feminist blogs

John McCain’s editorial on the Kagan nomination got me thinking.  At issue, her move as dean of Harvard Law School denying military recruiters access to the campus Career Services Office.  McCain cites one beleaguered recruiter complaining that without this access, they were “relegated to wandering the halls in hopes that someone will stop and talk to us.” [...]

Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearing was held last week, and the event unfolded fairly predictably. Even though Orrin Hatch has stated that he’ll vote against Kagan, and Jeff Sessions has made noises about a possible filibuster, the general consensus is that she’ll be confirmed. One issue did spark some controversy, however: Kagan’s writings on abortion. As [...]

Looks like Elena Kagan urged former President Bill Clinton to support a ban on late-term abortions back in the day. Despite how this may look on face, I don’t think it says much about her position on abortion. In fact, her justification for encouraging then-President Clinton to support this particular version of a ban was to prevent the Republican Congress from overriding his veto on a stricter ban.

Documents reviewed Monday by The Associated Press show Kagan encouraging Clinton to support a bill that would have banned all abortions of viable fetuses except when the physical health of the mother was at risk. The documents from Clinton’s presidential library are among the first to surface in which President Barack Obama’s new choice for the high court weighs in on the thorny issue of abortion.
The proposal was a compromise by Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle. Clinton did support the proposal, but it failed and Clinton vetoed a stricter Republican ban.

In a May 13, 1997, memo from the White House domestic policy office, Kagan and her boss, Bruce Reed, told Clinton that abortion-rights groups opposed Daschle’s compromise. But they urged the president to support it, saying he otherwise risked seeing a Republican Congress override his veto on the stricter bill.
The memo, more of a political calculation than a legal brief, advised Clinton to support the compromise despite noting that the Justice Department believed the proposal was unconstitutional.

“We recommend that you endorse the Daschle amendment in order to sustain your credibility on HR 1122 and prevent Congress from overriding your veto,” they wrote.

The sexist double standard was undeniably at play in the right wing attack on Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination. I can’t help but wonder, as we patiently wait for the GOP response to Obama’s most recent nomination of Solicitor Elena Kagan, if we should prepare ourselves for a second round of sexist attacks. Despite the fact that Elena Kagan has a pretty slim record to pick at, I doubt that will prevent conservative misogyny from rearing its ugly head again.

For now, I plan on celebrating the fact that Kagan’s confirmation would add another justice to the bench that supports women’s reproductive choices; as well as level out the gender disparity a bit. In a year where women’s health has been continuously thrown under the bus, this nomination is definitely a breath of fresh air.

Despite my clear appreciation for a pro-choice, female nominee; I can’t help but worry about some other key issues like Kagan’s position on the scope of presidential power. With that being said, I also don’t want to jump to any decisive conclusions quite yet. In response to Glenn Greenwald’s claim that Elena Kagan may move the court closer to the Bush/Cheney model of Executive Power, Walter Dellinger claims that Kagan is in fact a progressive on the issue.

That is all way off the mark. Let’s take Greenwald’s second point first. As dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan sharply and publicly criticized the excessive claims of executive authority put forth by Bush administration lawyers such as John Yoo. In an address at her school’s graduation ceremony in 2007, she forthrightly condemned “the expedient and unsupported legal opinions” used by Yoo and other lawyers to justify violations of federal laws regulating wiretapping and interrogation. Kagan minced no words in her critique of Bush administration lawyers who “failed to respect the law” or who manipulated, bent, or evaded the law “to seek short-term advantage.” She also held up as a model to the graduating students and their families and friends the actions of independent counsel Archibald Cox in standing up to President Nixon. And she praised other lawyers such as Jack Goldsmith, who insisted that President Bush cease the secret wiretapping program because they believed it unlawful.

