Speaking of Women's Rights...

Learning from History – and Advancing Women’s Rights in the Process

2012-01-17T11:54:00.001-08:00

By Lisa M. Stone

People in Washington – indeed, in many states in the West, where citizen initiatives sometimes seem to multiply like viruses – often complain these days about the ill effect of such efforts to change state law. Okay, what I mean is, progressives in Washington complain a lot about professional initiative pusher Tim Eyman, whose efforts invariably involve using blunt instruments that affect complicated problems. (For example, “let’s just make it impossible to raise taxes or fees, even to carry out essential government services like road repair.”)

But the initiative process can also be used to make our state stronger, and to protect vulnerable or disenfranchised people. Washington was the first state in the country – and still the only one – to make abortion legal by a vote of the people, in 1970. And we adopted the state Equal Rights Amendment the same way, in 1972.

The ERA is a thing of beauty, by the way, short, clear, and absolute:

Equality of rights and responsibility under the law shall not be denied or abridged on account of sex.

Legal Voice is proud to have brought the first lawsuit under the ERA, which was coincidentally (or perhaps not) our first case, Blair v.Washington State University, in which we sued WSU to demand equal treatment for women athletes and coaches. WSU now brags about the case and its women’s sports programs. (You’re welcome, Cougars!)

In keeping with this history of protecting women’s rights through citizen initiatives, in 1991 a group of women’s, civil rights, and health care organizations and professionals decided to codify Roe v. Wade through an initiative to the people. We were concerned that the U.S. Supreme Court would overturn Roe, and wanted to make sure women retained their reproductive autonomy. It was a hard-fought effort, but we won. In fact, over the past 40 years the people of Washington have voted five times to affirm or protect women’s right to decide when and whether to have a child.

And now, facing the scary world of healthcare reform, we’re pushing to make sure that Washington remains solidly pro-choice and respectful of women’s autonomy. Sadly, Roe v. Wade is still vulnerable – perhaps more than in 1991. We can’t stand by while anti-choice zealots restrict our rights (even though that’s what happened at the federal level). So throughout the 2012 legislative session, beginning this Thursday, January 19th, in both the House and the Senate we’ll be advocating for a bill that will ensure women, including low-income women, will have access to abortion. Like the ERA, this bill is simple: it says that if an insurance plan covers maternity services, it must cover abortion. That’s what we voters passed in 1991 with I-120, and it’s the right thing to do. It’s fair, it’s equitable, and it protects all our choices.

Everything Old Is New Again

2012-01-11T15:28:00.000-08:00

By Laurie Carlsson

2012. Sounds a bit like the future doesn’t it? Apocalyptic doom, pneumatic tube pods, and massive technological advances. Say, weren’t we supposed to have flying cars by now?

I can live with the dearth of flying vehicles, but this is what’s troubling me: It’s the year 2012 and we still haven’t figured out a way to treat all members of our society equally. You would think we would have this figured out by now. Yet my week has been filled with examples to the contrary.

Earlier this month The Washington Post published its 2012 In/Out list, rating the coolness factor of pets, tv shows, rock stars, hairstyles and… treating immigrants as people. Yes, you heard that right: Treating immigrants as people. The list juxtaposes “corporations as people” (out) with “immigrants as people” (in). Sorry Washington Post, but we’re not appreciating your clever play on words. I will assume that there's no need to point out how the mere suggestion of immigrants as anything BUT people is incredibly offensive.

Yesterday I did what I always promise myself I won’t – I read the comments section of an article on marriage equality. That’s where I found this little sarcastic gem: “Good Idea! Let's also end the state sponsored discrimination against child molestation, or against murder.” Sure, this was only one rant from a single bigot, and was delightfully quashed by a dozen or so commentors, but this nugget retrieved from an email blast sent out by the Family Policy Institute of Washington is nearly as infuriating: “Supporters of real marriage must counter the pressure that legislators will inevitably receive from the homosexual lobby.” I’m sorry but did this message come from 1987? I will refrain from asking what “real” marriage is and then referring to one of the many superstars that were married for all of 72 hours. That also feels very last year. I will, however, point to statistics that show Washingtonians favoring gay marriage 55/38, and “real” hetero marriages failing at a rate of over 50%.

