A lawyer friend of mine requested that I blog on Young v. UPS, set for argument before the Supreme Court tomorrow. Young involves a suit by a UPS employee who was denied accommodations during the course of her pregnancy. I told her I didn't know if I had much to say on the case, and besides -- it's the Supreme Court hearing a case about a pregnant, working-class woman. I'm sure it will be fine.
Nonetheless, like a fading radio station I'm so excited to actually get a request that I'm going to play it out.
Young's suit relies on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) which, as the name implies, bars discrimination "on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." If you're thinking that it's nice that the United States has such a law -- don't: the reason we have a specific law barring pregnancy discrimination is because the Supreme Court was adamantly insistent that pregnancy discrimination obviously was not a form of sex discrimination. That my students' jaws invariably hit the floor when I tell them that is an excellent illustration of why limiting "discrimination" to behaviors which favor all of group X at the expense of all of group Y doesn't really capture our full intuitions regarding the meaning of the term.
In any event, the PDA superseded these opinions and instead defined "because of sex" to include pregnancy and related conditions. The PDA does not specifically provide for accommodation of pregnant employees. What it does do is require equal treatment of pregnant employees and others "similar in their ability or inability to work." Young's argument is that UPS does accommodate some employees who are unable to work their normal job functions, through the Collective Bargaining Agreement and in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. By refusing to accommodate her as well, UPS is treating her pregnancy differently from other statuses which affect one's "ability or inability to work." And that, in turn, violates the PDA.
My friend is particularly concerned about a negative ruling in Young because of its perverse effects on working-class women (namely, the ease at which it allows subtraction of the "working" part). What better way to ensure more children are born into perilous economic circumstances than by knocking one of their parents off the job rolls? In terms of concrete effect on vulnerable women, she told me, this might be a bigger deal than Hobby Lobby.
The main cause for worry, though, is that this is a pregnancy case. And as noted above, the Supreme Court has been remarkably hostile to recognizing the interests of pregnant women. The initial ruling that "pregnancy discrimination" was not "sex discrimination", after all, was in contravention to every appellate court in the country which had considered the question. One reason Young may not be getting the attention Hobby Lobby did is precisely because the former is so explicitly blue-collar -- attorneys and accountants don't typically need to be relieved from hard physical labor during their pregnancies, and to the extent they do need certain accommodations their employers are far more likely to grant them without a fuss. But another possible reason is that the legal community perhaps never internalized the idea that it could expect the courts to provide for robust pregnancy protections. Since we never really believed that we "had" them, there's less of a sense that we're "losing" them. That's in contrast to Hobby Lobby, where it felt like a great progressive victory was taken away from us. It's simple loss-aversion.
Of course, my cynicism may be unwarranted here. It's not every day, after all, that you get the Concerned Women for America lining up on the same side as the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Judicial skepticism aside, protecting pregnant women tends to unite a pretty wide range of political constituencies -- including historic adversaries on gender issues. It presents the social left plus the social right standing shoulder to shoulder against big businesses. Again, what could possibly go wrong?
Showing posts with label pregnancy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label pregnancy. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 02, 2014
Saturday, April 19, 2014
Spawn A
Chelsea Clinton is one of the highest-profile members of an interfaith marriage. Now that she's pregnant, let's see how various interested parties are reacting. Some are very positive:
Interfaithfamily.com quickly seized the pregnancy as an “opportunity to share with ALL expecting parents” its various resources for new interfaith parents, including a booklet called “To Circumcise or Not: That is the Question.”Others are less thrilled:
Meanwhile, at the other end of the spectrum, The Jewish Press chose this headline: “Chelsea Clinton Pregnant With Non-Jewish Child.” Calling the former first daughter “America’s poster child for intermarriage,” the Brooklyn-based Orthodox newspaper noted that in marrying four years ago the pair was “effectively pruning away that 3,300 year old Jewish branch of the Mezinsky family.” (And apparently also pruning away the “v” from the groom’s name.)And then there are the neo-Nazis:
Not surprisingly, Stormfront, the anti-Semitic website, does recognize the child as a Jew, as evidenced by its charming headline: “Chelsea Clinton pregnant with jew spawn.”That about covers the range, I think!
Tuesday, August 02, 2011
Cleanup Roundup
We're moving next week, and so the slow process of cleaning and organizing our apartment begins.
* * *
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) may be one of my all-time favorite Republican crazies. Here, he frets that women who have access to free birth control will never birth again. Ain't no pregnancy like an involuntary pregnancy!
Lithuanian mayor runs over luxury car parked in a bike lane with a tank. Bring him stateside.
FYI: Black family life in the antebellum south really sucked.
The other day, Jon Chait raised a specter of hope regarding the debt compromise, arguing that the "default" cuts in defense spending will cause lobbyists to work feverishly to avert them via revenue increases. Today, Matt Yglesias puts the kiboosh on it.
Eating while Black.
