outside of the community labeled a desert.

To engage a broader audience, food-justice activists need to change their language.To change our food system, we need to change the way we talk about it.

There is a pervasive idea in the sustainable-food movement that simply returning to a food system of the past would right all that is wrong in the food world. However, history does not show that there has ever been a time when our food system was fair or just. Reflecting through my eyes, the eyes of an African-American woman, I see a system that from the earliest days of the founding of America was built on the annihilation of Native Americans and enslavement of Africans.

Read the rest here.

As you may have noticed, right now there's some major political wrangling going on over health reform. Not only has the public option been jettisoned, but news broke today that anti-choice Democrats are really upset at the prospect of low- and moderate-income women receiving federal subsidies to access insurance plans that cover abortion.

Rather than declare his support reproductive health coverage, Obama is basically telling congressional Democrats, "Hey, work it out amongst yourselves."

Meanwhile,

Abortion-rights supporters say such a restriction would all but eliminate from the marketplace private plans that cover the procedure, pushing women who have such coverage to give it up. Nearly half of those with employer-sponsored health plans now have policies that cover abortion, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Needless to say, this would be a really bad scene.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood have action alerts to keep Congress from using health reform to decrease women's reproductive health access.

For more on why abortion rights are important in health reform, read my colleague Dana Goldstein.

Just a quick update: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was admitted to the hospital last week because of "light headedness and fatigue," was released on Friday and back to work the same day. That's what I call bad-ass.

The Washington Post reports that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was admitted to the hospital yesterday when she got sick after being treated for an iron deficiency.

Ginsburg, 76, "developed light headedness and fatigue" in her chambers about an hour after receiving an iron sucrose infusion, according to a statement from the court. A court physician determined that Ginsburg's blood pressure was slightly low and administered fluids. Ginsburg's symptoms improved, the court said, but the justice was taken to the hospital as a precaution at 7:45 p.m. She was expected to remain there overnight Thursday.

Justice Ginsburg battled pancreatic cancer earlier this year. Please send good thoughts her way.

It's Day 2 of the 5th Annual Meeting of the Clinton Global Initiative in Manhattan, and I'm sitting next to Jos in the press room trying to organize my thoughts on everything that's been going on. I mean, wow. I'm surrounded by conference participants, which range from diplomats to heads of state to movie stars to business executives to NGO presidents and CEOs to prestigious journalists and high-powered bloggers. I've got to be honest- I don't think I've never been in the same building as so many smart, powerful, and- let's face it- rich people before in my life.

The Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) is being debated in a hearing before the House Committee on Education and Labor today at 10am.

The bill would protect against workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

There has been controversy in past years about bills that were not inclusive of gender identity, but this year it's been all-inclusive and had much support.

You can see a liveblog of the hearing over at Bilerico, or you can follow live tweets of the hearing here.

In case you missed it, check out a snippet of First Lady Michelle Obama's speech on health care reform and women. You can read her full speech here.

h/t Michelle Obama Watch

Sam Riche/AP Photo

*Possible trigger warning*

Many of you have probably heard about the arrest of former GOP lawmaker and one-time gubernatorial candidate Steve Nunn, whose ex-girlfriend was shot and killed on Friday. Hours later, Nunn slit his wrists.

While Nunn (who survived) is pleading not guilty to the charges made - he had a domestic violence order against him by victim Amanda Ross and found with a gun at the scene of his suicide attempt - his lawyer Astrida Lemkins is saying that the issuance of the domestic violence order this past winter "caused all the problems":

"It caused Steve Nunn to lose his job, reputation and drove him to slit his wrists," she said.

"If there does turn out to be a relationship between the death of Amanda Ross and Steve Nunn, it is not because the DVO failed, but rather because the DVO was issued," said Lemkins.

Lemkins said Ross should have also been held accountable for her role in the domestic violence incident.

"Things are not black and white," she said. "There's a lot of gray in there."

Um, what? Whatever Steve Nunn has done to himself and to Ross is absolutely no fault but his own - to place any blame on a woman who was not only a victim of abuse but has no opportunity to defend herself (because, you know, her life was taken from her) is inhuman.

Furthermore, blaming the DVO made against him after he repeatedly beat Ross and implying that if he did kill her, that could have been avoided sounds pretty damn similar to threats used to keep women in abusive relationships; in other words, if she hadn't went to the authorities and caused trouble, she would be alive right now.

There are just no words for this kind of offense.

h/t to reader Katie

Incredibly disturbing news from the SEIU blog:

[I]n DC and nine other states, including Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming, insurance companies have gone too far, claiming that "domestic violence victim" is also a pre-existing condition.

For more information, read the National Women's Law Center report, Nowhere to Turn: How the Individual Health Insurance Market Fails Women.

Related: A cartoon from Mikhaela Reid

UPDATE: In April, Arkansas prohibited insurance discrimination against DV survivors

A rivalry between California's two largest marriage equality organizations to publicly define the timeline of repealing Proposition 8 has become a bitter spat that threatens to cripple the effort.

On August 12, Equality California (EQCA) announced their decision to put an initiative to repeal anti-marriage Proposition 8 on the 2012, rather than the 2010 ballot. As the self-described largest queer rights advocacy group in California, EQCA deciding to wait until 2012 received statewide coverage and was perceived as representative of the LGBT activism community as a whole.

EQCA was the defendant not only in the original 2008 California Supreme Court case in which same-sex marriage was first allowed, but also in the 2009 case to challenge Proposition 8 after its passage. EQCA has traditionally set the agenda for marriage equality in California, even passing a bill in the state legislature Wednesday night to recognize same sex marriages from other states.

Still, several organizations who were fighting for 2010 before the announcement have not backed down. EQCA's primary competitor for funds and political clout in the California marriage equality fight is the Courage Campaign, which works on myriad political issues unrelated to equality.

Melissa Harris-Lacewell is a professor, an author, a mother, a prolific Tweeter, and the possible future First Lady of the great city of New Orleans. Harris-Lacewell, an Associate Professor of Politics and African American Studies at Princeton University, majored in English, which explains why she was the only interview subject I've spoken to who was immediately able to answer question number two in the Feministing Five. She didn't stay on long on the English track, however, and got her Ph.D in political science at Duke University and an honorary doctorate from Meadville Theological Seminary.

Fans of The Rachel Maddow Show will recognize Harris-Lacewell, who frequently appears on Maddow's show as well as on Countdown with Keith Olbermann (in fact, Harris-Lacewell had to cut her Feministing interview a bit short, as she was scheduled to appear on Maddow that very night). A very impressive woman, this year Harris-Lacewell was the youngest person ever to deliver the prestigious W.E.B. DuBois lectures at Harvard, and is the author of the acclaimed book Barbershops, Bibles, and BET: Everyday Talk and Black Political Thought. Her upcoming book is called Sister Citizen: A Text For Colored Girls Who've Considered Politics When Being Strong Wasn't Enough. We can only hope that Tyler Perry doesn't direct the movie version of that, too.

I was grateful to get a few minutes to talk to Harris-Lacewell, or as her students call her, MHL, as she's a busy woman; she spent most of the summer campaigning with her partner, James Perry, a candidate in the 2010 New Orleans mayoral race. So, without further ado, here is this week's Feministing Five, with Melissa Harris-Lacewell.

I was pretty halfheartedly watching the health care speech last night while dreaming of Canadian health care, but there were definitely some poignant discussion points including the distracting shout-out by Joe Wilson calling Obama a "liar." The Huffington Post has a full transcript.

Thoughts?

Additional Links:

Op-Ed News on the Racial Context of Joe Wilson's Outburst.
Amanda on the right-wing reaction.
Crooks and Liars on Boustany's rebuttal (haha!).
From the Prospect Dana on Immigration and Health Care reform and Tim Fernholz on the success of his speech.

Yesterday, a FDA panel recommended that the agency approve Gardasil - the HPV vaccine - for use in young men and boys. Something tells me that despite the vaccine being recommended for use in boys as young as 9 years old, no conservative organizations are going to bemoaning boys' "lost innocence" or worrying about them becoming big whores.

Related: Quick Hit: The HPV vaccine for boys?
Good news on HPV vaccine?
How safe is the HPV vaccine?
Hit me with your best (HPV) shot

Nice job, asshole.

Michael Duvall, a conservative state representative from California was caught on a hot mic bragging - in detail - about his numerous affairs.

From TPMMuckraker:

While waiting for the start of a legislative hearing in July, the 54-year-old married father of two and family values champion began describing, for the benefit of a colleague seated next to him, his ongoing affairs with two different women. In very graphic detail.

For instance:

She wears little eye-patch underwear. So, the other day she came here with her underwear, Thursday. And? so, we had made love Wednesday--a lot! And so she'll, she's all, 'I am going ?up and down the stairs, and you're dripping out of me!' So messy!

Ick. After local news station KCAL's report on the uh..."messy" tape, Duvall tried to avoid the press but then quickly resigned.

This weekend, my friend Amber and I (with a guest appearance by my housemate Carolyn) tried our hand at canning for the first time. It was my first time canning anything, and Amber's first time canning tomatoes (she's made jams before). We also made refrigerator pickles using this recipe(thanks Ann!).

Food is becoming a recurring theme of my posts here at Feministing. It's occurred to me (thanks to some conversations with Jos) that I've never really explained why it's a feminist issue. Well, when I spent the better part of my Saturday doing something that felt more like grandma's past time than a feminist one, it really got me thinking about feminism and food.

I think the politics of food are pretty clear. The way we eat is manipulated and controlled by big business, the media, the fashion industry, television, advertising companies, even the government has a say. Feminists have long been pushing back on the representation of women's bodies in pop culture and the pressures we face to look and eat a certain way.

Food has historically been a woman's domain--at least the preparation of it. Part of the feminist revolution was challenging the inequitable division of household labor--including food preparation. Convenience foods, prepared dinners, are all linked to the new reality of multiple working parents. But they aren't only a result of this--let's not blame feminists for TV dinners just yet. This food industry is also about finding a way to make more money off of food. Processing food is a big business. It adds value to foods that wouldn't have been there before and it creates thousands of new products to sell. We're seeing the results of this high fructose corn syrup fueled industry now--we're feeling it in our health and our economy, not to mention our environment. It's not just about convenience--it's also about cash. I don't think the food politics movement needs to send women back into the kitchen--unless they want to be there. For our nation to eat healthy, we ALL need to be cooking, and thinking about what foods we eat.

I've been inspired by much of what I've read and seen about the industrialization of food to take things down a few notches. Shopping at the farmer's market for one, thinking about where my food and veggies come from, trying to pick things that are freshest and most local. I live in a seasonal climate--my farmer's market only lasts until Thanksgiving. Facing the prospect of winter without the yummy fresh veggies I've been enjoying all summer, I realized (with a little nudging from Barbara Kingsolver) that canning was my only way to guarantee I could eat local veggies this winter.