These views do not come as a surprise if one reads Kagan’s 2001 Harvard Law Review article “Presidential Administration.” She does not endorse anything remotely like the Bush-Cheney view of broad presidential power to evade laws passed by Congress. (The article was written before Sept. 11 prompted articulation of the Bush-Cheney doctrine.) Greenwald correctly acknowledges that “what Kagan was defending back then in [2001] is light years away from what Bush/Cheney ended up doing, and her defense of Clinton’s theories of administrative power was nuanced, complex and explicitly cognizant of the Constitutional issue they might raise.” He nonetheless sees her positions on presidential power as leaning in a more conservative direction that the justice she would replace, John Paul Stevens.

I just hope that through the confirmation process we can all stick to the actual issues and stay away from the tired sexist double standard still rampant in contemporary politics.

Update: Looks like the sexism has already started on twitter. Apparently some guy is getting a little riled up at the RADICAL IDEA that three women will now occupy seats on the bench.

Some excellent pro-choice news to kick start your weekend…

You can breathe a sigh of relief, because after all that worry, it turns out Scott Roeder will not be given a chance at a lesser charge in the murder of Dr. George Tiller. After the defense rested its case Thursday, the judge ruled that the jury cannot consider a voluntary manslaughter charge, which Kansas law defines as “an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force” and carries a slim four-to-six-year sentence.

The other revelations to surface today from Roeder’s testimony are rather disturbing, if not at all surprising: The 51-year-old admitted to shooting and killing Tiller in his Wichita, Kan., church and said that he doesn’t regret it because he believes “abortion is murder” (although later, while talking about abortion in the case of rape, he contradicted himself by observing that “two wrongs don’t make a right”). Roeder also admitted to considering other ways to attack Tiller — including cutting off his hands with a sword, hitting him with a car or shooting him with a rifle — before settling on his .22-caliber handgun.

Closing arguments will begin Friday morning, but for now you can rest assured that this trial will not set the deadly precedent that gunning down law-abiding healthcare workers is manslaughter and not murder.

via Broadsheet

I had the great opportunity to represent Planned Parenthood New York City at the Women’s Health Matters Day of Action in Albany on Monday. The day of action was sponsored by Family Planning Advocates of New York and took place on the first day of session.

One of the highlights of my day was getting to see Governor Paterson address the group of pro-choice activists. Having myself come from an area with a conservative political climate, it was affirming and gratifying to hear a public servant so unabashedly proclaim his pro-choice convictions. One thing I am certain of as New York approaches elections is that Gov. Paterson is a true friend to this movement.

My favorite thing that the Governor said was that in his marriage, his wife Michelle and him have always made family planning decisions together. Therefore, he said, he sees reproductive rights as a men’s and women’s rights issue. What a brave leader.

There are two primary initiatives that Family Planning Advocates are appealing to state representatives for. The first is support for the Reproductive Health Act, which guarantees a woman’s ability to make her own reproductive health care decisions. The second is continued funding for family planning centers such as Planned Parenthood (currently in severe danger of facing further cuts).

To help lobbyists, especially new, make the most out of their meetings, Family Planning Advocates asked activists to keep three especially important points in mind:
1) For every $1 spent on family planning services in New York, $4 in Medicaid costs are saved–in the same budget year.

2) For every Medicaid dollar New York spends on family planning, the federal government reimburses the state 90 cents. This 90/10 saves the state money, in the same budget year.

3) More than 6 in 10 patients receiving care at a women’s health center consider it their primary source of health care.

Prior to the trip our wonderful PPNYC grassroots organizers obtained our addresses and scheduled meetings with as many of our representative’s offices as possible. I was pleased to be scheduled for a meeting with State Senator Martin Dilan, who represents my district, the 17th District of New York. While we met with one of his staffers rather than the Senator himself, I felt that we were given time, respect, and consideration. The staffer sat down with a pad of paper and pen and listened to our “team leader” explain our purpose for being there. Our team leader, who had extensive experience with lobbying, discussed our key points and expressed the need for Sen. Dilan’s continued support.

While Sen. Dilan is a sponsor on the Reproductive Health Act,  one role of a lobbyist is to to ask your representatives to be more vocal or visible on issues and bills so as to ensure success.