Frankly, I think Jennifer Rubin's Norway post scarcely makes the top ten reasons she should be axed from the WaPo. Alas, the ombudsman disagrees.
* * *
Rep. Steve King (R-IA) may be one of my all-time favorite Republican crazies. Here, he frets that women who have access to free birth control will never birth again. Ain't no pregnancy like an involuntary pregnancy!
Lithuanian mayor runs over luxury car parked in a bike lane with a tank. Bring him stateside.
FYI: Black family life in the antebellum south really sucked.
The other day, Jon Chait raised a specter of hope regarding the debt compromise, arguing that the "default" cuts in defense spending will cause lobbyists to work feverishly to avert them via revenue increases. Today, Matt Yglesias puts the kiboosh on it.
Eating while Black.
Frankly, I think Jennifer Rubin's Norway post scarcely makes the top ten reasons she should be axed from the WaPo. Alas, the ombudsman disagrees.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
One Week Out Roundup
I'm one week away from the bar exam. My strongest area is constitutional law. My weakest area is everything else.
* * *
Soccer clubs often break along broader cultural and national faultlines, and certain clubs are typically identified with various political movements. In Israel, for example, Hapoel Tel Aviv is identified with the Israeli left, and Beitar Jerusalem representing the nationalist right. Two liberal American Jews have now bought the team; hopefully, they'll help clean up its act (an interesting fact for folks not privy to how Israeli society divides -- Beitar supporters hail overwhelmingly from Israel's large Mizrachi [Arab] Jewish population).
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called Yesh Din a "terrorist organization". Board member Shlomo Gazit notes it's a label he's borne before.
That far-right Iowa "marriage" petition also calls for "robust childbearing". How exactly does one birth "robustly"?
Good post by Ta-Nehisi Coates on people feeling a connection to where they're from, even it is a place that is considered a "problem".
A Columbia professor writes a book on how to resolve (or at least ameliorate) intractable conflicts. One notes that his advice could succinctly be summarized as "the opposite of what anti-Israel BDS campaigners propose".
Hussein Ibish underestimates the proportion of the BDS movement which targets Israel as a whole (the UCU academic boycott being perhaps the most prominent case), but he's absolutely right that the Israeli anti-boycott law itself is not designed to protect Israel but protect its settlements.
Rep. Allen West (R-FL) flips out at fellow Floridian Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D). Lest we forget, West is a war criminal.
* * *
Soccer clubs often break along broader cultural and national faultlines, and certain clubs are typically identified with various political movements. In Israel, for example, Hapoel Tel Aviv is identified with the Israeli left, and Beitar Jerusalem representing the nationalist right. Two liberal American Jews have now bought the team; hopefully, they'll help clean up its act (an interesting fact for folks not privy to how Israeli society divides -- Beitar supporters hail overwhelmingly from Israel's large Mizrachi [Arab] Jewish population).
Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called Yesh Din a "terrorist organization". Board member Shlomo Gazit notes it's a label he's borne before.
That far-right Iowa "marriage" petition also calls for "robust childbearing". How exactly does one birth "robustly"?
Good post by Ta-Nehisi Coates on people feeling a connection to where they're from, even it is a place that is considered a "problem".
A Columbia professor writes a book on how to resolve (or at least ameliorate) intractable conflicts. One notes that his advice could succinctly be summarized as "the opposite of what anti-Israel BDS campaigners propose".
Hussein Ibish underestimates the proportion of the BDS movement which targets Israel as a whole (the UCU academic boycott being perhaps the most prominent case), but he's absolutely right that the Israeli anti-boycott law itself is not designed to protect Israel but protect its settlements.
Rep. Allen West (R-FL) flips out at fellow Floridian Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D). Lest we forget, West is a war criminal.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Choices, Choices
Tablet Magazine has an interesting story up about abortion politics in Israel. Historically, abortion has not been the hot-button topic in Israel that it has been in the United States, but the issue is slowly rising in prominence, as conservative groups in the country argue that abortion conflicts with both classical and post-Holocaust Jewish mandates to bring more children into the world.
The story centers around Efrat, which appears to be a cross between a Crisis Pregnancy Center and what a Crisis Pregnancy Center would be if it wasn't purely evil. Like CPCs, Efrat is quite high on manipulative imagery and purported pleas from the fetus to "let me live". Though they purport to be about "education" and present themselves as pro-"choice", they are deeply tied to movements in Israel which seek to make abortion significantly more difficult to obtain.
On the other hand, Efrat's officially stated mission is in fact deeply tied to issues of "choice": it is "founded on the belief that no Jewish woman should have to abort a child because of money troubles." That, of course is quite true (and true of any woman) -- while I absolutely believe in a woman's right to choose, a women who would rather carry her child to term but feels compelled to abort because of financial insecurity should not be presented with that choice.* And Efrat does appear to put its money where its mouth is, providing needy mothers with cribs, strollers, baby food, diapers, and a cash stipend.