So my canning adventure! It's hard work friends, no doubt about it, but for one day of hard labor in the kitchen I could have enough tomatoes to cook with all winter, until next year's crop. Amber and I also canned some salsa and I'm looking forward to tasting that come December.

A few tips for those of you who might be canning inclined after the jump.

Rumors have surfaced that Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, upon hiring just one law clerk for next year's term instead of the expected four, will retire soon. Rachel Maddow has more:

Though Sotomayor's confirmation was historic, her leanings on the Supreme Court are yet to be determined, and she could likely move the court to the right.

Stevens will be the 90 at the start of the 2010 Supreme Court session. He has struck down school prayer, supported a woman's right to choose in Roe v. Wade, and opposed the death penalty for minors. Let's hope President Obama takes this opportunity to nominate a woman who will do justice to Stevens' fantastic record, and who will balance the extremism of Roberts and Alito. (I predict some nasty dialogue from the right about how Obama already nominated a woman of color, and that one is enough.)

Stay tuned.

The political garden is not a new thing. If you look back to the history of Victory Garden's during wartime, food production has always played a role in our political system. The political garden is being revisited once again, as rising rates of obesity, diabetes and health care costs are once again forcing some of us to examine how we eat and where our food comes from.

Climate change is also pushing this conversation, as concerns about the impact of industrial food systems on the environment (from waste generated by CAFOs to gas used to ship food around the world) are brought up. For a great quick and dirty overview of the high cost of cheap food read this Time Magazine article.

The following video from the White House tells the story of Michelle Obama's White House garden project, the first in over 100 years to actually produce a large quantity of food.

It's a long video, but about six minutes in there is a great time lapse showing the garden throughout the growing season. The students that helped to tend the garden are actually from the Elementary school I can see from my living room window. I wish I had had that opportunity as a kid--I think it would have fundamentally changed my relationship with vegetables.

This Op-Ed also presented a newer age solution to the food production problem--vertical gardens in urban centers.

As the first signs of fall start to show on the East Coast and we see the bounties of the late summer harvest start to wane, I'm thinking more and more about how my food is grown and how I will eat as the farmer's markets shut down in a few months. I appreciate that our First Lady, and subsequently everyone involved with feeding the White House is thinking about these things as well.

I'm also going to be trying my hand at canning for the first time this weekend, so stay tuned for updates on that adventure.

UPDATE: Ariel reminded me of the recent news that the White House garden's soil has toxins at elevated levels--apparently due to Clinton era fertilizers with increased toxins. While the levels aren't above what is suitable for human consumption, it highlights our modern day problem--we've polluted the soil, ground and air we need to sustain us. I still think the symbolism of the White House garden is important, even if it wasn't the organic food supplier Michelle had originally hoped.

Check out Courtney's thoughtful column in the American Prospect about Ted Kennedy's severe missteps and great achievements, and questions how (or if) we can measure the two. A snippet:

Kennedy never, in fact, expected perfection from others. Instead, he made cross-party alliances based on a belief that political life is not Camelot but Red Rover. He became, in many ways, the antithesis of the Kennedy hype. He became a man with a truly problematic past and a deep commitment to contributing to the nation nonetheless. As Kay Steiger writes at Jezebel, "Sometimes it's difficult to examine the whole life of a public figure. After all, public figures are human, and humans can't be perfect. Sometimes, they don't even come close."

Also read Dana's post on Kennedy's legacy on abortion and disability rights, which discusses his capacity to maintain his pro-choice beliefs alongside with his passion for disability rights. She says it well, "Only Ted Kennedy could bring NARAL to the table with Sam Brownback." Make sure to check it out.

This is too good. Robert McDonnell, the Republican gubernatorial candidate in Virginia, wrote a Master's thesis calling working women and feminists "detrimental" to the family. Wait, it gets better.

He said government policy should favor married couples over "cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators." He described as "illogical" a 1972 Supreme Court decision legalizing the use of contraception by unmarried couples.

Via TPM.

The last two weeks I spent driving through Vermont, Montreal and Maine. The first week of it, I worked on an organic farm in Vermont through a program called WWOOF. Some of you may know I have a burgeoning interest in food politics and spending some time on a farm seemed like a logical next step. Also a great way to take a break from my typical work life in front of a computer.

World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms (WWOOF) is an international program that has been around since the 1970s. It helps connect volunteers with organic farms around the world, where folks exchange volunteer help on the farm for a place to stay (or camp), food and a lot of learning about organic farming. It's a great program, and also a great way to travel and learn about farming. I'd recommend it to anyone! You have to get a membership to WWOOF to get their directory of farms, but I'd say it's worth the $25.

Overall, it was an amazing experience. The farm was on a beautiful stretch of land in rural Vermont, and we stayed in this awesome solar-powered yurt (see slide show above) with beautiful views. The owner of the farm is Jill Kopel, an incredible woman who bought the farm (former dairy farm, as most of VT) nine years ago and is basically a one-woman show. She now has a two year old daughter who she often straps onto her back in a carrier and keeps going with her work. She blew me away.

New Leaf Organic Farm is a organic vegetable and flower farm, so we got to try our hand at harvesting a number of different things--tomatoes, potatoes, carrots, onions, green beans, swiss chard, beets, blueberries, cucumbers, the list goes on. Practically any vegetable that grows in VT. What was great about my week there, besides the beautiful scenery, was learning about how all these vegetables grow and seeing a bit of what it takes to grow our food.

I had no idea what a green bean plant looked like, or most of the vegetables I mentioned. I learned about what preparation goes into getting vegetables to the farmer's market, or a CSA. I learned about the potato and tomato blight, and how weather can seriously affect a farmer's livelihood. Added bonus that I got to work with an awesome woman entrepreneur and farmer.

After this experience, I'm on board with the food activists who say gardening and farming should be a part of our public education. Even if most of us aren't going to grow our own food, it would do a lot for us to at least know how it's done. There has been increasing popularity in school garden projects, and farm to school programs, and I think that's a great thing.

This morning, the sad news that Senator Edward has died from brain cancer.

As many have already said, he was a great politician who was a great supporter of many social justice issues, and did what he could to fight those battles in Congress.

Let's hope that his biggest legacy will be that of health care reform, and in his memory pass legislation that might actually begin to fix our broken system. From the Young Invincibles campaign, a quote from Senator Kennedy:

For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on. The cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die.

More about Senator Kennedy's work on healthcare, visit the Our Bodies, Ourselves blog.

For more reading on Senator Kennedy's life:
Michael Tomasky at The Guardian
Harold Meyerson and Adam Serwer at The American Prospect
Thoughts from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
Robert Scheer at The Nation
John Broder in the NYTimes

Oh, it's ON.

On one side of the ring, we have Senator Joe Lieberman, who said that rape survivors shouldn't have a problem going out of state to get emergency contraception. On the other? Actor Alec Baldwin, a men's rights activist who calls his daughter a "pig" while hiding behind the faux movement of "fathers' rights" and claiming feminism has destroyed American women (but mail order brides are A-OK!) So everyone online is asking: Who is going to get the crown for the Senate seat in Connecticut??

That's right, Alec Baldwin has revealed his intentions to possibly run for the Connecticut Senate seat and defeat Joe Lieberman in 2012. (Which was disclosed in a Playboy interview, I might add. How poetic.) Baldwin says, "I'd love to run against Joe Lieberman. I have no use for him."

Burn!! Lieberman's response? "Make my day." Nothing is more hilarious than two anti-women assholes using cliché sayings to exert their masculinity over one another - and a Clint Eastwood quote, no less.

What's not really funny about is that it's over a seat in the U.S. Senate. But still, thanks for the good laugh, gentlemen.

UPDATE: Baldwin now says he won't run. I guess he knew to back off when Joe busted out the big guns with that Eastwood quote.

Tagline: "The only reason to choose black. Time for Green."

This German campaign poster (tagline above) for the Green party was recently removed after folks quite aptly pointed out that it was a racist, sexist piece of crap.

The poster put up by the environmental Greens party in the western town of Kaarst contains a play on words: "Black" in German party politics refers to the color colloquially used to describe Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU) party. Other major parties are described as red, yellow and, of course, green.

Sexualizing and dehumanizing black women and their bodies is hardly new, but I still was shocked at the blatant racism/sexism combo at play. Even worse, though, was the Green party's response even after the posters were removed:

The Greens more than anyone else have always stood for policies characterized by tolerance, cosmopolitanism, and equality. Issues such as integration and women's politics stand at the center of the Greens' political work. Accusations that this poster is racist or sexist are thus untenable. (Emphasis mine)

You see the posters can't be racist or sexist because they're the "good guys." Yeah, okay.

Thanks to Susanna for the link.

Check out Courtney's latest at The American Prospect!

TIME says that the May Gallup poll reporting that the majority of Americans are pro-life was a fluke. The latest poll is in, and the "pro-life" majority has disappeared.

The percentages of Americans calling themselves "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are essentially the same (47% for pro-life; 46% for pro-choice). Meanwhile, the positions they hold--a more useful indicator than the labels people choose for themselves--haven't budged. A solid 78% think abortion should be legal in some or all circumstances.

Reporter Amy Sullivan also notes that one of the more interesting aspects of the poll is that about 60% of people who describe themselves as "pro-life" think abortion should be legal in at least some circumstances.

Anti-abortion activists would say they're not really pro-life, just like they insist that politicians like Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) who support the use of contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancies should not be described as pro-life. But clearly many Americans are comfortable thinking of themselves as "pro-life" and at the same time holding the belief that abortion should be legal. Now that's a story.

Via RH Reality Check.

Don't miss Judith Warner's awesome piece on Hillary, and so-called "women's issues." An excerpt:

Women's issues are being framed by this administration in terms of realpolitik: U.S. security depends on women's empowerment. Global economic growth depends on women's participation.

Women's empowerment won't be delivered at the end of a gun or through economic sanctions or even overt criticism, if it cuts into accepted cultural practices. This is messy stuff; some of our most sensitive allies have horrific records on women's rights. Programs that show success tend to be slow-moving and incremental. Can all this complexity attract -- much less sustain -- the attention of the public?

Maybe -- if we stop viewing everything Clinton does as entertainment.

As Ariel mentioned in her post, yesterday when Secretary of State Clinton was in the Congo to discuss the issue of death and rape, a student asked her (not verbatim) "what does your husband think about this, through you, his wife?" There is some speculation that the question was translated wrong, but I think it is worth looking at the video, which has been characterized as Clinton "losing her head, " and being "outraged."

I think she handled it pretty well, but this video has garnered sexist news headlines everywhere describing Hillary as losing her cool.