Today news hit the blogosphere of a California teen calling for a boycott of Girl Scout cookies because a 7-year-old transgender child was admitted to a Colorado troop last fall. The protest group that the girl has formed claims to be "advocating for a change back to simply building girls of good character." Not only has the girl called the character of an entire group of people into question, but other leaders in the organization have called the inclusion of the child “dangerous.” What a *wonderful* lesson for a bunch of young girls.

I know that we can do better than this. Every member of our society deserves to be treated with respect and dignity. I will end with a plea. Dear good citizens of the world: Please make me feel better about the future and actively support reproductive healthcare for all women, civil marriage for all, and new revenue sources so that we can offer a safety net to our most vulnerable citizens. Let’s make 2012 about equality, and leave retro to the Urban Outfitters catalogue. #PLUR

Hollywood: Not So Homo For The Holidays

2012-01-03T11:42:00.000-08:00

By Lillian Hewko

Last week, I came across a video clip of a little girl ranting against marketing and gender stereotypes while she is surrounded by blue and pink toys in a toy store. When asked why “they”—the marketers—do this, she responds with “they try to trick the girls into buying the pink stuff instead of buying what the boys want to buy, right?”

This very young feminist reminded me of my own rant that started after watching numerous bad DVD rentals during the holidays: “Why do mainstream Hollywood movies insist on selling us the heteronormative stereotype of love, while passing off homophobia for a few cheap laughs?” In a two hour film, lesbians, gays, bi-sexuals, and transgender individuals largely remain invisible unless used to promote stereotypes through two classic means: Comedic relief ala John Krasinski’s side character in Something Borrowed, who gets many LOLs in rejecting a woman by pretending to be gay; Or to explain a strong female character’s possible singlehood, depicted recently in The Help during a superfluous scene where Emma Stone’s white female lead character has family questioning whether she is a lesbian, since she is unmarried and career focused. Note: it would take another blog entirely to discuss the problems and myths perpetuated around race and the notions of colorblind “equality” put forth in this film.

As a mixed-Latina, I won’t accept the fact that the screen does not represent the actual racial and bi-racial world I live in. As a queer female, I am also unwilling to accept the fact that Hollywood fails to properly represent the queer relationships that are all around us.

I think what the young girl proposes in the video also applies here: They try to trick people into believing only certain relationships are valid, viewable, and marketable, right? Am I wrong to believe that Hollywood’s inability to include realistic LGBTQ characters in mainstream films works to maintain heteronormativity and thereby set up the idea of “good” relationships and “bad relationships”? Does this dynamic not work to discredit and devalue the many LGBTQ individuals in our world who are sustaining and maintaining healthy relationships?

Tis’ the season of movies, and as David’s recent blog discussed, mainstream movies can’t get past nasty gender stereotypes and relationship myths. Thus, there's a danger that inclusion will result in Hollywood swapping the straight relationships we see for same-sex relationships, while promoting the same myths such as needing someone to “complete you” (think of the famous Jerry Maguire line, although I prefer the Dr. Evil version in Austin Powers). Thanks Hollywood, but I’ll take responsibility for my own happiness.

What I’m asking for is not a replication of the dysfunctional hetero relationships portrayed in mainstream film, but a realistic depiction of healthy queer relationships. I am also asking for the differences represented in queer relationships to be valued, celebrated and recognized. Am I too naive or hopeful to believe that there is a gender empowering, anti-racist, and queer and trans positive, sex-positive, and body positive film consumer with buying power out there? For now, I will opt for the less popular but amazing films that provide a lens into the ways LGBTQ relationships are unique and valued, such as Beginners or Antonia's Line.

Holiday Movies with My Mother

2011-12-22T09:10:00.000-08:00

By David Ward

Every holiday season, my mom and I try to see a movie together. We only have one rule: It has to be a “talky” film, as my mom calls it. We’ve never analyzed what that means, but it usually comes down to whether the movie features women in leading roles; there just aren’t a lot of “talky” films focusing on men.

