Author: Feminist Majority Foundation Blog

The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case, Arizona v. United States, concerning whether Arizona can impose its own stringent immigration law, given that immigration enforcement is typically under the purview of the federal government.Arizona’s SB 1070 mandates that police investigate and detain anyone believed to be undocumented and make arrests without warrants if they believe that the person has committed a crime that would make them deportable. After Arizona passed the law last year, the Obama Administration filed a lawsuit to block four provisions of the law.

In October, US District Court Judge Susan Bolton dismissed Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s (R) lawsuit against the federal government charging it with inadequate enforcement of immigration laws. Judge Bolton indicated that the state cannot sue the federal government over immigration enforcement because immigration law is the jurisdiction of Congress, not the courts. She stated, “It is well-settled that federal response to insurrection and rebellion in the states is appropriately determined by the political branches.”

In July, Judge Bolton ruled against multiple sections of the Arizona law, including a requirement that police check the immigration status of criminal suspects that they had stopped while enforcing other laws and a provision that would make it a crime not to carry immigration papers. She also ruled against a section that would make it a crime for undocumented workers to seek a job.

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from the case likely because she was working as Solicitor General in 2010 at the time the US decided to sue the state of Arizona.

A report published by Human Rights Watch, entitled “‘We’ll Show You You’re a Women’: Violence and Discrimination Against Black Lesbians and Transgender Men,” revealed a high rate of discrimination against black lesbians and transgender men in South Africa. The report includes data from over 120 interviews performed in six provinces of South Africa. Many of those interviewed indicated that they were reluctant to report cases of sexual or physical violence to the police for fear of harm or harassment.

Dipika Nath, a researcher on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights at Human Rights Watch, stated, “Legal rights are important and can be empowering, but they are meaningless in the face of the abuse, intimidation, and violence that people with unconventional gender and sexual expression face on a daily basis. The government’s job does not end with passing rights-protecting legislation but also lies in ensuring that the laws translate into substantive rights for everyone, including the most marginalized groups and individuals.”

The report recommended that the South African police document incidents of homophobic and transphobic violence; that the national prosecuting authority “ensure that all cases of sexual and physical violence against women and transgender people come to trial in a timely manner;” and that the Department of Education “establish monitoring systems to ensure effective implementation of non-discrimination policies, such as a toll free help line for students to report discrimination and verbal, physical, and sexual abuse by teachers and other school authorities.”

Homosexuality is illegal in most African countries with the exception of South Africa, which recognizes gay marriage, but even there, anti-gay practices such as “corrective rapes” of lesbians, are commonplace.

Beyond Birth Control: The Overlooked Benefits of Oral Contraceptive Pills, a study conducted by Rachel Jones of the Guttmacher Institute, revealed that 14 percent of birth control pill users in the United States, or approximately 1.5 million women, take the pill exclusively for purposes other than preventing pregnancy. Moreover, 58 percent of birth control pill users take the pill, “at least in part,” for purposes other than contraception.

Rachel Jones, the study’s author, stated, “It is well established that oral contraceptives are essential health care because they prevent unintended pregnancies. This study shows that there are other important health reasons why oral contraceptives should be readily available to the millions of women who rely on them each year.”

The study found that thirty-one percent of women on the pill used it to ease menstrual pain, 28 percent for menstrual regulation, and 14 percent for reducing acne. According to the study, “762,000 women who have never had sex use the pill, and they do so almost exclusively (99%) for noncontraceptive reasons.”

Senate leadership indicated yesterday that they will not permit a vote on an amendment to the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act introduced by Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), which would remove the military’s ban on health coverage for abortions in instances of rape or incest.

Senator Shaheen stated, “This policy is fundamentally unfair to the more than 200,000 women serving in our military. They are fighting to protect our rights, and they should have the same rights to reproductive health care as our civilian employees.”