But that is not really the point and speaks to the larger issue, that this is being used as a distraction from what we are planning on doing in the Congo to change the current situation. While the answer to this question and speculating over Clinton's lack of self control, gives the media another opportunity to fixate on Clinton's "attitude" problem, the systematic violence towards the people of Congo and the use of rape as a weapon of war, is what needs our attention. According to the NYTimes, Clinton unveiled today her plan to allocate $17 million dollars to the Congo specifically towards the issue of sexual violence.

Speaking during an unprecedented visit by an American secretary of state to Goma, in the epicenter of Congo's war-torn east, she said the American government would help train gynecologists, supply rape victims with video cameras to document violence and dispatch military engineers to help train Congolese police officers to crack down on rapists.

"This problem is too big for one country to solve alone," she said at a round table meeting here with doctors and human rights advocates.

"I'm not here to leave a business card, but I can't wave a magic wand either," she told the human rights workers who pressed her for concrete assistance.

Tami, Dana and Jessica_arant on the community site have more.

In Kinshasa, Congo yesterday, a Congolese student asked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton her husband's opinion on an international economic issue.

"You want me to tell you what my husband thinks? My husband is not secretary of state, I am," she replied.

Since Pres. Bill Clinton's productive visit to North Korea, Secretary Clinton has faced this line of questioning, which endangers American foreign policy efforts.

On the day that Pres. Clinton went to North Korea, I predicted there would be a media backlash about her absence. Now we see U.S. media, including not only Fox but also Huffington Post, perpetuate the idea that Bill Clinton succeeded where Hillary failed. Why send a woman to do a man's job? Clinton had obviously lost credibility with the North Koreans, but U.S.-North Korea relations had soured during the Bush administration, long before she arrived.

Fox News may have started it with the declaration that Hillary was excluded from negotiations, because she had to "eat crow" after calling North Korea an "unruly child", and couldn't "show her face" in the country. But Huffington Post continued the insult with their front-page headline, which dangerously falsifies an imagined rivalry between Bill and Hillary.

Why not Hillary?

68-31 baby. Finally, a person of color on the SCOTUS that doesn't suck.

As I'm sure you've already heard, journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling were freed and returned home today after more than four months jailed in North Korea.

Thirty hours ago, Ms. Ling said, "We feared that any moment we could be sent to a hard labor camp." Then, she said, they were taken to another location.

"When we walked through the doors, we saw standing before us President Bill Clinton," she said to applause. "We were shocked but we knew instantly in our hearts that the nightmare of our lives was finally coming to an end, and now we stand here, home and free."

Pic via Shakesville.

Net Neutrality, while not an issue I'm extremely educated about, could have serious repercussions for all internet users, but especially alternative websites like Feministing. Check out this video below and see what free press is doing to support this new legislation.

Find out what you can do at www.savetheinternet.com.

The question is, how in the world are they going to get it?

Via HuffPo:

"On the issue of the Hispanic voter, we have to do a lot more. We Republicans have to recruit and elect Hispanics to office," McCain told CNN's State of Union. "And I don't mean just because they're Hispanics, but they represent a big part of the growing population in America. And we have a lot of work to do there. And I am of the belief that unless we reverse the trend of Hispanic voter registration, we have a very, very deep hole that we've got to come out of."

While he was one of only a handful of Republicans willing to tackle immigration reform in 2007, McCain faced a massive deficit with Hispanic voters in the 2008 election. His aides have said that, were he not the home state senator, he would have lost Arizona to Barack Obama, in large part because Hispanics had left the Republican Party in droves.

It's hard to imagine how a party which is staunchly anti-immigrant, anti-social programs, anti-bilingual education, who is opposing the first Latina Supreme Court Justice nominee, is going to find a way to lure more Latino voters.

Thanks for stating the obvious McCain, that the Latino population is a growing minority in the United States and you're in trouble if you don't get some of them into the ballot box for you. Some estimates are that by 2050 one in every four person in the US will be Latino.

There is no way your party is going to get the support of Latinos until you change your politics. Favoring immigration enforcement (aka border fences, raids and inhumane treatment of immigrant detainees) over immigration reform isn't going to win you much favor with a primarily immigrant community. Even Cuban-Americans (of which I am one) who have traditionally voted Republican because of the Republican anti-Castro hard line, are starting to swing toward the Democrats.

Maybe the changing demography of this country will finally force the party to realize it can't only support the interests of a small sector of upper-middle class white folks and be successful. Here's to hoping.

UPDATE: McCain declared today that he will oppose Judge Sotomayor's confirmation. Thanks for proving my point McCain.

California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger - making last minute cuts to the budget - eliminated all of the state funding for domestic violence shelters. That's right - all of it.

Although the state Legislature submitted a budget with a 20 percent reduction to the $20.4 million the state provides to agencies that offer domestic violence services, Schwarzenegger slashed the funding by 100 percent Tuesday.

For Catalyst, which relies on state funding for nearly 35 percent of its operating budget, the affect will be "devastating," Executive Director Anastacia Snyder said.

"We're still in shock," Snyder said Wednesday afternoon. "We were bracing for the 20 percent cut, but did not believe the governor could, with a clear conscience, cut 100 percent of funding for services that keep women and children safe and alive."

If you're a resident of California, please click on Stop Family Violence's action alert to urge lawmakers to reinstate funding for the programs that save women's lives. If you're not in CA - pass this on to someone who is! You can also post the following message to your Facebook account, or tweet it: CA Gov Eliminates funding for Domestic Violence Programs. Lives will be lost. You can help! CA residents click http://bit.ly/3jKQSo

Exciting news. Next to the Senate for confirmation.

The committee voted 13-6 to send its recommendation to the full Senate, which is expected to confirm Sotomayor's appointment next week.

With all of the committee's Democrats supporting Sotomayor, Sen. Russell Feingold of Wisconsin called the president's nominee "a thoughtful, careful and intelligent judge" with "a perspective that the court sorely needs. ... Not only will Judge Sotomayor be the first Latina to serve on the court, and the third woman, but also the first with experience as a trial judge."

Via LA Times.

In a celebration of the first anniversary of Houston's Transgender Center, Mayor Bill White proclaimed July 25 "Transgender Day" in the city.

Thanks to Becky for the link!

As Miriam mentioned in the health care reform roundup, Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced an amendment to the House health care reform bill that would create a Healthy Teen Initiative. Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check shares the story of this amendment, the result of work by a coalition of sexual health advocates to expand the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative proposed in the president's budget. Advocates were concerned by the limited scope of the president's initiative, which, as I discussed previously, would exclude information about and strategies for preventing the spread of sexuality transmitted diseases.

The Healthy Teen Initiative would authorize $50 million to fund program models that have been proven -

to delay initiation of sex; to decrease number of partners; to reduce teen pregnancy; to reduce sexually transmitted infection rates; or to improve rates of contraceptive use.

This initiative is a big improvement over that originally proposed by the president. While the Healthy Teen Initiative is not explicitly about funding only comprehensive sexuality education, it could be an important step in the transition from supporting failed abstinence only programs. Yes, I am still bothered by the inclusion of language that presumes certain forms of teen sexuality should be prevented without concern about whether young people are having sex at a certain age or with a certain number of partners in a way that is personally healthy and consensual. But the need for education about sexually transmitted diseases and contraception is great and this initiative would be an important first step. I am also happy to see this included in health care reform, a symbolic recognition that teen sexuality is a health issue, which has been masked by the focus on religion and morality.

Choice USA, an organization representing the voice of young people in the reproductive justice movement, recently launched a campaign to promote comprehensive sexuality education (full disclosure: I have done some consulting related to this campaign). Executive Director Kierra Johnson said of the Healthy Teen Initiative, "Sex education is preventative health care. The Healthy Teen Initiative is a smart move and the right move to ensure young people have access to information and medical services that can keep them healthy and save their lives. I applaud the Committee's work to ensure full and comprehensive health care to teens and the millions of young people who are uninsured in this country."

While Jos alerted us a couple of weeks ago to the anti-choice Democrats who are trying to keep abortion funding out of the health care reform plan, a recent interview with our president makes us wonder if he's caving into their efforts.

In an interview with Katie Couric this week, he finally addressed abortion funding in health care reform, but it wasn't too pleasing; he asserted he wasn't looking to "micro-manage" which benefits are covered and that not funding abortion has generally been "the tradition":

Katie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station. (Emphasis mine)

That is a reference to the Hyde Amendment, which currently prevents Medicaid coverage of abortions for poor women. And while none of the health reform bills in Congress threaten Hyde, reproductive health advocates have been trying for decades to repeal the ban. By deferring to this "tradition," Obama seems to be signaling that he could support a public plan that excludes abortion coverage.

This is despite the fact that during his campaign, he stated that he opposed the amendment. Dana Goldstein has more. Read more about the Hyde Amendment here. And take action here.

Last night while watching Obama address the country on health care, I was indeed shocked like everyone else when Lynn Sweet asked Obama what he felt about Skip Gates. I was both, disappointed that she was derailing the focus on health care and anxious about the potential answer. Obama has not talked much about violence or police brutality, even though during his administration there have been many incidents of violence between police and people of color.

So what did he actually say? Watch the video below.

(Transcript after the jump.)

I never imagined that he would make jokes about "getting shot in front of the White House," and how "it could have been me." These comments show an understanding of racial profiling that no other president has ever had. Being so candid in expressing these comments, I almost wondered if it was political suicide. Granted, Obama has worked on the issue of racial profiling in Chicago so he has experience on the topic and maybe it would seem odd if he were to deny it.

But what are the implications of what he said? As Adam Serwer said on twitter (yes on twitter), " Reporters are going to act like this was a "betrayal" of a post-racial promise Obama never actually made." Obama is defying the most popular election/post-election meme which is that we are in a "post-racial" time. Many whites in this country are committed to the idea of being in a post-racial space, it makes them feel relieved and less bad about the racism of the past. It also gives them a pass on harboring racist sentiments about things like affirmative action. Furthermore, Obama's comments reminded Americans (who are more committed to the task of remembering to forget racism) that Obama is actually black like "those" that can be picked up by the cops, not "almost white" or a "decent black," that isn't a threat to you. That racism is so endemic in our society even the POTUS can't get away from it. I have written about this tension amongst moderate/liberals about the legibility of his blackness (and will shamelessly quote myself here),

I was on the Alan Colmes radio show last week, debating Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association. You may be able to tell that I'm kind of jet lagged and cranky in the segment - at one point I get totally pissed off. (I know, shocking.)

If you're anything like me, you might be a tad bit overwhelmed with the news about health care reform. It is THE issue on the Obama agenda and Congress has been working away at their various plans for months.

It's hard to keep up with all the news about amendments, single payer, etc. Here is a round up of some health care related links to get you up to speed on what's going on.

First, tonight at 8pm EST Obama will be addressing the nation with a press conference that is likely to be centered on urging support for health care reform.