Normally, it’s a struggle to find even one film that fits the bill— at least, to find one playing in the small town where my parents live. The one exception was 1988, when we couldn’t choose just one and wound up seeing three movies together: Working Girl, Beaches, and the Accidental Tourist. My mom still talks about that year.

So after arriving home for the holidays yesterday, I scanned the local movie listings with my mom. We have ten options: Alvin & The Chipmunks, Arthur Christmas, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Hugo, Mission Impossible, the Muppets Movie, New Year’s Eve, Sherlock Holmes, The Sitter, and Twilight: Breaking Dawn.

Ugh. We start by eliminating Alvin, Arthur Christmas, and Hugo. Our definition of “talky” doesn’t include animated movies aimed at kids. And is it a coincidence that every one of them features a male protagonist?

The two formula action films (Mission Impossible and Sherlock Holmes) also get crossed off quickly. Ditto with The Sitter, a juvenile comedy with mediocre reviews.

We also eliminate Breaking Dawn, the latest installment in the Twilight series. I’ve already seen it, and even for a fan of the series (which I am, sort of) this movie is literally painful to watch. Bella, the heroine, has become one of the most passive women ever portrayed in film. She spends the movie: (1) getting married at the ripe old age of 18; (2) discovering she’s pregnant on her honeymoon; and (3) going through a tortuous pregnancy that’s almost certain to kill her, all while refusing to even consider abortion as an option. This would bore my mom to tears and cause her to yell at the screen.

We also nix The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo after reading one review. It does feature a kick-ass woman in a leading role. But it also includes extreme violence, including two rape scenes. Neither of us can bear to watch that.

We briefly consider New Year’s Eve, which includes great women actors like Hilary Swank and Halle Berry. But it gets crossed off after we read the first line of Roger Ebert’s review: “A dreary plod through the sands of time until finally the last grain has trickled through the hourglass of cinematic sludge.” Ouch.

Which leaves us with…The Muppets. Which I’ve already seen, and which I can’t even pretend to pitch to my mom as a “talky” film. It also has almost no female characters, aside from a few briefly satisfying “hi-ya!” moments from Miss Piggy and a blah role for Amy Adams as the leading man’s barely visible girlfriend.

We could drive 60 miles to the nearest big city to see a film like Glenn Close in Albert Nobbs or Charlize Theron in Young Adult. But it shouldn’t be such a challenge to find a “talky” film in wide release during the holiday movie season – one that focuses on women and their lives, their relationships, and their work. From the recent success of Bridesmaids and The Help, we know there is a huge market for such films – but Hollywood can’t seem to make more than one or two a year.

So I guess we’ll be renting Beaches instead.

I Am the 51%

2011-12-13T08:47:00.000-08:00

Guest post by Havolvá

From the Atlantic:

Occupiers all viscerally sense the problem: extreme economic inequality. They all cite a lack of fairness — a lack of opportunity. They also agree that the status quo is failing.

But when it comes to women, Occupy is really a microcosm of the greater culture at large. This should … greatly embarrass those in the movement who see themselves as revolutionaries.

Just as when misogynists claimed the women accusing Julian Assange of rape were in fact part of a CIA-planned “honey trap”, there are misogynists calling the acknowledgment of gender inequality in the “Occupations” a plot by the powers-that-be to delegitimize the movement. Little do they know that any participant’s disregard for the concerns of women in the movement, and their lack of willingness to acknowledge that women face sexism in society, will do plenty more to delegitimize Occupy than anything these alleged powers-that-be could do with their sudden, uncharacteristic feminism. (Society’s power networks have never been known for being particularly woman-friendly, so claims that this is a government or corporate plot seem specious.)

How about this: to pre-empt these nefarious powers attempting to delegitimize the Occupy movement by pointing out how it reproduces society’s inequalities, why doesn’t Occupy instead model what an equal society should look like by being actively feminist, anti-racist, and welcoming to all other marginalized identities?