Currently, Department of Defense policy does not permit military health insurance to cover abortions, even in cases of rape. It also prohibits military women from using their private money to obtain abortion services in US military facilities. According to a 2003 study by the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at least one-third of all women veterans have experienced rape or sexual assault during their service, primarily from US service personnel, and thirty percent of military women experience domestic violence. Moreover, rape occurs in the military nearly twice as often as in the civilian world.

Ohio Senate President Tom Niehaus (R) announced that the Senate Republicans plan to advance a “heartbeat bill” that has already passed the House. If passed by the Senate and signed by the Governor, the law would ban abortions after the fetal heartbeat is detected. This could occur as early as 6 weeks following conception before many women are even aware they are pregnant. The bill, which passed the Ohio House in June by a vote of 54-44 has no exceptions for rape or incest.

Currently Republicans hold the majority in the Ohio Senate. If passed, the law would directly challenge the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision, which allows women to obtain abortion services until fetal viability at 22-24 weeks and would be one of the most restrictive laws on abortion in the country.

On Monday, U.S. District Judge James Fox issued an injunction temporarily blocking North Carolina from issuing anti-abortion license plates, as the new state law that allows for the production of the plates is being challenged. The American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina (ACLU-NCLF) filed a lawsuit in September, arguing that the production of the plates is “unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination” and in direct violation of the First Amendment.

According to the ACLU, the North Carolina General Assembly passed a bill approving production of “Choose Life” license plates but would not pass any of the six proposed amendments to create a plate supporting abortion rights, such as the “Trust Women. Respect Choice” or the “Respect Choice” plates.

Katherine Lewis Parker, Legal Director of the ACLU-NCLF, stated , “This case is ultimately about free speech and equal treatment for all North Carolinians, regardless of their point of view on abortion. The state should not be allowed to use its authority to promote one side of a debate while denying the same opportunity to the other side.”

Morocco’s parliamentary election, to be held on November 25, will determine if new provisions, which would greatly benefit women, will be adopted in the nation’s constitution.The provisions promote women’s economic, social, and cultural rights, according to Women’s eNews. Zahra Chagaf, a Moroccan politician, stated, “Thanks to the new constitution, all of women’s rights are based on the principles of equality. Before it was just equality between husband and wife, but now it is principled at all levels of society. We will work until the constitution is completely respected.”

The constitutional reform also includes measures to address domestic violence. Morocco’s High commission for Planning found in its 2011 national study that approximately 63 percent of women between the ages of 18 and 64 had experienced violence in the previous year, and for 55 percent of those women, the violence was committed by their husbands.

Fatima Sadiqi, a lecturer at the University of Fes in Morocco and Harvard University, remarked, “People are tired of promises. They want to see things happening on the ground. In order to apply them you need the infrastructure, schools in rural areas. That’s not easy. There should be a serious thought about these issues, and this is the moment. Elections are close.”

On Thursday, California’s Supreme Court ruled that opponents of gay marriage are legally entitled to defend Proposition 8 in court, stating that Proposition 8 proponents have the legal authority to defend the measure. In September, the California Supreme Court heard arguments concerning whether ProtectMarriage, supporters of Proposition 8, banning same-sex marriage in California, have standing to represent the state by defending the law in the pending case in the US Ninth Circuit Federal Appeals Court.

ProtectMarriage requested the standing to challenge Federal District Judge Vaughn’s 2010 ruling that Proposition 8 violates the federal constitutional rights of lesbians and gays because neither Governor Jerry Brown (D) nor Attorney General Kamala Harris will defend the law in the appeal. Judge Walker’s decision overturned a 6 to 1 ruling by the California Supreme Court which upheld the measure in May 2009. In 2008, Proposition 8 was passed by voters in an electoral referendum.

Gay rights activists were disappointed with the ruling, expressing fear about the larger implications of the court’s decision. “While not unexpected, this ruling means that it may be years before loving gay and lesbian couples will again be able to marry in California,” said Tom Watson, Board Chair for Love Honor Cherish, a gay rights group dedicated specifically to the repeal of Proposition 8.

The case is expected to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. More than 40 other U.S. states currently have measures similar to Proposition 8 that seek to outlaw same-sex marriage.