Abortion funding within health care reform continues to be a hot button issue. Jos wrote about this action alert a few weeks ago, and now Dana Goldstein has more on the Moderate Democrats opposing abortion funding.

Chris Hayes at The Nation puts the health care fight in perspective: "If there's going to be a pivot onto a new path of progress this is it."

The National Women's Law Center has this graphic explaining the process and timeline for health care reform. They are predicting having a bill on Obama's desk by October. You can download an expanded version of the graphic here.

If you're interested in the topic I wrote about at TAP a few weeks ago, the efforts of Certified Professional Midwives to get recognized in the health care reform process, read this article at RH Reality Check. Amie Newman shares that the American College of Nurse Midwives is officially opposing their attempts.

Advocates of single-payer gained a small win last week, with an amendment co-sponsored by Kucinich that could open that door. John Nichols at The Nation has more on this, including the perspective that Canada didn't actually start with a single-payer system.

Comprehensive sex ed won inclusion in one of the health care reform bills being considered. RH Reality Check has the details.

For a great weekly update on health care reform check out the Media Consortium's health care Weekly Pulse, written by Lindsay Beyerstein and always cross-posted on the community blog!

UPDATE: Senator Durbin just admitted that a vote on health care reform before the August recess is unlikely.

Former President Jimmy Carter has announced that he is leaving the Southern Baptist Church after sixty years because of its treatment of girls and women.

[It was an] unavoidable decision when the convention's leaders, quoting a few carefully selected Bible verses and claiming that Eve was created second to Adam and was responsible for original sin, ordained that women must be "subservient" to their husbands and prohibited from serving as deacons, pastors or chaplains in the military service.

This view that women are somehow inferior to men is not restricted to one religion or belief. Women are prevented from playing a full and equal role in many faiths. Nor, tragically, does its influence stop at the walls of the church, mosque, synagogue or temple. This discrimination, unjustifiably attributed to a Higher Authority, has provided a reason or excuse for the deprivation of women's equal rights across the world for centuries.

At its most repugnant, the belief that women must be subjugated to the wishes of men excuses slavery, violence, forced prostitution, genital mutilation and national laws that omit rape as a crime. But it also costs many millions of girls and women control over their own bodies and lives, and continues to deny them fair access to education, health, employment and influence within their own communities.

Read Carter's full statement here. (By the way, I'm just shocked that I haven't seen any media coverage of this.)

Via BlogHer.

UPDATE: Apparently Carter leaving the church is old news, but he issued a position paper this week on the subject, severing all ties. Thanks!

Decidedly no, but this case is really interesting. A female politician in Utter Pradesh, India representing the Congress Party, Rita Bahuguna Joshi, suggested that the leader of opposing group, Bahujan Samaj party, Mayawati, be raped in order to understand the suffering of rape victims. Her attempted "criticism" was about how the state of Utter Pradesh is treating rape victims,

In her speech Joshi criticised the Uttar Pradesh government for paying Dalits who had suffered rape compensation of just 25,000 rupees (£315). "I had simply sought to draw the people's attention to the fact that Mayawati's dole of 25,000 rupees to every Dalit rape victim was quite ironical as the state police chief was spending lakhs [hundreds of thousands] on the helicopter ride that he undertakes to hand over that paltry amount to the victim," she said.

While it is common for people to say incendiary things in politics, especially in India where people take very dramatic creative liberties in their political speeches, I think this is taking too many liberties, especially since the point is to have either a decrease in sexual violence or better reparations for instances of sexual violence. Suggesting sexual violence against a woman kind of defeats the purpose.

But that is not what people are protesting in Joshi's statements. According to the article, "She faces charges of insulting a woman's modesty, insulting a person of a lower caste and promoting enmity between groups. The charges all carry possible 10-year jail sentences." Joshi's house was burned down and she was put in jail. The crime however was not hatespeech, it was violating a woman's modesty, or suggesting that she is not modest. So, basically, if a woman is raped, she is the one that is immodest, not the person that raped her. Sounds like classic victim blaming to me.

So while, I don't necessarily agree with Joshi using such dramatic word choice to get her message out, I think it is interesting that her house was burned down and she was jailed, not because this was a hateful and potentially violent thing to say, but because she threatened a woman's assumed modesty.

This is horrible. Natalia Estemirova was kidnapped and killed yesterday in Chechnya, where she dedicated her life to human rights work despite warnings from Chechnya's president, who is being blamed for her murder:

Human rights campaigner Natalia Estemirova was kidnapped and murdered this week in Chechnya, and a human rights group blames Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov for her death. Estemirova was seized from her home in Grozny, and her body was found Wednesday in the neighboring region of Ingushetia.

...

Estemirova worked for the Chechen group Memorial and in conjunction with Human Rights Watch. One of her greatest achievements was bringing the issue of Chechen victims to the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled in their favor and demanded Russia pay retribution to more than a dozen victims.

She was 50 years old, and had a 15 year old daughter.

See a video and get more information here.

Anything you say, oh divine one!

Abstinence-only education advocates are not too pleased that their federal funding is pretty much kaput (though I'm still keeping my eye on that "teen pregnancy prevention" money). In fact, they are freaking out.

Leslee Unruh, president of the National Abstinence Clearinghouse and all-around fun person to watch lose their shit, had this to say about losing federal funding:

"We've got news for the condom worshipers, abstinence education is not going away any time soon. Taxpayers will not tolerate their money being used for ideological latex-only programs and the molestation of their children's minds and future."

You know, this is why folks in the virginity movement need to rebrand their image - they can't help but reveal how radical and on the fringe they are. Most American parents want their children taught about contraception; most American women will use contraception at some point in their lives. Calling the majority of the country - who want their kids to learn medically accurate information about sex so they can make healthy decisions - condom worshipers and molesters is simply stupid.

That's why the more media-savvy abstinence-only leaders are now using more mainstream-friendly language and attempting to frame themselves as folks interested in "holisitic approaches" and "healthy lifestyle choices." In fact, last night I was on the Alan Colmes radio show (link forthcoming) debating Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA) - and Huber continued to claim that abstinence-only education did teach kids about contraception and gave them all the information they needed to make healthy decisions. It was bullshit sound bite heaven, and it was desperate. (She also referred to comprehensive sex education as condom-only or condom-centered a couple of times; classy.)

While I'm glad to see that these organizations are scrambling, I'm also a bit wary of writing them off completely - sadly, I don't think we've seen the end of Huber or Unruh. And we have to continue to be vigilant on a state and community level. Even now, in California, there's an abstinence-only debate ranging in Sonoma County schools.

So, please, keep up-to-date on what's happening with ab-only nonsense - make sure to check out Advocates for Youth's Amplify and SIECUS (in addition to us, of course!).

Thanks to Rebecca for the link.

U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan (D-OH) was removed from the Democrats For Life of America's advisory board because he supports contraception.

Upset by what is sees as U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan abandoning his pro-life position, Democrats For Life of America removed the congressman from its national advisory board.

"DFLA gave Congressman Ryan ample opportunities to prove he's committed to protecting life, but he has turned his back on the community at every turn," said Kristen Day, the Washington, D.C.-based pro-life organization's executive director.

Ryan of Niles, D-17th, insists he's still a strong pro-life advocate, but grew frustrated with Democrats For Life of America and other pro-life groups that refuse to accept contraceptives as an option to avoid unwanted pregnancies.

"We're working in Congress with groups that agree with preventative options while [the DFLA] is getting left behind," Ryan said. "I can't figure out for the life of me how to stop pregnancies without contraception. Don't be mad at me for wanting to solve the problem." (Emphasis mine)

Ryan says he was "booted" from the board - of which he was a member for four years - after trying to convince the group to support contraceptive use as part of a plan to stop unplanned pregnancy. And this is why we call anti-choicers 'anti-choice': because they're not just about making abortion illegal. They don't women to have access to contraception either - something that 98 percent of American women will use at some point in their lives. Common ground, my ass.

Via Feministe.

If you haven't been watching Sotomayor's confirmation hearings, wow are you missing out on some gems. Versha Sharma at TPM covers some of my favorite moments from oh-so-classy Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

In the most aggressive questioning of Judge Sonia Sotomayor's confirmation hearing thus far, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) read out a laundry list of complaints about the nominee this afternoon. Graham went through insult after insult from anonymous reviews about Sotomayor's temperament, including ones that called her "nasty," "a terror," "a bit of a bull," and one that said she lacks any "judicial temperament." Graham then asked her directly: "Do you think you have a temperament problem?"

As both Samhita and Ann have written, there's a specific sexist and racist narrative that accompanies the accusations of Sotomayor as somehow angry or meaner than her male counterparts. (Because when white dudes are strong, they're just powerful. When women of color are strong, they're scary.) And it's simply infuriating to watch it play out in these hearings.

Sharma also points out that Sen. Graham - who has already made his fear of Sotomayor's "fiery temper" quite clear - became a bit of a bully himself (I'd also add 'condescending asshole' to that) in his "bullying" accusations, telling Sotomayor that "maybe these hearings are a time for self-reflection" for her and asking her about her "wise Latina" quote. Because that hasn't been talked about enough, obviously.

When the judge answered in the affirmative, he asked her to recite it - twice. Sotomayor hedged a response, and Graham plowed ahead, said, "I've got it here," and read the quote out himself.

The infantilizing questioning from Graham continued throughout his entire thread; he interrupted her answers multiple times, and made a theme out of asking her to explain her understanding of certain legal concepts and current events...

I think it's clear who has the real "temperament" problem here.

Related Posts: Quick Hit: Jane Roe arrested outside of Sotomayor hearing
Only White Men Can be "Objective."
Sotomayor hearings begin today
Media Justice for Sotomayor
Sotomayor is not meaner, just femaler

Watching the confirmation hearings of Sotomayor, it makes me wonder if Sotomayor wants to scream, "hey white dude, you are partial to your own life experience as well..." The Sotomayor hearings are pretty painful to watch, and should put to the side any belief that we are in a post-racial space. Session's attempts to grill Sotomayor on this question of impartiality reveals the obvious ignorance that when white men hold partial beliefs they are natural and objective, whereas when women of color do, they are unable to effectively do the job.

It seems the question of whether Sotomayor's experience adds value, verse whether it impacts her ability to be objective in her rulings is at the core of the questioning, which is almost a pre-multiculturalism line of questioning that only a Republican would concern themselves with them. At least Democrats are up to the multi-kulti frame, where the more diverse we are, the better things are. It is not perfect, but it is better than the belief that white men are objective and everyone else is holding to much baggage to do their work.

Watch more here.

What do you think? Consider this an open thread for those that are watching the hearing as well.

Congress has been busy lately, and there are currently a number of pieces of reproductive and sexual health-related legislation moving through both the House and Senate. A roundup of what I've been following after the jump.