After our team leader explained our position I told Sen. Dilan’s staffer how important Planned Parenthood has been in my life and how I turned to Planned Parenthood eight years ago for services out of necessity. I told the staffer that such clinics provide invaluable services to communities and must stay funded.

It was a great learning experience and I wished that I had sat in on meetings all day. I suppose I know how I will spend my next day at the capital!

If you are a New York State citizen and would like to tell your representatives to support family planning funding in the 2010-2011 budget, click here.

Senate Republicans, in their relentless tirade on women’s bodily autonomy, have blocked yet another pro-choice judicial nominee by President Obama. Barack nominated the U.S. Magistrate, Edward Chen, for a federal judgeship in San Francisco. Chen happens to be a former attorney for ACLU and vehemently pro-choice. To little surprise, this caused an uproar among Senate Republicans who inevitably filibustered his nomination.

Not only is this news incredibly disappointing because it means the loss of a pro-choice candidate in the San Francisco judiciary, it also means the loss of the first Asian-American judge in the Northern District of California. In addition, he seems to be pretty damn tuned in on racial disparities in the U.S. (something a judge should be conscious of). Bob Egelko, a chronicle staff writer at the San Francisco Gate, reports,

Chen, 56, named a magistrate by Bay Area federal judges in 2001, was nominated by Obama to the lifetime judicial post in August. He would become the first Asian American judge in the Northern District of California, which covers the coastal area from Monterey County to the Oregon border.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved him by a party-line 12-7 vote in October. Republican opponents cited cases he handled as an ACLU attorney in San Francisco from 1995 to 2001, including an unsuccessful challenge to Proposition 209, the 1996 California initiative that banned government affirmative action programs based on race or gender.

Opponents also cited some of his public statements, including a 2005 speech in which he questioned whether the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina would have been quicker if most of the victims had been white and middle class rather than poor and black.

The good news: this shit aint over — and there is hope for Chen’s renomination. Egelko continues,

The full Senate has not voted on Chen’s confirmation. Last Thursday, the Senate returned six nominations for judicial and administration positions, including Chen’s, to Obama for reconsideration, while leaving other pending nominees to await floor votes when Congress comes back from recess next month.

The Senate action – announced by Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., after discussion with his Republican counterpart – does not amount to a rejection of the nominees but signals that they face at least some opposition. Obama must now decide whether to renominate them. Each would need another committee vote before returning to the Senate floor.

The most prominent of the six is Dawn Johnsen, nominated 11 months ago to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which advises the department and the president on legal policy questions. Republican opponents and some anti-abortion Democrats have objected to her record as former legal director of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

White House representatives were unavailable for comment Monday on Chen. But Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who recommended Chen to Obama, said he has a “pristine record” as a magistrate and deserves confirmation.

“My hope is that the president will renominate Ed Chen and we will be able to move his candidacy,” Feinstein said.

Arizona used to provide domestic partner benefits for state employees and their partners. While Janet Napolitano was the governor, Arizonans had a strong advocate for equal rights. Things have unfortunately taken a turn for the worse. Last fall Arizona voters voted in favor of Proposition 102, which made same-sex marriage illegal in the state of Arizona (even though it already was). However, the state legislature took it a step further this summer by voting to strip domestic partnership benefits from state employees in an effort to balance the state’s budget. If Janet Napolitano were still the governor, she likely would have vetoed the measure. But Arizona’s current governor, Jan Brewer, is staunchly anti-choice and anti-equality. Consequently, state employees and their families lost equal benefits as of November 24th.

Some couples are fighting back. Lambda Legal is representing several couples in a lawsuit against the state, arguing that the removal of equal benefits from state employees violates the state’s constitution. Tracy and Diana are one of those couples. They met in 1999 and were married in 2000. Tracy is an officer with the Arizona Department of Public Safety, and is currently assigned to the Highway Patrol Division in Quartzsite, AZ. She has been with the department for 12 years. Diana is a court clerk with a local court.