Of course, there is a question how much the tail is wagging the dog here. As noted, like American CPCs (which also sometimes provide similar financial assistance to pregnant mothers), Efrat appears to mostly operate as an adjunct to a broader anti-choice movement in Israel that is not about giving women choices, but rather about channeling them into their preferred outcomes. But that notwithstanding, it is undoubtedly true that the long-term goal of the pro-choice movement should be (and, as best as I can tell, is) to create a world in which every reproductive decision a woman makes is their first-best choice.
* I think a fundamental misunderstanding of the pro-choice movement promulgated by their opponents is that pro-choice woman are totally psyched about abortion -- because, you know, invasive surgical procedures are how kids these days cap off a night of clubbing. Nobody wants to have an abortion, in the sense that it is their first best choice -- something they dream about from the time they were a little girl. They'd rather that their contraception didn't fail, or that they were in position to access contraception in the first place, or that they weren't raped, or that the fetus didn't have health problems, or that they felt financially secure enough to carry their child to term. Abortion is often a welcome relief as an important second-choice option; a fall-back because the best-case scenario didn't happen. And thus, it is wrong to assert that abortion represents some sort of "tragedy"; though it can often be precipitated by one, abortion is no more tragic than surgery is (nobody wants to be in a situation where they need an operation, but if they do need one, it is far better that surgery be available to them). But by necessity, an abortion implies that something happened that one did not want to happen.
So in the case of a woman who would like a child, but does not feel financially secure enough to have one now, the first-best solution is to shift to a world where one's financial wherewithal does not materially impede one's ability to have and effectively raise children. In a world where that is not the case, however, the right to an abortion is an important fallback.
The story centers around Efrat, which appears to be a cross between a Crisis Pregnancy Center and what a Crisis Pregnancy Center would be if it wasn't purely evil. Like CPCs, Efrat is quite high on manipulative imagery and purported pleas from the fetus to "let me live". Though they purport to be about "education" and present themselves as pro-"choice", they are deeply tied to movements in Israel which seek to make abortion significantly more difficult to obtain.
On the other hand, Efrat's officially stated mission is in fact deeply tied to issues of "choice": it is "founded on the belief that no Jewish woman should have to abort a child because of money troubles." That, of course is quite true (and true of any woman) -- while I absolutely believe in a woman's right to choose, a women who would rather carry her child to term but feels compelled to abort because of financial insecurity should not be presented with that choice.* And Efrat does appear to put its money where its mouth is, providing needy mothers with cribs, strollers, baby food, diapers, and a cash stipend.
Of course, there is a question how much the tail is wagging the dog here. As noted, like American CPCs (which also sometimes provide similar financial assistance to pregnant mothers), Efrat appears to mostly operate as an adjunct to a broader anti-choice movement in Israel that is not about giving women choices, but rather about channeling them into their preferred outcomes. But that notwithstanding, it is undoubtedly true that the long-term goal of the pro-choice movement should be (and, as best as I can tell, is) to create a world in which every reproductive decision a woman makes is their first-best choice.
* I think a fundamental misunderstanding of the pro-choice movement promulgated by their opponents is that pro-choice woman are totally psyched about abortion -- because, you know, invasive surgical procedures are how kids these days cap off a night of clubbing. Nobody wants to have an abortion, in the sense that it is their first best choice -- something they dream about from the time they were a little girl. They'd rather that their contraception didn't fail, or that they were in position to access contraception in the first place, or that they weren't raped, or that the fetus didn't have health problems, or that they felt financially secure enough to carry their child to term. Abortion is often a welcome relief as an important second-choice option; a fall-back because the best-case scenario didn't happen. And thus, it is wrong to assert that abortion represents some sort of "tragedy"; though it can often be precipitated by one, abortion is no more tragic than surgery is (nobody wants to be in a situation where they need an operation, but if they do need one, it is far better that surgery be available to them). But by necessity, an abortion implies that something happened that one did not want to happen.
So in the case of a woman who would like a child, but does not feel financially secure enough to have one now, the first-best solution is to shift to a world where one's financial wherewithal does not materially impede one's ability to have and effectively raise children. In a world where that is not the case, however, the right to an abortion is an important fallback.
Friday, May 13, 2011
What'd I Miss Roundup
Part of the frustration with yesterday's blogger outage was that I was actually planning on posting real stuff (honestly!). Now, I just have to clear the browser again.
* * *
CUFI and J Street: More in common than you might think?
These ads are humiliating as a Democrat and as a Jew. Demon sheep, anyone?
I admit a perverse curiosity in knowing just what type of porn Osama was into.
I'm really stunned that any legislator could vote to shackle female inmates while they are giving birth. It's one of those policies I know exist, but that I always imagined was just bureaucracy gone wild.
Prominent racist saxophonist Gilad Atzmon attempted to hold a fundraiser for a Gaza flotilla, but it appeared to have flopped dramatically.