The argument that we must ignore all inequality except for class inequality is a surefire way to create an all white male movement that benefits white males. The American Socialist Party in the early 20th century did the same thing, and we can see how powerful they are now. Quote:

[The Socialist Party's] female members were not encouraged to join other women’s organizations in the fight for women’s rights ans suffrage. The class struggle was to have priority over matters of gender equality.

Not only does an equal class, unequal gender vision of the future serve to benefit men and turn off women, but it is impossible. How is it possible for unequal people to maintain equal wealth or wages or standards of living?

No one is a single identity. Each of us is a whole person with many different identities around race, ethnicity, (dis)ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, religion, age, etc. An individual’s class is heavily affected by their other identities. Black and brown people have considerably less wealth than white people, women still earn less than men for equivalent work, trans people are more likely to be homeless than cisgendered people, etc. If you can’t bring that into your class analysis, you are doing some shitty class analysis.

To call women, or people of color, or other marginalized groups abettors of the oppressors for raising their particular concerns is to be willfully blind to the real way class works, and to silence those who experience the preponderance of its negative effects… i.e. the best and most motivated potential activists.

Here is some information about wealth disparities for the skeptical.

This post appeared originally on the blog The Czech.

Havolvá has been blogging since 2008 about social justice issues, including women's rights, at her blog, The Czech. In her non-virtual life, she has spent the last 8 years working in non-profits, focusing on the provision of basic human rights to America's most marginalized people.

What’s Reproductive Justice got to do with it?

2011-12-12T15:26:00.000-08:00

By Lillian M. Hewko

Although I may be close to aging out of the “young person” demographic, I have a visceral response when I hear comments such as “feminism is not an issue for today’s young women” or the suggestion that there is a dearth of young reproductive rights activists since “women today don’t care about abortion or know what it means for equality.” We may not be burning bras (did this even happen?) or growing our armpit hair (well, maybe some of us still are), but today’s feminists and reproductive rights activists -including women, men and gender non-conforming individuals- are not apathetic, we are here and we are asking for a lot more than “choice” and equality.

I am sure of this, as I am part of an amazing organization, Law Students for Reproductive Justice. LSRJ is the country’s only student-led national nonprofit that is training and organizing future legal and policy advocates to be committed to ensuring that all people can exercise the rights and access the resources they need to thrive and decide whether, when, and how to have and parent children with dignity, free from discrimination, coercion, or violence.

With its presence on 100 campuses, including some that are in very ideologically conservative states, LSRJ has provided a forum for students to learn how they as lawyers can be part of the Reproductive Justice (RJ) movement. RJ is a framework, created by women of color leadership that expands traditional notions of reproductive rights (typically centered on abortion and birth control), and takes into account the ways that race, class, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender expression, immigration status, and ability impact access, agency and autonomy in shaping ones reproductive destiny. Or put more simply, what does having the right to abortion or birth control mean if you cannot exercise that right due to poverty, immigration status, or disability? Or, what if you just want the right to have and parent children in a safe and supported way?

The legal community has labeled reproductive rights and justice as an illegitimate field of study and not a worthwhile area of practice. This is troublesome when we see no end to decades of regressive policy making, judicial interpretation, and court stacking that some call an all-out war on women and reproductive health. In response, LSRJ has guided 23 victorious campaigns for new reproductive rights and justice law courses, clinics, and reading groups. LSRJ has distributed over 35,000 electronic and print publications, including the Constitutional Law Primer and the recent release of the second edition of the Human Rights Law Primer. What I am most proud of is LSRJ’s Reproductive Justice Fellowship, which has created entry points for recent law graduates in the field of reproductive health, rights and justice.

Thanks to organizations such as LSRJ, today’s feminists and reproductive rights activists are given tools to resist the criminalization of mothers and separation of families due to poor child welfare laws and racist immigration policies; the elimination of a basic safety net for our poorest people, including people with disabilities and mental health problems; the reductions in basic health care; the reduced funding for abortion and birth control; and the lack of comprehensive sex-education for our youth. We are advocating for real equality strategies for gender non-conforming people, not Hate Crimes bills that do little to prevent violence against our communities, and instead provide more resources for criminal punishment systems that have been the perpetrators of violence against our communities. We may not have symbolic images like bra burnings for our generation, but we are mobilizing to reduce structural inequalities to help make reproductive rights a reality in all people’s lives.