Tracy explains that she first became aware of the new law when,

I went to the doctors office with Diana on the 1st of October and realized We didn’t have our insurance cards. I called my benefits section with DPS and they told me Diana was going to lose her benefits on November 24th and that may have been the reason we hadn’t receive them. I was absolutely furious! When we got home, I got on the computer and started writing. I wrote to two representatives and to Gov. Jan Brewer and related my dissatisfaction. Obviously writing to them didn’t change anything.

Tracy explains why she decided to file a lawsuit:

I remembered seeing a piece of mail on our desk from Lambda Legal for contributions. I decided to go to their website and see if they could help. They had information about HB2013 and how it changed the definition of dependent, eliminating the possibility for gay and lesbian employees to insure their significant others and children. I contacted them through their website. Tara Borelli contacted us the next day and the rest is history.

Tracy believes that “this case has everything to do with equal pay for equal work. This specifically targets the gay and lesbian employees.” She says that she hopes that the lawsuit will result in “benefits for my partner and beyond that if we were to win in Federal Court, it would set precedence and open the door for others.”

Best of luck to all of the couples involved in the lawsuit against the state of Arizona. This case is clearly about equal benefits for equal work. We’ll keep you in the loop as the story evolves.

Lambda Legal filed a lawsuit earlier this week against the state of Arizona in response to the state’s decision to eliminate domestic partner benefits for state employees. According to the press release issued by Lambda Legal:

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 . . .

“This is an issue of equal pay for equal work,” said Tara Borelli, staff attorney for Lambda Legal. “By stripping away these vital benefits from loyal state employees, the state isn’t just paying them less for the same work than their heterosexual colleagues — it’s pulling away a vital lifeline that all workers need. This is simply cruel and saves the state next to nothing.”

I was really surprised to see a favorable editorial in the the state’s largest newspaper, the Arizona Republic, which typically leans pretty conservative. The editorial cited several examples of state employees who are being discriminated against under the new guidelines and concluded by saying:

The most frequently cited reason for offering domestic-partner benefits in state government is to keep up with the private sector in order help Arizona retain its best employees.

That’s the practical reason, anyway. The better reason. The simple, obvious reason that somehow eludes our politicians is: Because it’s right.

I couldn’t agree more. People who work hard are entitled to equal benefits. Period. This would all be a moot point, of course, if we had universal health care in this country. But that’s another issue entirely.

We’ve been ranting for a few weeks now about the latest abortion restrictions that passed in Oklahoma. The audacious nature of the bill and it’s impending court challenges should leave pro-choice advocates wondering if the law could end up in front of the US Supreme Court. According to UPI, it’s a fairly probably scenario.

There is no abortion case now on the Supreme Court’s docket, but one is coming up fast on the outside from the country’s heartland, and the justices may find themselves having to deal with it before recessing for the summer in late June.

Two Oklahoma laws were scheduled to go into effect Sunday. One would have required women seeking an abortion to fill out a 10-page questionnaire about their personal history and the reasons they were seeking an abortion, Rightjuris.com reports. Results would be posted on the Web.

The other would require women seeking an abortion to listen to a doctor as he or she described the fetus during an ultrasound.

Both are being challenged in the state courts. Last Monday, a state judge temporarily blocked the questionnaire provision on technical grounds. The law addresses unrelated issues in one bill, the judge said, in violation of the state Constitution.

The current make up of the Supreme Court makes me shudder as I ponder about the likelihood of them deciding the issue of abortion. We’ve got Scalia, Roberts, Thomas, and Alito on the anti-choice side of the debate. On the pro-choice, there’s Breyer, Ginsberg, and Stevens. Kennedy bats for both teams, depending on which way the wind blows, and Justice Sotomayor is an unknown at best. I’m sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but the math just doesn’t work out in our favor, ya’ll.

What do you think? If an abortion-related case ends up before the Supreme Court this session, will the odds play out in favor of choice? Or will the Court keep moving down the path towards overturning Roe?

For an oldie but goody that summarizes SCOTUS cases involving abortion, check out this story by NPR.