The National Review turns on Mitt Romney.
* * *
CUFI and J Street: More in common than you might think?
These ads are humiliating as a Democrat and as a Jew. Demon sheep, anyone?
I admit a perverse curiosity in knowing just what type of porn Osama was into.
I'm really stunned that any legislator could vote to shackle female inmates while they are giving birth. It's one of those policies I know exist, but that I always imagined was just bureaucracy gone wild.
Prominent racist saxophonist Gilad Atzmon attempted to hold a fundraiser for a Gaza flotilla, but it appeared to have flopped dramatically.
The National Review turns on Mitt Romney.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Hard-Earned Money
Bristol Palin, who received a $262,000 salary for her efforts to combat teen pregnancy, remarked "If I can prevent even one girl from getting pregnant, I will feel a sense of accomplishment." Jon Chait retorts "One prevented pregnancy at a cost of $262,000 would not be a terribly effective investment."
I'll go further -- if becoming a teen mother qualifies you to pull in $262,000, it's preventing the pregnancy that would be the tragedy.
I'll go further -- if becoming a teen mother qualifies you to pull in $262,000, it's preventing the pregnancy that would be the tragedy.
Wednesday, February 09, 2011
"I'm Here" Roundup
Long story.
* * *
Great post by Ta-Nehisi Coates regarding his experience when his partner got pregnant.
Leon Wieseltier on the pro-Israel community's conflicted feelings regarding the fall of Egyptian autocracy and the rise of a new democratic order: "Jews should not rely on Pharaohs."
Conservative depressed to find out "judicial activism" is a two-way street. "Striking down democratically-enacted legislation" has the key advantage of being measurable. "Decisions that are wrong" is simply a way of muscling your way past the fact that "what the constitution commands" is precisely what's being disputed. (Via).
Cool story about a benefit dinner hosted by New York's Chinese immigrant community for Jews victimized by a Russian pogrom at the turn of the 20th century.
The What is it like being a woman in philosophy blog is harrowing, but worth reading.
Phoebe's got two good posts up on how "anti-Semitism" is and isn't part of our collective discourse -- I feel compelled to note that I really do think they're quite good, as I quarreled with a side-point she made in the comments I left over there.
Distaste for his presidency as a whole notwithstanding, one of the few areas George W. Bush was on the right path was in his views on immigration. He's recently expressed his concern that America is suffering a relapse into "nativism".
* * *
Great post by Ta-Nehisi Coates regarding his experience when his partner got pregnant.
Leon Wieseltier on the pro-Israel community's conflicted feelings regarding the fall of Egyptian autocracy and the rise of a new democratic order: "Jews should not rely on Pharaohs."
Conservative depressed to find out "judicial activism" is a two-way street. "Striking down democratically-enacted legislation" has the key advantage of being measurable. "Decisions that are wrong" is simply a way of muscling your way past the fact that "what the constitution commands" is precisely what's being disputed. (Via).
Cool story about a benefit dinner hosted by New York's Chinese immigrant community for Jews victimized by a Russian pogrom at the turn of the 20th century.
The What is it like being a woman in philosophy blog is harrowing, but worth reading.
Phoebe's got two good posts up on how "anti-Semitism" is and isn't part of our collective discourse -- I feel compelled to note that I really do think they're quite good, as I quarreled with a side-point she made in the comments I left over there.
Distaste for his presidency as a whole notwithstanding, one of the few areas George W. Bush was on the right path was in his views on immigration. He's recently expressed his concern that America is suffering a relapse into "nativism".
Thursday, February 12, 2009
They Just Ruin Everything
The California woman who recently gave birth to octuplets -- bringing her total number of children up to 14 -- has been attracting a lot of attention, and casting some light on the in-vitro fertilization industry. Is it safe to implant that many embryos in a woman? What are California's obligations to support the children? Are the mother's personal preferences being adequately respected by the media?
And then, there is the FRC, with its simple, tried and true, one size fits all message: it's the gays' (or in this case, lesbians') fault (the specific argument is such a breath-taking non-sequitur that I can't stand to repeat it).
Elsewhere, they expand their focus, attacking the woman for having the temerity to want children as a single mom, and attacking fertility clinics for killing babies (natch). But it's nice to know that, through it all, the FRC can find time to stick to the basics.
And then, there is the FRC, with its simple, tried and true, one size fits all message: it's the gays' (or in this case, lesbians') fault (the specific argument is such a breath-taking non-sequitur that I can't stand to repeat it).
Elsewhere, they expand their focus, attacking the woman for having the temerity to want children as a single mom, and attacking fertility clinics for killing babies (natch). But it's nice to know that, through it all, the FRC can find time to stick to the basics.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Bureau of Prisons Bans Shackling Pregnant Women
The Bureau of Prisons has barred the shackling of pregnant inmates during transportation, labor, and delivery. Recall that a recent case out of Arkansas held that such acts did not violate the 8th amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. That was a state law, and this is a federal rule, so it wouldn't have applied in the particular case (unless it changed the calculus behind the ever-shifting "cruel and unusual" standard), but it does give human dignity advocates some desperately needed legal momentum.