News outlets are reporting that Obama will nominate Regina Benjamin for the post of surgeon general. The announcement is supposed to come in a few hours, in the midst of the first day of hearings for another somewhat controversial women of color appointment, Sonia Sotomayor.

About Benjamin (via McArthur Foundation):

Regina Benjamin is a rural family physician forging an inspiring model of compassionate and effective medical care in one of the most underserved regions of the United States. In 1990, she founded the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic to serve the Gulf Coast fishing community of Bayou La Batre, Alabama, a village of approximately 2,500 residents devastated twice in the past decade by Hurricanes Georges, in 1998, and Katrina, in 2005. Despite scarce resources, Benjamin has painstakingly rebuilt her clinic after each disaster and set up networks to maintain contact with patients scattered across multiple evacuation sites.

At first glance her work sounds pretty amazing, and I think it's awesome to be elevating someone who has worked in on the gulf coast.

More at Salon.com

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's hearings begin today at 10am.

USTREAM is offering a live feed of the hearings (embedded below).

Video streaming by Ustream

Other places to get live coverage:

SCOTUS Blog

ABC News
PBS

Today's events should include opening remarks by Senate Judiciary members and Judge Sotomayor will be delivering a statement.

As the Women's Media Center has documented, there has been a pretty nasty stream of both sexist and racist coverage of Sotomayor since her nomination.

Lots of groups are steadying themselves for a difficult nomination process are on the watch for sexist or racist remarks during the process.

We'll be providing updates and links throughout the process, but if you're watching and want to comment on what you see, this is the thread to do it.

UPDATE: The National Women's Law Center also just released The Thinking Woman's Guide to the Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings.

This organization does an AMAZING job of getting really cool and important people to speak at their conferences.

Already today I've heard from Van Jones, Kathleen Sebelius and right now I'm sitting here listening to John Oliver of the Daily Show. I really appreciate his humor and thoughts about the role of humor in news coverage. Laughing can be so cathartic.

Next up are Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton. I'll try to share some of their remarks as well. Sorry for not posting a lot of commentary, I'm just amazed to be able to hear them speak live and in person. The fact that they are all here shows their dedication to young people, and there are some amazing young progressive activists here today.

Thanks to all the feministing readers who came and said hi. You all rock!

Remarks after the jump.

Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services

What America is going to do about climate change and what we're going to do about our health care system--the two main challenges facing US today.

Our health outcomes are consistently behind so many other countries. If we don't do something, this new generation will be the first to have a life expectancy less than that of their parents.

We have 12,000 people every year losing their health benefits. We have about 46 million Americans without health coverage at all.

As a parent it was pretty scary to watch my kids, in their twenties, go beyond their college plans and they were in a situation where there was no employer provided health plan. For a lot of folks, they take a chance, and they say they're going to go without coverage. You are an accident away, or a step away from debt that will follow you for the rest of your life.

The current financial situation we know is unsustainable. Our businesses are less sustainable because they are competing with products that don't bear the burden of health care coverage.

In the last attempt at health care, doing nothing was seen as less scary than doing something. I don't hear anybody saying that what we're doing now is a really good strategy moving forward. It will bankrupt governments, families, business. And we don't get good results.

The good news is I think Congress is truly engaged. When the President determined that this will be the year for health care, he took a bold risk. What he determined was you can't fix the economy without fixing health care. It's about 16% of the overall GDP right now but it's on the rise.

Staceyann Chin rocked it like no other, reading from her new memoir, The Other Side of Paradise and really inspiring everyone. Check out her work on her website.

"Generation Obama" Your generation has already made history, has already changed the course of the country. You're the most diverse, technologically linked gen in history. We need to put money and resources into science because that's where the the future is, innovation is.

The consensus among scientists about climate change is unprecedented. They have no incentive to agree with one another. Yet there are people in this town who won't support Obama, who are afraid of the future. They are afraid of the next wave of energy technology.

This president needs your support to get through this door that has been closed for so long. This door is to innovation in energy technology. Every president running for office since Richard Nixon has talked about energy independence but none has been able to deliver. We have a wealth of solar power in America. We have a wealth of wind resouces. What we have never done is connection our clean energy centers to our population centers.

Let's put people to work, putting up solar panels, building wind turbines. We are relying on Barack Obama to get this revolution started, but he's relying on you to get it done. Get it done generation Obama!

Poor people are going to most affected by these climate/environment related problems, from the downsides of global warming.

I don't care about Sarah Palin, but given what I do I am forced to read and think about her much more often than I would like to. Similar to Amanda, I don't think of Palin is a martyr or someone who was so heinously treated by the media that we should pity her in any way. I have yet to see any evidence of her being humbled about being wrong and an asshole, and while attacks against her have also been sexist, that is not the bulk of criticism around her. Palin hates women (at least that is what is apparent through the little legislation she has worked on) and has used her teenage daughter to score political points, only one of her many asshole moves. And frankly, using your teenage (mom) daughter for political gain, while stuffing words in her mouth about abstinence, well that doesn't score very high on the feminist scale.

I was especially struck by this rather optimistic (or misguided, I am not sure) piece by Michel Martin at NPR about how complicated Palin is.

Can I just tell you? I do not know a single working mother who does not dream at some point, even if just for a minute, about packing up that desk and heading for the homestead, even if that fantasy is about as realistic as the one about supplementing unemployment with Powerball winnings. And I bet that's why so many mothers, who work outside the home or not, were rooting for Sarah Palin, at least at first.

Whether you shared her politics or not, Palin was somebody you wanted to see in the game, trying as she was to balance a very demanding job with the equally demanding job of raising five children and maintaining a decent relationship with her husband. She seemed to have so many attractive qualities. She seemed practical, honest, unfazed and down-to-earth, exactly the qualities people hope newcomers in general and hopefully women will bring to public life. And she is making no judgment at all about the whole campaign shopping spree thing, stylish, which I for one appreciate.

I never felt any of this. I never wanted to see Palin succeed and I certainly didn't think of her as a good mother, especially after she unapologetically used Bristol's story for her own political gain and I have no doubt she will continue to do so. Maybe I can't relate since I don't sit at home wishing to be a stay-at-home cat mom, but I think this romantic idea that Palin is somehow quitting the Governorship for familial reasons is giving her way more credit than she has proven to deserve. I for one am not looking forward to her future political moves because I know they are only going to aggravate me further. Not to be too pessimistic or anything, haha.

I'm really surprised and curious about this. Though she claims she's explained herself, I feel like there is a lot of obfuscation here. What is her real reason? How is she going to "affect change from the outside?" Any guesses?

Every politician who decides they won't run for another term while in office is in the position of maintaining motivation without the muse of pleasing voters for the next go round. It seems disingenious for her to act like the honorable thing is to "pass the ball" so she's not a "lame duck" governor, rather than just, well, not being a lame duck governor. If she's all about what's good for the peeps of Alaska, why can't she finish her term honorably and then move on to other things?

I think there's something fishy going on here, and it's not just she and Todd out on the lake with a couple a reels.

And check out her daughter, Piper, playing with her flip flops. She's the same little firecracker who licked her brother's hair down during the Republican National Convention. I love that girl's irrepressible quirks.

A military coup in Honduras this weekend deposed President Manuel Zelaya. The Honduran Congress has stripped Zelaya of his office and appointed the president of the Congress, Robert Micheletti, to be head of state. It is Central America's first military coup since the Cold War.

Eva Gollinger in Caracas, Venezuela reports:

The text message that beeped on my cell phone this morning read "Alert, Zelaya has been kidnapped, coup d'etat underway in Honduras, spread the word." It's a rude awakening for a Sunday morning, especially for the millions of Hondurans that were preparing to exercise their sacred right to vote today for the first time on a consultative referendum concerning the future convening of a constitutional assembly to reform the constitution. Supposedly at the center of the controversy is today's scheduled referendum, which is not a binding vote but merely an opinion poll to determine whether or not a majority of Hondurans desire to eventually enter into a process to modify their constitution.

Such an initiative has never taken place in the Central American nation, which has a very limited constitution that allows minimal participation by the people of Honduras in their political processes. The current constitution, written in 1982 during the height of the Reagan Administration' s dirty war in Central America, was designed to ensure those in power, both economic and political, would retain it with little interference from the people. Zelaya, elected in November 2005 on the platform of Honduras' Liberal Party, had proposed the opinion poll be conducted to determine if a majority of citizens agreed that constitutional reform was necessary. He was backed by a majority of labor unions and social movements in the country. If the poll had occured, depending on the results, a referendum would have been conducted during the upcoming elections in November to vote on convening a constitutional assembly. Nevertheless, today's scheduled poll was not binding by law.

Kim Pearson has a great summary this morning over at BlogHer.

I'm left wondering about the safety of the women in Honduras during military coup and state instability--these are often the times when sexual assault increases, women struggle to get access to the medical help they need, not to mention all the other basic resources that are necessary to keep families going. We'd love to hear from readers with family in the area...

There will be a protest of the military coup of Honduras at the United Nations today from 3 to 6 pm for those in the New York area.

Update: Christy Thornton, the head of NACLA, recommends this post on the subject. She'll be writing something for us tomorrow on the topic.

Vice President Biden announced the appointment of Lynn Rosenthal as the first-ever White House Advisor on Violence Against Women on Friday.

From the Family Violence Prevention Fund:

In this new position, Rosenthal will be a liaison to the domestic violence and sexual assault advocacy community; coordinate with the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women on implementation of Violence Against Women Act programs; coordinate with the Department of Health and Human Services on implementation of Family Violence Prevention Act services (including the National Domestic Violence Hotline); coordinate with the State Department and USAID on global domestic violence initiatives; and drive the development of new initiatives and policy aimed at combating domestic violence and sexual assault with advocacy groups and members of Congress.

Rosenthal's expertise includes housing, state and local coordinated community response, federal policy on violence against women, and survivor-centered advocacy. She most recently served as the Executive Director of the New Mexico Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and was Executive Director of the National Network to End Domestic Violence from 2000 to 2006. She partnered with The Allstate Foundation to develop a highly successful national initiative to promote economic empowerment for survivors of violence.

Conservative Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) in Canada Doug Elniski has been catching a ton of shit for posting the text of a speech that he gave a couple of weeks ago to junior high school students on his blog, where he supposedly told the girls that "men are attracted to smiles":

Part of the posting included advice to girls saying, "Ladies, always smile when you walk into a room, there is nothing a man wants less than a woman scowling because he thinks he is going to get s--t for something and has no idea what."

It continues, "Men are attracted to smiles, so smile, don't give me that 'treated equal' stuff. If you want Equal, it comes in little packages at Starbucks."

Elniski's blog was taken down on Monday afternoon.

Blog gone or not, the real damage was done to the female students he reached that day. While Elniski clarified that the comparison between equality and a sweetener wasn't actually said at the speech and publicly apologized for the "stupid, inappropriate" comment on his blog, his creepy reference to smiles was said. He actually defends that one, claiming he was merely trying to say that "men and women should be friendly and approachable in dealing with others."