Nishimoto Trading Company, an Asian food importer based in Southern California, has agreed to pay $400,000 to 71 women in conciliation settlement with the US Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), which found the company had engaged in sex discrimination. OFCCP found that Tyson Fresh Meats violated Executive Order 11246 “by failing to meet its obligations as a federal contractor to ensure that qualified job applicants receive equal consideration for employment without regard to their sex, race, color, religion, or national origin.”

Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis stated, “Those who do business with our government are expected to follow our laws. I am pleased the Department of Labor was able to work out a fair settlement with Nishimoto that will guarantee women the right to compete fairly for good jobs.”

The settlement money will cover back wages and interest for the employees, who were denied positions as sales associates at Nishimoto’s Santa Fe Springs, California facility. Nishimoto will also offer jobs to 14 women who were previously denied jobs.

Yesterday Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA) introduced legislation to strengthen protections for victims of sexual assault in the military. The bill would transfer “the reporting, oversight, investigation, and victim care of sexual assaults out of the hands of the normal chain of command and place jurisdiction in the hands of an autonomous Sexual Assault Oversight and Response Office.” The Office would be staffed by both civilian and military experts. Moreover, the bill calls for the creation of a sexual assault database, maintained by the Department of Defense (DoD) for the purpose of sharing information with the Department of Justice (DoJ) sex offender database, which contains the names of civilians.

Congresswoman Speier held a press conference today regarding the legislation. She stated, “Despite 25 years of Pentagon studies, task force recommendations and congressional hearings, sexual assaults and rape in the military continue unabated…The failure to respond in a judicial manner to sexual violence, is more than an injustice, it is, according to some of our highest ranked military leaders, a threat to our military readiness. Members of military unites live on, survive on the code of watching out for each other. When sexual assaults and rapes are hushed or ignored, trust in a unit is compromised with its collective readiness to engage the enemy.”

The Pentagon’s “Fiscal Year 2010 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military” indicated that approximately 3,000 women experienced sexual assault in fiscal year 2008, which is a 9 percent increase from the previous year. For women in the military in Iraq and Afghanistan, the rate of sexual assaults by US military personnel increased by 25 percent.

According to a 2003 study by the Veterans Affairs Medical Center, at least one-third of all women veterans have experienced rape or sexual assault during their service primarily from US service personnel, and thirty percent of military women experience domestic violence. Moreover, rape occurs in the military nearly twice as often as in the civilian world. Members of the US House of Representatives, including Jackie Speier (D-CA), Susan Davis (D-CA), Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), Louise Slaughter (D-NY), and former Congresswoman Jane Harman (D-CA) have pressed the military to address sexualized violence.

Leaders of the District of Columbia rejected a legislative deal with Congress this morning that would have given DC autonomy over the city budget in exchange for a permanent measure that would ban the District from using its own funds for abortion services. The District is currently restricted by a congressionally imposed ban on DC funding of abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman or girl.

Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC Mayor Vince Gray, and City Council Chair Kwame Brown released a joint statement rejecting the proposal. In part, they said, “Particularly considering the many good provisions in Chairman Issa’s bill, we regret that we cannot accept it, and would have to strongly oppose it if it were introduced. We recognize that the abortion provision is what Chairman Issa believed would be necessary to get the bill passed in the House. But the views of others should not prevail over the views of our own residents. Our opposition to the provision to permanently prohibit the District from spending its local funds on abortion services for low-income women is as strong as the views of those outside our city who support it… We hope the Issa proposal represents a continuation of a conversation he started at the hearing in May, not an end, and will serve as a model for how Congress can work collaboratively with the city.”

Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), Chair of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, released a draft of the bill earlier this week. In addition to granting budgetary autonomy, the bill would have also allowed the District to shift its fiscal year and to avoid District government shut downs caused by funding fights on the federal level. On Monday, Issa spokesperson Frederick Hill said that the bill’s “design reflects a desire to work with District leaders on legislation that can achieve passage in both the House and Senate,” according to the Washington Post.