Friday, September 05, 2008
Civil Rights Roundup: 09/05/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
What are Gov. Sarah Palin's views on race and civil rights? Her Alaska record leaves a mostly blank slate.
California politicians are looking to challenge the LPGA's new English profeciency rule -- the only one of its kind in professional sports.
Federal officials could not agree on whether a Muslim Imam from New Jersey had terrorist ties or not, and now an immigration judge has ruled he can gain permanent residency. Supporters of Mohammad Qatanani say he is a moderate who helped build bridges between Jews, Muslims, and Christians, as well as Muslims and law enforcement officers after 9/11. Opponents say he was linked to Hamas, citing his detention by Israel (where Qatanani claimed he was physically and mentally abused).
Pro-equality advocates in Maryland are trying to keep an initiative off the Montgomery County, MD ballot that would overturn county regulations protecting transgender individuals.
Chicago students -- mostly from the South Side -- boycotted their first day of classes and instead showed up at wealthy suburban New Trier High School in protest of massive educational inequalities in the area.
Another Texas execution is on the ropes following allegations that the judge and prosecutor were having an affair.
An open letter to Sarah Palin by National Advocates for Pregnant Women argues that her anti-abortion stand also threatens the liberty of women who take their pregnancies to term.
The Agriprocessors kosher meat plant is being attacked again for slaughtering practices that seem to violate both American and Kosher laws.
The same plant is also fighting desperately to prevent its workers from unionizing, despite an NLRB ruling requiring them to recognize one.
RNC police are denying they're using excessive force on protesters,
All-boys charter schools are causing controversy in Philadelphia.
The Treasury Department has to get cracking on making paper money accessible to the blind.
What are Gov. Sarah Palin's views on race and civil rights? Her Alaska record leaves a mostly blank slate.
California politicians are looking to challenge the LPGA's new English profeciency rule -- the only one of its kind in professional sports.
Federal officials could not agree on whether a Muslim Imam from New Jersey had terrorist ties or not, and now an immigration judge has ruled he can gain permanent residency. Supporters of Mohammad Qatanani say he is a moderate who helped build bridges between Jews, Muslims, and Christians, as well as Muslims and law enforcement officers after 9/11. Opponents say he was linked to Hamas, citing his detention by Israel (where Qatanani claimed he was physically and mentally abused).
Pro-equality advocates in Maryland are trying to keep an initiative off the Montgomery County, MD ballot that would overturn county regulations protecting transgender individuals.
Chicago students -- mostly from the South Side -- boycotted their first day of classes and instead showed up at wealthy suburban New Trier High School in protest of massive educational inequalities in the area.
Another Texas execution is on the ropes following allegations that the judge and prosecutor were having an affair.
An open letter to Sarah Palin by National Advocates for Pregnant Women argues that her anti-abortion stand also threatens the liberty of women who take their pregnancies to term.
The Agriprocessors kosher meat plant is being attacked again for slaughtering practices that seem to violate both American and Kosher laws.
The same plant is also fighting desperately to prevent its workers from unionizing, despite an NLRB ruling requiring them to recognize one.
RNC police are denying they're using excessive force on protesters,
All-boys charter schools are causing controversy in Philadelphia.
The Treasury Department has to get cracking on making paper money accessible to the blind.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Who is Against Bristol Palin?
CNN reports that evangelicals are rallying around Bristol Palin. And I'm glad to hear it. I'm glad that nobody is portraying her as a slut or whore. I'm glad that the evangelical community is reacting to the news with compassion given that they believe her to have engaged in what they see as immoral behavior, and I hope that they would demonstrate that compassion to all other women who have engaged in similar behavior -- both on a micro-level (in personal relations) and a macro-level (in terms of public policy).
And I, along with everybody else who identifies as pro-choice, respect her choice to keep her child. That is, of course, implicit in the definition of "choice". Assuming (as seems reasonable) that this was not a planned pregnancy, I wish that she had access to contraception and birth control so that she did not become pregnant before she was ready (I feel like it is a fair assumption that she received a pretty strong pro-abstinence message from her family). And if she did use contraception and it failed, then I hope that she had a full array of options presented to her, and that she made a free and independent decision about her future. And yes, I hope that she made it in consultation with her parents, not because I don't respect her autonomy, but because I hope that all teenagers feel safe and comfortable in discussing such weighty matters with their parents. It is a blessing that Bristol did appear to feel secure in talking to her parents about this. Many teens do not have that in their lives.
So when evangelical leader Richard Land says this:
I am left perplexed. Who is "criticizing" Bristol Palin? At absolute worst, it is a data point for the proposition that abstinence-only is an insufficient reproductive health message for teens. But even that argument hasn't really cropped up. At Feministing, they note that insofar as Bristol had a "choice" on whether to keep her child (a point the McCain/Palin campaign emphasized to the press), that's a choice McCain and Palin want to take away. But again, that's not a criticism of Bristol -- that's a request that the right she had over her own body be extended to cover all women.