Nice try, dude.

So you may have heard that yet another prominent Republican politician, Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina, admitted to having an affair today.

** Insert snark about Republican leaders "defending" marriage here **

Then go read Shark-Fu's post on the subject. (It's actually about Nevada Sen. John Ensign, but the sentiment applies to Sanford, too.)

Sanford has been booted from the speakers line-up at the uberconservative Values Voter Summit this year. And speaking of values, I have to quote my colleague Tim Fernholz, who makes an important point:

It took an admittedly sensational story about Governor Mark Sanford's personal life to get the national press to converge on South Carolina and declare his political career "over" due to "values" issues. (Whatever, he wouldn't be the first southern governor to be a come back kid after marital infidelity). But when he attempted to deny much needed unemployment funding to people suffering under the recession while cutting school funding and the social safety net, in the name of an economically-baseless austerity policy that involved telling his weakest constituents to effectively drop dead, well, those decisions didn't threaten his political career or reflect on his values. That made him a "star" in the GOP. Priorities, priorities.

Word.

Finally, I was glad to see neither Ensign's nor Sanford's wife did the ol' "stand by your man" routine at the mea culpa press conferences. Hope this is a new trend of politicians standing on their own when they apologize for their personal indiscretions.

...but is he really the only one? Public moral outcries of elected officials sexual behavior is complex, often tedious and not really in the name of justice. The prime minister of Italy, Silvio Berlusconi, likes to hire woman to attend parties and do who knows what else. Barbara Montereale, one of the women in the much reprinted picture of two women photographing each other in Berlusconi's bathroom sent the pictures to the press to be published for the truth to come out. She was paid and flown down to spend time with him. The Italian authorities are starting an investigation according to the Telegraph UK.

The three women, whose accounts of their evening with Mr Berlusconi apparently largely corroborate each other, have been questioned by police in Bari who are investigating Mr Tarantini for allegedly inciting prostitution.

Mr Berlusconi faces increasing pressure to explain whether he knew if the women were being paid to attend his parties and whether he slept with a prostitute.

He is under attack not only from the press and the opposition but also the Roman Catholic Church.

I don't actually care what the Catholic church deems moral and immoral, or what makes them upset. This is not a matter of morality, but a question of exploitation and the use of women by men in power. And this is not the only story, it is a trend with men in power to hire women to do whatever they want with and their bloated sense of self and ego that comes with having so much power creates a vacuum where anything is for sale and purchase. Isn't that what happened with Eliot Spitzer?

I find moral panic and outrage over the often grotesque, exploitative sexual behavior of politicians hilarious. My instinct is to suggest that it is a private matter, just as I don't want you to talk about my private sex life, I don't think anyone's should be fodder for news material. On the other hand, that fact that stories like this come up over and over again merely shows us what men in power think is legitimate behavior. This is not a matter of "i gotcha," but more about the ways entitlement plays out with our beloved "statesmen."

If elected, Brownback will have an enthusiastic, Republican state legislature to work with on rolling back reproductive rights. It's worth remembering that Sebelius' HHS secretary nomination was almost derailed by that body, which forced her to deal with a series of divisive abortion-related bills during her Senate confirmation hearings. Brownback would certainly unleash those forces, moving forward on legislation that would require doctors performing late-term abortions to submit, in writing, exactly what medical risks "justify" the procedure. In April, in one of her last acts as governor, Sebelius vetoed that bill, which also would have allowed the husbands and parents of patients to sue abortion providers if they suspected the pregnant woman's health wasn't really at risk. The bill was intended to intimidate Dr. Tiller and his brethren out of business, and would stymie the work of Dr. Leroy Carhart, the physician who has promised to begin offering late-term abortions in Kansas in Tiller's stead.

While there's still time for Democrats to field a strong candidate and rally behind him/her, Brownback has name-recognition on his side after years of serving as a U.S. senator. (Interim Gov. Mark Parkinson, who filled Sebelius's shoes after she was confirmed as HHS secretary, has announced he won't run in 2010.)

As a reminder... Brownback equates reproductive rights with slavery, says rape and incest survivors shouldn't have access to abortion, has opposed contraception access for low-income women, supported the global gag rule, and has backed a whole host of abortion restrictions. So yeah, he'd be bad news for the women of Kansas.

Vanessa and I had the opportunity yesterday to meet with Former President Bill Clinton along with a group of fabulous bloggers to discuss his work around the Clinton Foundation including his work with his many global initiatives that deal with climate change, HIV/AIDs, health care, agriculture and education. He answered a series of questions from us on a variety of topics including health care, education, reproductive rights and even a bit on identity politics. Scott has a good post on Clinton's suggestions to push for health care reform and Chris Bowers on the climate change bill being held up currently.

Emily Douglas at RH Reality Check has a nice recap of everything he talked about including his response to her questions about reproductive rights and women.

When I asked what the Clinton Foundation does to promote women's rights and reproductive rights as a cornerstone of global economic development, Clinton observed that the "practice that has worked uniformly across all cultures and religions" to depress the birth rate, the rate of unintended pregnancies, and of abortions, is "universal access to education and universal access to the labor market for women."

"Part of the world's instability is rooted in inequality," Clinton observed.

To add to that, his consistent message was for us to push in the places we can actually affect change including on the issue of women's rights. It would have been interesting to hear what he has to say about access to reproductive health care in the United States where pushing where we will be most successful is not always an option.

Finally, it was so interesting to hear him talk about what he feels is the role of identity in politics and what I would call theories of nation building. He asked the question, "how do we build our own identity without making others look or feel bad?" in response to Armando from Talk Left asking, how do we continue to talk about diversity in the current historical moment. He said that the shift in power from oppressed to oppressor to a more interdependent form of state control allows disenfranchised greater access to the means to overthrow regimes, but is difficult to do if the tools are consistently hijacked by what he called "evil." I don't have his direct quotes, but this is what I took from what he was saying.

It was a very interesting experience and I felt honored to be alongside such amazing bloggers.

UPDATE: Another post from Eve at Daily Kos on the obstacles ahead for passing the health care bill and some other observations from the meeting.

I wish I was shocked by this.

A prominent South Carolina Republican killed his Facebook page Sunday after being caught likening the First Lady to an escaped gorilla.

Commenting on a report posted to Facebook about a gorilla escape at a zoo in Columbia, S.C., Friday, longtime GOP activist Rusty DePass wrote, "I'm sure it's just one of Michelle's ancestors - probably harmless."

When taken to task for the racist comment - and after killing his Facebook page - DePass said, "I am as sorry as I can be if I offended anyone. The comment was clearly in jest."

Yeah - ha fucking ha.

Via Michelle Obama Watch.

Protests have been held in the streets of Iran since the disputed outcome of the presidential election. Community blogger Roja calls it a "nightmare."

People who have been disenfranchised are protesting in Tehran and other cities. You can see some photos on flickr.

Text messaging services were cut off on the day of election and ahmadinejad was declared as the victor only a few hours after the election was over. Election statistics were being announce in a very fishy manner with no detail about which cities and provinces were being counted (completely different from how things were done in all other elections in Iran). Campaign headquarters of other candidates were raided and military was present across Tehran.

...Today Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, and most websites of other candidates have been blocked, cellphone connections were shut down in Tehran, political figures have been arrested and people have been beaten and bloodied in the streets. Meanwhile foreign reporters have been asked to leave.

The Guardian has great coverage of what's going on; you should also check out Global Voices Online for blogging coverage.

The post-election protests have also sparked a lot of conversation about the role of new media.

Moderator Isobel Coleman begins by pointing out that there is some controversy over the title of the panel itself. She asks: "Is this a new agenda? Who's agenda is it?"

The first panelist to speak is Lamia Karim (pictured right), from the Department of Anthropology at the University of Oregon. She speaks to all of the various human rights discourses, many of which she obviously doesn't think are complex or ethical. "What I am most interested in is grassrooots, indigenous, human rights movements organized, not around an individual human, but much more on a group rights basis.This is taking up these rights discourses but trying to renegotiate with the realities on the ground."

"As feminists we need to really go beyond the rhetoric of the empowerment of women and ask carefully, 'What does it take to empower women? Is money enough? What does it mean to give women access to capital without giving them skills training?' This is the Grameen Bank model--based on neo-liberalism."

Larnia has a book coming out through UC Press in spring 2010 which she describes as "a radical critique of this model, this particular model. I wanted to put it out there because this has become a very innovative way of framing how women, especially in the global south and very poor women, can be economically and socially empowered." Can't wait for that!

Isobel turns to Jill Lester next, who is the ED of The Hunger Project, to ask her what her reaction is to the radical critique of micro lending.

"Unfortunately, I think we're going to be in violent agreement." [audience laughs]

"The Hunger Project believes in an integrated approach to poverty. Part of that is having a micro finance facility. We ask the community to form a micro finance committee of 100% women to set their own agenda."

Next up is Radhika Balakrishnan (pictured left), of the Marymount Manhattan College:
"Rather than talking about the crisis as if it something that fell from the sky, we're calling it the 'manufactured crisis,' caused by deliberate changes that the government made in the regulatory framework."

"We're trying to turn human rights around on them. You want to oppose human rights all over the world? What about the human right violation right here. What about the TARP legislation? There's no transparency. That's public money. This is our institution. Therefore there's a human rights obligation on the state."

Cynthia Enloe (holy amazing) jumps in as the pinch hitter:

"One has to be able to think analytically in order to act. I've hated the theory-practice divide. It's stupid. Anyone who acts, especially if you try to act collectively, if you try to mobilize beyond your best friend, it means you've done some causal thinking. You are an analyst. Out of your action come new analytical understandings. It works and you think why did it work? Or it didn't and you have to go back to the drawing table. We are all analysts. We are all thinkers who think thinking matters. Thinking is in handshake with action."

"If we've learned something from feminist thinking from around the world, it is that you have to think big in order to think small--the guys say that of course--but you also have to think small in order to think big. It works both ways and it's really one of the great strengths of feminist thinking for action."

"We are at a moment now where we've got a pool of schools and an understanding of what needs to be acted upon, some people call it an agenda, and we are at a moment, not just because we have a new president of one country, not just because the institutions of capitalism are wobbly (they're not as wobbly as we'd liked)."

"We really are at a moment amongst all of us, and I mean all of us who aren't in the room, where we have the capacity to think as if it matters and the capaity to know what needs to be acted upon. This is a very, very exciting moment. We shouldn't let cynicsm let that moment pass."

"Think as if it matters and then act as if it affects our thinking."

Janet Napolitano, the secretary of homeland security, gave a two-year reprieve on Tuesday to immigrants whose applications for permanent residency have been denied because their American spouses died during the application process.