And certainly, nobody is saying that Bristol is a bad person. Those of us on the left don't even think that she did anything wrong, in a moral sense. We may suspect that she had insufficient access to reproductive health products or information, or that she may have felt uncomfortable using them. But that's hardly her fault.
It is all very simple. We on the left (like, I assume, our friends on the right) want every pregnancy to be a planned pregnancy. Assuming this pregnancy was not planned, then that is unfortunate, and we would like to see young women like Bristol have all the resources they need to prevent it from happening. But once the unplanned pregnancy occurs, we also want Bristol to be in a position where she can choose, in consultation with those close to her, what outcome she feels is right. Insofar as Bristol engaged in that process, and elected to keep her baby, that is a success story. And don't let anybody tell you the left feels otherwise.
And I, along with everybody else who identifies as pro-choice, respect her choice to keep her child. That is, of course, implicit in the definition of "choice". Assuming (as seems reasonable) that this was not a planned pregnancy, I wish that she had access to contraception and birth control so that she did not become pregnant before she was ready (I feel like it is a fair assumption that she received a pretty strong pro-abstinence message from her family). And if she did use contraception and it failed, then I hope that she had a full array of options presented to her, and that she made a free and independent decision about her future. And yes, I hope that she made it in consultation with her parents, not because I don't respect her autonomy, but because I hope that all teenagers feel safe and comfortable in discussing such weighty matters with their parents. It is a blessing that Bristol did appear to feel secure in talking to her parents about this. Many teens do not have that in their lives.
So when evangelical leader Richard Land says this:
"This is the pro-life choice. The fact that people will criticize her for this shows the astounding extent to which the secular critics of the pro-life movement just don't get it," Land said in a statement.
I am left perplexed. Who is "criticizing" Bristol Palin? At absolute worst, it is a data point for the proposition that abstinence-only is an insufficient reproductive health message for teens. But even that argument hasn't really cropped up. At Feministing, they note that insofar as Bristol had a "choice" on whether to keep her child (a point the McCain/Palin campaign emphasized to the press), that's a choice McCain and Palin want to take away. But again, that's not a criticism of Bristol -- that's a request that the right she had over her own body be extended to cover all women.
And certainly, nobody is saying that Bristol is a bad person. Those of us on the left don't even think that she did anything wrong, in a moral sense. We may suspect that she had insufficient access to reproductive health products or information, or that she may have felt uncomfortable using them. But that's hardly her fault.
It is all very simple. We on the left (like, I assume, our friends on the right) want every pregnancy to be a planned pregnancy. Assuming this pregnancy was not planned, then that is unfortunate, and we would like to see young women like Bristol have all the resources they need to prevent it from happening. But once the unplanned pregnancy occurs, we also want Bristol to be in a position where she can choose, in consultation with those close to her, what outcome she feels is right. Insofar as Bristol engaged in that process, and elected to keep her baby, that is a success story. And don't let anybody tell you the left feels otherwise.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Civil Rights Roundup: 08/26/08
Your daily dose of civil rights and related news
Ms. Magazine gives its quick take on the appointment of Hans von Spakovsky to a staff position on the US civil rights commission.
Inside Higher Ed has the scoop on the higher education elements of the Democratic Platform, including (among other things) a restatement of their support for affirmative action.
.... And here's McCain's plan, courtesy of the Chronicle on Higher Education, which notes McCain's apparent reversal on that issue from the days in which he called attempted bans "divisive."
A restaurant was forced to pay damages to a woman they fired because she was pregnant.
While the US Senate dawdles, California may take fixing Ledbetter into its own hands.
Oddly, Colorado Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to support a measure banning affirmative action, leading observers to wonder if both sides are misunderstanding what the initiative would do.
Two DNC protesters were arrested for not giving their names to the police upon request. The case (and any civil rights complaint) will hinge on whether the cops had "reasonable suspicion" that the pair was committing or was about to commit a crime.
A column in the Detroit Free Press urges Michigan to expand coverage in its bias crimes law.
Two NYPD cops are being charged with civil rights violation after assaulting a motorist in an apparent road rage incident while off duty.
Shocking news: Immigration judges subjected to political vetting by the Bush administration are disproportionately likely to reject asylum claims.
Jesse Jackson in the Chicago Sun-Times: "Obama can inspire but we must lead."
Jacob Weisberg says that only racism can explain an Obama loss. A Wall St. Journal column ridicules that notion. I'm not going to buy into Weisberg's thesis wholesale, but I think legitimate questions will be raised if either Obama runs way behind the generic Democratic wave in a year with such good fundamentals for his party, or if we see a major showing of the Wilder effect.
Experts say that the Canadian police must diversify if they want to remain effective in their ever-more multicultural society.
Connecticut courts have recognized that transgender discrimination is in violation of law prohibiting sex stereotyping.
Ms. Magazine gives its quick take on the appointment of Hans von Spakovsky to a staff position on the US civil rights commission.
Inside Higher Ed has the scoop on the higher education elements of the Democratic Platform, including (among other things) a restatement of their support for affirmative action.
.... And here's McCain's plan, courtesy of the Chronicle on Higher Education, which notes McCain's apparent reversal on that issue from the days in which he called attempted bans "divisive."
A restaurant was forced to pay damages to a woman they fired because she was pregnant.
While the US Senate dawdles, California may take fixing Ledbetter into its own hands.
Oddly, Colorado Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to support a measure banning affirmative action, leading observers to wonder if both sides are misunderstanding what the initiative would do.
Two DNC protesters were arrested for not giving their names to the police upon request. The case (and any civil rights complaint) will hinge on whether the cops had "reasonable suspicion" that the pair was committing or was about to commit a crime.
A column in the Detroit Free Press urges Michigan to expand coverage in its bias crimes law.
Two NYPD cops are being charged with civil rights violation after assaulting a motorist in an apparent road rage incident while off duty.
Shocking news: Immigration judges subjected to political vetting by the Bush administration are disproportionately likely to reject asylum claims.
Jesse Jackson in the Chicago Sun-Times: "Obama can inspire but we must lead."
Jacob Weisberg says that only racism can explain an Obama loss. A Wall St. Journal column ridicules that notion. I'm not going to buy into Weisberg's thesis wholesale, but I think legitimate questions will be raised if either Obama runs way behind the generic Democratic wave in a year with such good fundamentals for his party, or if we see a major showing of the Wilder effect.
Experts say that the Canadian police must diversify if they want to remain effective in their ever-more multicultural society.
Connecticut courts have recognized that transgender discrimination is in violation of law prohibiting sex stereotyping.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Flight Risk
Feminist Law Profs points out an Arkansas case just handed down by the 8th Circuit: Nelson v. Correctional Medical Services, 2008 WL 2777423 (8th Cir. 2008). Reversing the district court, the court held that shackling a pregnant woman while she's in labor does not constitute an 8th amendment violation. The practice has been criticized by several academic commentators as well as Amnesty International.
The court relied heavily on Haslar v. Megerman, 104 F.3d 178 (8th Cir. 1997), a previous case dealing with shackling an inmate during medical treatment (albeit not with a pregnant woman). In that case, the 8th circuit upheld the shackling of a "virtually comatose" inmate who later suffered permanent leg damage as a result of the shackles being kept too tight as his leg swelled up. The court justified this result by arguing that
This case does seem inline with that precedent, but only because both cases use an abstract justification (the flight risk of an inmate -- admittedly reasonable most of the time) in situations where it is woefully inadequate (neither pregnant women in labor nor people in comas represent serious escape risks). Somehow, justifying one bad decision by reference to its similarity to another bad decision is not a major consolation to me.
And, seriously, if there ever was a case that met the nebulous "shock the conscience" standard for a due process violation, this would seem to be it (although I admittedly don't know how the due process clause applies to prison inmates).
The court relied heavily on Haslar v. Megerman, 104 F.3d 178 (8th Cir. 1997), a previous case dealing with shackling an inmate during medical treatment (albeit not with a pregnant woman). In that case, the 8th circuit upheld the shackling of a "virtually comatose" inmate who later suffered permanent leg damage as a result of the shackles being kept too tight as his leg swelled up. The court justified this result by arguing that
[the shackling policy] serves the legitimate penological goal of preventing inmates . . . from escaping [] less secure confines, and is not excessive given that goal. A single armed guard often cannot prevent a determined, unrestrained, and sometimes aggressive inmate from escaping without resort to force. It is eminently reasonable to prevent escape attempts at the outset by restraining hospitalized inmates to their beds . . . .
This case does seem inline with that precedent, but only because both cases use an abstract justification (the flight risk of an inmate -- admittedly reasonable most of the time) in situations where it is woefully inadequate (neither pregnant women in labor nor people in comas represent serious escape risks). Somehow, justifying one bad decision by reference to its similarity to another bad decision is not a major consolation to me.
And, seriously, if there ever was a case that met the nebulous "shock the conscience" standard for a due process violation, this would seem to be it (although I admittedly don't know how the due process clause applies to prison inmates).
Friday, July 11, 2008
Keep Cool
One of Feministing's new community bloggers posted a story about how she and her friend attempted to buy a pregnancy test. Both were 15, and both rapidly found out that it was a lot harder than the movie Juno made it out to be.
Kudos to them, though, for working together, for knowing their rights when challenged, and for keeping their cool in front of a hostile clerk who decided it was her role to cast judgment on the two young women rather than do her job.