Today, Catherine Pierce, the Acting Director of the DOJ's Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the importance of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

Some highlights from her testimony after the jump.

After finally gaining control of the New York Senate, two Democrats have defected from the Democrats in the New York State Senate to join the Republican caucus, giving the Republicans a majority again. The two Senators, Hiram Monserrate and Pedro Espada are still technically Democrats but will be joining the Republicans and some key votes.

Republicans reclaimed control of the New York state Senate with help from two Democrats, who rebelled against a $131.8 billion budget they said was negotiated in secret.

Pedro Espada from the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate from Queens sided with 30 Republicans on key votes to change the Senate's leadership. Democrats immediately challenged the claim and described the action as illegal. Governor David Paterson called it "despicable."

The maneuver, just two weeks before the Legislature's scheduled June 22 adjournment, leaves in doubt the outcome of bills to allow gay marriage, create a new money-saving pension category for future state and city workers and approve taxes to balance New York City's budget.

So what does this mean for gay marriage? According to Queerty it is not a good look,

• If Republicans do take control over the Senate, they will certainly not allow a bill to reach the floor for a full vote. Which means even if Sen. Thomas Duane had locked up the 32 votes necessary to pass the bill, it's now dead in the water.

• If this mess is not sorted out immediately and power not officially maintained by either party, you can expect the rest of the legislative session to be tied up with turmoil, and the same-sex marriage issue pushed to the back of the bus in terms of priorities.

• If Democrats do maintain control, we're still not out of the water. Sens. Espada Jr. was marked in the "yes" column while Monserrate was "undecided" on supporting marriage equality; it's unclear how the team up with Republicans would impact that vote. Moreover, if Smith retains his leadership post, he may still not permit the same-sex marriage bill to come up for a vote, since he's requiring 32 votes to pass it.

Thanks guys!

We received an email from Catholics for Choice on Obama's appointment of Alexia Kelley to serve as the Director of Faith-based and Community Partnerships at the Department of Health and Human Services - and unlike Kathleen Sebelius' recent confirmation to head HHS, it's no news to be celebrating.

Kelley is the co-founder of the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG), an organization that not only has publicly acknowledged their opposition to abortion (here's an extensive PDF of their anti-choice history) but also supports reducing access to abortion care. This is a much different tune than the administration's supposed stance on reproductive rights, which is to reduce the need for abortion.) Catholics for Choice President Jon O'Brien says:

"If Ms. Kelley had been appointed to another position in the administration, there might be less reason for concern. However, the Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for providing and expanding access to key sexual and reproductive health services. As such, we need those working in HHS to rely on evidence-based methods to reduce the need for abortion. We need them to believe in men's and women's capacity to make moral decisions about their own lives. Unfortunately, as seen from her work at CACG, Ms. Kelley does not fit the bill.

"From the beginning, Alexia Kelley directed CACG to ignore the question of access to abortion and reframe the debate in terms of reducing the number of abortions--although polls consistently show that the majority of Catholics support abortion rights. This language around reducing the number of abortions should be a huge red flag to anyone who believes in and seeks to defend a woman's right to choose. While evidence-based prevention methods can go a long way towards reducing the need for abortion, some women will always need access to safe and legal abortion and we must recognize that and ensure public policies support that access."

CACG has seemed to identify themselves in the past as more of a progressive religious organization (although technically nonpartisan), a stand-out among (and even left out of) the other mainstream Catholic organizations in the country. But when it comes to abortion, that's hardly the case. Sarah Posner at TAPPED points out that in Kelley's co-authored book last year, she wrote this on abortion: "Each abortion constitutes a direct attack on human life, and so we have a special moral obligation to end or reduce the practice of abortion to the greatest extent possible." And while the organization and Kelley skirts around the issue of legalization, they've made it clear they're for abortion restrictions.

It's no news that has been a really bad week for the reproductive health world. And this just makes me so much sadder. Maybe Obama thinks appointing Kelley will alleviate the strong tensions right now, conservatives will get off his ass about Sebelius and we'll all reach a "common ground" around the abortion debate that has led the conversation as of late. But I think "'common ground' is pipe dream," as Amanda says, contending that we're not going to eliminate the need for abortions by relieving women's financial problems. (Which is partly what the "common ground" idea supports.) And as O'Brien also points out, CACG even used flawed economic research to push for anti-poverty measures as a way of reducing abortion.

But this is just not going to work, and neither is Kelley if she ends up having control over policies around reproductive health in this country. And it looks like she very well may - according to the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives website, the department assists faith-based organizations in attaining partnerships with and getting funding from the federal government, which includes family planning grants.

The only comforting part of this appointment is that Kathleen Sebelius will be her boss.

There have been some really good posts from around the blogosphere about Obama, Cairo and women's rights. Here are a few that caught my attention.

Sarah MC takes Obama to task on not being afraid to offend religious fundamentalists and make a statement about state sanctioned religious law.

Peter Daou has a very strong and powerful criticism to Obama's discussion of women's rights.

Dana responds to Peter at the American Prospect and reminds us there are far greater problems facing women in fundamentalist regimes outside of the hijab.

Yolanda at the Kitchen Table on Muslim women and the concept of "choice."

Tami has a few thoughts on nuance and messaging in the Obama speech along with the full video and transcript.

Add more in comments as you read em! And what did you think about Obama's remarks on "women in the Arab world?"

Salamishah Tillet has a great post up at The Root about reproductive rights, African American women and how we need to push the frame of civil rights when we talk about womens' access to reproductive health care, along with pushing civil rights leaders to add it to their campaign agenda.

While abortion is rarely seen as a civil rights issue, the dismantling of Roe v. Wade would have dire consequences for African-American women. The roots of reproductive injustice for black women date back to the nation's founding, for enslaved women had no control of their reproductive rights and often were forced to bear children in order to replenish their slave master's labor force. Dorothy Roberts writes in her book, Killing the Black Body, that slave masters considered black women "objects whose decisions about reproduction should be subject to social regulation rather than to their own will."

Today, reproductive injustice continues to adversely affect African-American women. Federal underfunding of adequate family-planning programs and lack of access to inexpensive, readily available contraceptives certainly play a role. And legislation, such as the Hyde Amendment, that denies women full access to safe and affordable abortions makes it more likely that African-American women and low-income women (who are disproportionately African-American) are adversely impacted. The reversal of Roe v. Wade would quite simply prevent African-American women from realizing full reproductive freedom.

While organizations such as Black Women's Health Imperative (BWHI), Black Women for Reproductive Justice (BWRJ) and the Third Wave Foundation are in the foreground of the fight for reproductive justice as a social justice, racially progressive mainstream organizations, such as the NAACP, have yet to incorporate black women's "right to choose" as a fundamental part of their civil rights agendas.

Given the racial history of reproductive rights, it is not just Planned Parenthood and the Feminist Majority that needs to push Obama on whether or not Sotomayor will uphold Roe v. Wade. Former Planned Parenthood president and African-American feminist Faye Wattleton once said, "Reproductive freedom should not be seen as a privilege or as a benefit, but a fundamental human right."

Go read the rest. This is a really powerful argument for why many black leaders should take a stance on reproductive rights because of the unique implications for black women. At a certain point we have to stop being scared and hold our community leaders accountable for the things they are saying and the impact that has on our communities. The agenda for women's rights and the agenda for civil rights has to overlap at a certain point. That said, I don't necessarily think of the NAACP as the center of progressive anti-racist activism, similar to how I don't really see many mainstream feminist groups as having a truly intersectional approach. But this is one way they both could move towards the direction of justice, as opposed to a solely identity politics based approach, playing to the common denominator.

This is my ballad to identity politics in America.

The conservative reaction to Sonia Sotomayor has not only been telling of the clear paranoia and fear that conservatives have around women of color and their appropriate place in our society, but is also really predictable. That doesn't change how racist it is. Lindsey Graham's testament to how he is critical of Sotomayor for her "fiery" temperament is probably the best encapsulation of white male fear of a woman of color in a position of power. Fiery is frequently a term used to describe women of color that are considered outspoken or hot. It is both racist and sexually demeaning, catering to fantasies about Latina women's sexual potency. It wouldn't make sense as a pejorative if the one accused was white or was not female.

There has already been a lot written about Sotomayor, both about her stance on judicial issues (imagine that!) and about the racism endemic in many of the criticisms of her. All I can really add to this is that it is a sad state of affairs that she is being called a "reverse racist" and as Roger Simon discusses in anunusually solid piece (or, as Mattbastard called it, so full of WIN), it seems the only kind of racism conservative white men get enraged about.

How come the only racism that bothers some people is reverse racism?

People of color have been oppressed for centuries in this country, and while progress has been made, it has come slowly.

But Sonia Sotomayor makes one speech suggesting that her background as a Latina might actually give her superior insight or wisdom to a white man, and there is an explosion -- an eruption! a volcano! -- of indignation.

She is a reverse racist! She has dared to suggest that a nonwhite woman could ever be superior in any way, under any circumstances, to a white man. So how can she now sit on the Supreme Court (a court that for most of its existence has resembled a country club board)?

Newt Gingrich, a former Republican speaker of the House, called her a "Latina woman racist" and said she should withdraw her name from consideration.

Pat Buchanan, an MSNBC commentator and former Republican presidential candidate, said on "Hardball With Chris Matthews" that Sotomayor was an "affirmative action" choice for the job.

And so while the Repubs play their unwieldy and inaccurate "damned if you do, damned if you don't," game of identity politics, liberals have been forced to call it out for the racism it is. And while I obviously fall on the leftier side of things, I am concerned about this kumbaya attitude about Sotomayor feeds into the post-racist doctrine a tad bit. Sotomayor is a good person for the job and then also happens to be a person of color. The way that racism functions, we can't have both things without them being related to each other. Liberals want her to be a POC because this shows that the American dream works, POC can be whatever they want irrelevant of their POC-ness. Conservatives want to highlight her POC-ness to show how she is different and play off stereotypes of how she is both unfit for the job and also because she doesn't deny that she is a POC or the keen and unique insight this might give her, is also a reverse racist.

Sotomayor is caught in the trap that most women of color face when they gain any degree of visibility. Their race and gender is necessary to the conversation for both camps to justify or deny her progress. It is still a form of tokenism, even if an unavoidable form. It is progress on one level that she is a WOC that is going to be on the SCOTUS. She is hardly the most liberal person for the job, which is what keeps her in the running and such a smart choice. But the question I am grappling with is, is this really progress or just another round in the identity politics game? Is her nomination going to change the way Latina women are treated globally? (Or am I the one "asking the wrong questions and opening the wrong doors"...as Stephin Merritt would say..)

You have seriously got to be fucking kidding me. This was yesterday's editorial cartoon carried in the Oklahoman. Cartoonist Chip Bok depicts Sonia Sotomayor - the Supreme Court nominee, the first Latina woman who would have this position - as a piñata. Sometimes there are no words.