Kudos to them, though, for working together, for knowing their rights when challenged, and for keeping their cool in front of a hostile clerk who decided it was her role to cast judgment on the two young women rather than do her job.
Friday, March 16, 2007
Contraceptive Failure
The 8th Circuit has issued a very disappointing 2-1 ruling in Standridge v. Union Pacific Railroad. The court held that a company policy not extending its health care to cover contraception violated neither Title VII nor the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), primarily because contraception occurs prior to conception (obviously) and thus is not "related" to pregnancy (er, less obviously).
The decision is wrong, and not in the liberal, judicial-activist, decisions I dislike are wrong fashion. It's wrong because it violates the plain meaning of the PDA, which applies not just to "pregnant women" but to "women affected by pregnancy." I.e., any women of child-bearing age--pre- or post-conception. Not just the sexually active--since all women can be raped (a fact "the sluts deserve it" arguers always forget to account for), all women who are within the proper age frame can become pregnant and thus are "affected" by pregnancy--with all the medical, psychological, social, and economic burdens it brings (even if we were to restrict the debate to sexually active women, I neither know how nor desire the capacity for companies to discern which of its female employees were sexually active). As Ann of Feministing puts it:
This points to another issue--the panel not only fails to understand what makes one "affected by pregnancy," it also fails to discern the meaning of discrimination. The court used Union Pacific's failure to cover certain non-prescription contraceptive tools (such as condoms and vascetamies) as proof that their policy did not discriminate against women. This, of course, misses the point: the issue isn't who takes what pill or undergoes what procedure. The issue is who bears the medical affects of pregnancy. Women get pregnant, men do not, thus women bear the medical affects of pregnancy, and men do not. This should be obvious, but the dissent apparently felt the majority needed a basic reminder of Biology 101: "[T]he record demonstrates women are the only gender which can become pregnant." Not providing coverage of a significant medical condition that only affects women is discriminatory on face, and is precisely the sort of disparity that the PDA was designed to remedy.
These effects are not inconsequential. Reproductive Rights blogger Caitlin Borgmann remarks on the significant out-of-pocket expense women are forced to incur if they have to pay their own way on contraception. If they can't afford it, then their sexuality (voluntarily chosen or not--remember the rape issue) becomes a Sword of Damacles hanging over their head, threatening to decapitate their earning potential, subject them to serious health risks, and, oh yeah, force them to possibly bring a child into the world before they're ready. These disparities are real and should be obvious. That the court did not see them, and did not apply the plain meaning of the PDA which by its terms applies to any women "affected by pregnancy", suggests more of a willful blindness than any mundane dispute over statutory interpretation.
The decision is wrong, and not in the liberal, judicial-activist, decisions I dislike are wrong fashion. It's wrong because it violates the plain meaning of the PDA, which applies not just to "pregnant women" but to "women affected by pregnancy." I.e., any women of child-bearing age--pre- or post-conception. Not just the sexually active--since all women can be raped (a fact "the sluts deserve it" arguers always forget to account for), all women who are within the proper age frame can become pregnant and thus are "affected" by pregnancy--with all the medical, psychological, social, and economic burdens it brings (even if we were to restrict the debate to sexually active women, I neither know how nor desire the capacity for companies to discern which of its female employees were sexually active). As Ann of Feministing puts it:
How hard is it for judges to understand that 1) contraception is a basic, fundamental part of women's preventive and routine health care, 2) pregnancy -- which is the result of lack of contraception use -- disproportionately affects female employees, so 3) failure to cover contraception is discrimination against women? Seems clear as day to me.
This points to another issue--the panel not only fails to understand what makes one "affected by pregnancy," it also fails to discern the meaning of discrimination. The court used Union Pacific's failure to cover certain non-prescription contraceptive tools (such as condoms and vascetamies) as proof that their policy did not discriminate against women. This, of course, misses the point: the issue isn't who takes what pill or undergoes what procedure. The issue is who bears the medical affects of pregnancy. Women get pregnant, men do not, thus women bear the medical affects of pregnancy, and men do not. This should be obvious, but the dissent apparently felt the majority needed a basic reminder of Biology 101: "[T]he record demonstrates women are the only gender which can become pregnant." Not providing coverage of a significant medical condition that only affects women is discriminatory on face, and is precisely the sort of disparity that the PDA was designed to remedy.
These effects are not inconsequential. Reproductive Rights blogger Caitlin Borgmann remarks on the significant out-of-pocket expense women are forced to incur if they have to pay their own way on contraception. If they can't afford it, then their sexuality (voluntarily chosen or not--remember the rape issue) becomes a Sword of Damacles hanging over their head, threatening to decapitate their earning potential, subject them to serious health risks, and, oh yeah, force them to possibly bring a child into the world before they're ready. These disparities are real and should be obvious. That the court did not see them, and did not apply the plain meaning of the PDA which by its terms applies to any women "affected by pregnancy", suggests more of a willful blindness than any mundane dispute over statutory interpretation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