Please contact the paper here, or call them directly at (405) 475-3311.

The Oklahoma Women's Network Blog has more.

Thanks to Eryn for the link.

Roxana Saberi, the American journalist who was being held in Iran until being released suddenly and recently, just did her first full length interview with Melissa Block at NPR.

Journalist Roxana Saberi, who spent four months in an Iranian prison, returned to the United States on May 22. Until now, she has not spoken to the media at length about her ordeal, during which she says she faced "severe psychological and mental pressure" to confess to being a spy.

In her first in-depth interview, Saberi tells NPR about the events that led to her arrest on Jan. 31, her four months in a Tehran prison, why she gave a false confession, and her take on evidence that was used against her that resulted in a speedy trial on April 13. Saberi, who lived in Iran for six years and reported for NPR among other news organizations, was sentenced to eight years in prison by an Iranian court.

In a turn of events, Saberi was freed May 11 after her sentence was reduced to a suspended two-year term. She tells NPR that to this day she doesn't know why she was arrested -- or why she was freed.

You can listen to the interview here.

On a related note, two journalists are also being held in North Korea, Laura Ling and Euna Lee. Their trial begins June 4th and there will be vigils around the country on June 3rd. More information here.

Or not.

Media Matters reposted the screen shot of Debbie Schlussel's blog post. It's pretty terrible. Racist, denigrating and down right disrespectful. She calls Justice Sotomayor "So-So" or "Sonia from the block" and compares her to Jennifer Lopez. She calls her a "chick" and argues that her life story (growing up Puerto-rican in the South Bronx) is the only reason she's been nominated by Obama.

Oh, excuse me, Debbie, but I thought her thirty year long career working as an attorney and then a judge might have something to do with it. Even George Bush the first thought she was a worthy judge when he nominated her in 1991 for a seat on the US District Court.

Then there was her graduation summa cum laude from Princeton University in 1976, and the six honorary law degrees she has been awarded over her career. Not to mention the numerous court cases and legal decisions she has ruled on in her seventeen years as a district judge.

But right. Obama just wants her on the court because she's Puerto-Rican and from the Bronx.

The one thing you are right about, Debbie, is that the rags to riches narrative about Sotomayor is played out. She's earned her spot on the bench with her career as a judge. We're all excited that there is a woman being nominated, and a Latina, because the Supreme Court is starting to look a little homogeneous. But just like Alito isn't on the bench only because of his upbringing as a privileged white man, Sotomayor isn't there only because of her background. More from Courtney on this narrative.

It's been interesting to catch up to the Sotomayor coverage this morning. I really like this clip from CNN, which features Erica Gonzalez, the opinion page editor for El Diario/la Prensa, the third largest Spanish-language daily newspaper in the country. She actually manages to position Sotomayor's accomplishments in the history of Hispanic people contributing to this country in diverse ways. (It's incredibly difficult to say such complex, historicized statements on our soundbite news shows.) It also has "man on the street" interviews with folks talking about how her roots are inspiring, and of course the requisite America Dream talk from the pundits.

My personal feeling is that the American Dream stuff always gets oversimplified and overplayed when exceptional political leaders like Obama or Sotomayor get their due. It's important that we not lose sight of the fact that though our government, at the highest levels I might add, is becoming less white, male, and less historically privileged, that doesn't mean that the majority of barriers have been smashed or the majority of Americans of color given truly equal opportunities to become the next Obama or Sotomayor. Will it be easier? Probably. It's hard to aspire to be what you can't even see. But will it be easy? Absolutely not--especially with our failing public education system, health care inequities, rampant environmental racism etc. etc. None of these things are eradicated just became Sotomayor steps into her rightful place of power. Neither does her election eradicate the sexism--both institutional and social--that still prevents so many women from living the lives they want to live.

On that note, I find it interesting that a lot of the coverage I saw while surfing around this morning seems largely focused on her ethnic background with just a mention of her gender identity. Perhaps it is still easier for the mainstream media to figure out how to talk about ethnic "uplift" because it fits so nicely into the American Dream narrative than to explore the ongoing gender issues still so implicit and insidious in our daily experiences.

Today Obama announced his pick to replace Justice Souter on the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor. Conservatives are already calling her a "judicial activist."

Conservatives argue Sotomayor has a "hard-left record" and believes that judges should consider experiences of women and minorities in their decision-making.

Sounds pretty awesome to me. Although the road to confirmation is likely to be rocky, I hope Sotomayor is indeed confirmed. I was also heartened to see that all of the names on Obama's short-list were women. Yes, Sotomayor's record and experience should be first and foremost when we discuss her as a possible justice, but her identity is not insignificant. I'm looking forward to returning to an era of two women on the court -- because it's pretty damn appalling that "consider(ing) the experiences of women and minorities" is not something we expect of all members of the current Court.

For more on Sotomayor's legal opinions, SCOTUSblog has a detailed rundown in four parts: I, II, III, IV.

(Again, we're at our retreat right now, so sorry for the brevity. More on Sotomayor and her record to come...)

A bunch o' peace organizations have created a coalition to push a nationwide day of reflection on and renunciation of military escalation in Afghanistan. I'm totally sympathetic to their cause, and always a fan of stepping back and considering non-military solutions, but also feel confused on this issue. As I've written previously in this space, I'm most concerned with what the nonviolent citizens of Afghanistan, especially women, want the U.S. to do.

Contrary to the tired old rhetoric about the U.S. soldiers swooping in and and "saving" poor, repressed Afghan women, there is a vital movement of Afghan women working to change their own communities and cultures. It is these women that I want to hear from, these women whose opinions I trust the most. And yet, it's hard to figure out--all the way over here in my little Brooklyn hovel--who these women are and if there is any sort of consensus on what it is that they want from the U.S. When I was at the Code Pink Mother's Day Vigil, an Afghani woman spoke about the horrific conditions that so many Afghan women are facing. After she left the stage, an interesting discussion took place between her and some of the Code Pink members in which she asserted that, contrary to the peace movement's assumptions, Afghan women want the U.S. military to stay in Afghanistan. "They don't feel safe," she said. "The international presence makes them feel safer."

Of course, she was just one woman. It would be reductive to expect all U.S. women to think unilaterally on such a complex issue (think presidential election 2008 and all the ridiculous "THE women vote" talk), so why would Afghani women be any different? This video, produced by Code Pink, features a dynamic woman who opposes military escalation:

So here I am, paralyzed by all the complexity. Anyone have bright ideas or trusted sources to contribute? If you're convinced that military escalation is wrong, here are some things you can do about it.

I had the total honor of attending a Congressional meeting yesterday called "The Growing Needs of Women Veterans: Is the VA Ready?" It was hosted by the House Committee on Veterans Affairs and widely attended by a variety of women veterans' groups who each had a chance to testify about what they see as the growing and unique needs for women veterans (who are currently about 15% of our military).

I plan on writing extensively about some of the issues that were brought up (including childcare, VA climate, cultural shifts, and of course, sexual assault), but what I really wanted to emphasize here at feministing was how inspired I was by the presence of young, fearless women activists yesterday. The stand outs were Anuradha K. Bhagwati, Executive Director of the Service Women's Action Network (which I've written about before), Kayla Williams, author of Love My Rifle More Than You, and Dawn Halfaker (pictured here), of Wounded Warriors.

They each spoke with such passion, clarity, and authenticity at the hearing. As the various leaders and ED's of organizations made their remarks, I was thrilled to hear these young women's voices, which truly stood out as professional, but also unequivocally real. They didn't let the official nature of the meeting or the onslaught of statistics overshadow the fact that women are suffering unimaginable pain because of sexual harassment and assault experiences, inadequate access to reproductive and mental health care at the VA centers through out the nation, and a sense of invisibility in a country that still assumes women don't see combat or get PTSD. Though the day was overwhelming, and the sense of glacial movement in our legislative branch palpable, I left with this rock solid confidence that this generation of women vet activists are going to make things right. They're too strong and bold and eloquent and convicted not to.

P.S. SWAN's site went live today, so be sure to go over and check it out.

That's right, if you need any more proof that conservative policy agendas hurt women, then look at this study of fathers of daughters as opposed to sons, who tend to vote more liberal on issues of reproductive rights, among other issues.

via FiveThirtyEight.

Andrew J. Oswald and Nattavudh Powdthavee write:

In remarkable research, the sociologist Rebecca Warner and the economist Ebonya Washington have shown that the gender of a person's children seems to influence the attitudes and actions of the parent.

Warner (1991) and Warner and Steel (1999) study American and Canadian mothers and fathers. The authors' key finding is that support for policies designed to address gender equity is greater among parents with daughters. This result emerges particularly strongly for fathers. Because parents invest a significant amount of themselves in their children, the authors argue, the anticipated and actual struggles that offspring face, and the public policies that tackle those, matter to those parents. . . The authors demonstrate that people who parent only daughters are more likely to hold feminist views (for example, to favor affirmative action).

By collecting data on the voting records of US congressmen, Washington (2004) is able to go beyond this. She provides persuasive evidence that congressmen with female children tend to vote liberally on reproductive rights issues such as teen access to contraceptives. In a revision, Washington (2008) argues for a wider result, namely, that the congressmen vote more liberally on a range of issues such as working families flexibility and tax-free education.

Interesting stuff. What if your child is gay, lesbian, queer, trans, etc? Are they then also more liberal? I feel like we have some examples to the contrary, but would be interesting to see what patterns are in general. Thoughts?

Last night, the LA City Council approved a budget that will fund the testing of the huge backlog of untested rape kits in Los Angeles.

According to Hollywood NOW President Lindsey Horvath (who was also recently appointed to the West Hollywood City Council - congrats!), "Over the next two years, we will eradicate the backlog of untested rape kit evidence as long as the Council continues to work with LAPD on a system that holds everyone accountable."

From Human Rights Watch:

As part of the city's budget for the upcoming fiscal year, the council approved money for an additional 26 employees for the city's crime lab DNA section and for using private crime laboratories for outsourcing. The budget now goes to the mayor for signature or veto within 10 days of approval by the City Council. The city has a backlog of more than 5,000 "rape kits," as the collected evidence is called, which have not been tested to try to identify a suspect through matching DNA.

Wonderful news, but HRW points out that this funding only affects the testing of rape kits under the Los Angeles Police Department's jurisdiction." There are still 7,000 more untested rape kits in the 47 other cities in Los Angeles County and stored by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department.

Related: Why Do Rape Kits Sit Around Untested?
Nearly 13,000 Rape Kits Go Untested in LA County

Charming. You'd think that conservatives would have come up with a new line of attack for women politicians by now - the whole "she's ugly!"thing has to get old after while, right? Right? Sigh.

Via Ta-nehisi Coates.

Rola Dashti, one of the four women elected to Parliament

This past Saturday, four women won seats in th