Where do women stand with this Administration?

2011-12-07T11:34:00.000-08:00

By Sara Ainsworth

I was proud of President Obama when he signed the Lily Ledbetter Act, a legal step towards pay equity for women. I was proud when he placed a personal phone call to Janice Lengbehn, who was denied access to her dying partner in a Florida hospital, to tell her he was sorry and that he had ordered a new rule to prevent something like that from happening to other families. But this Administration just doesn’t seem to get that our ability to decide when and whether to have a child is as critical to autonomy and health as equal pay and legal recognition of our families.

You recall Plan B – also known as the “morning after pill.” Some of you have probably used it. Some of you may have heard that it really causes abortions and that it’s not safe. But those are myths. In fact, Plan B can’t harm an existing pregnancy, and is a safe way to prevent pregnancy if used within 120 hours after sex (or a sexual assault) Emergency contraception, under a different brand name, is available over the counter to women of all ages in many countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and Europe– even in Ireland, a country with restrictive abortion laws.

But the drug is so controversial in the United States, that it is treated differently than any other drug in the nation. It must be kept behind the counter, and a pharmacist must confirm the purchaser’s age, before selling it – even though it is technically an “over-the-counter” drug for women age 17 and over. Today, the federal Food and Drug Administration (the FDA) was prepared to make the drug an over-the-counter product just like many other safe medications. Women across the country were holding their breath, waiting for yet another legal barrier to reproductive health to be lifted. Then, this morning, Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius sent a letter to the FDA blocking its decision, claiming that it had not done enough research on whether really young girls can safely use the drug.

What does that mean for girls? It means that girls under 17 still need a prescription to get Plan B. We are lucky in Washington, because many pharmacists in our state are authorized by law to prescribe Plan B right there in the pharmacy. Not so for girls in many other states, including Oregon, Idaho, and Montana. And what does it mean for women? It means that a pharmacist is still the gatekeeper of your medication, and may refuse to dispense it, requiring you to try to find it somewhere else while the clock is ticking.

Today’s action is an incredible disappointment for those who expected the current Administration to uphold its promise to make regulatory decisions grounded in science. And it is unacceptable to trade women’s health and reproductive autonomy for perceived political gain. I’m hoping this is the last time, and that we don’t see the President betray us again by giving religiously-affiliated employers the right to opt out of a new rule requiring all employers to include contraception in their employees’ insurance plans. But I suggest we don’t sit back and expect this Administration to hold the line for us.

From Gucci Purse To The Homeless: The Myth of a Trickle Down Economy.

2011-11-23T10:51:00.000-08:00

by Laurie Carlsson

At a recent Seattle City Council meeting a concerned citizen tried to relay how bad things have gotten for people by saying something to the effect of this: Yes, trickle-down exists. The lower class is trickling down into homelessness. The middle class is trickling into the lower class and realizing that there’s no safety net for them there.

According to the Homelessness Research Institute, in the next three years, 74,000 more Americans will likely be homeless.

46.2 million people are now living in poverty in the United States, up from 43.6 million last year. African Americans have the highest poverty rate at 27.4%, followed by people of Hispanic origin at 26.6%, both much higher than the national average of 15%.

More than 1 in 5 children in America are living in poverty, also an increase from 2010.

These numbers are devastating, especially when we consider that more cuts to social safety net programs are looking likely. Yet another set of statistics caught my eye the other day. It appears that if your name is Chanel, or Neiman Marcus, or Mercedes, your numbers have been on the rise too, but in a much different way. A recent New York Times article reported that “The luxury category has posted 10 consecutive months of sales increases compared with the year earlier.” Tiffany’s first-quarter sales were up 20 percent this year, bringing them a cool $761 million. BMW and Porche more than doubled their quarterly profit from last year. In contrast to these figures, Wal-Mart has begun to sell items in smaller quantities because its shoppers can’t afford to buy multipacks of toilet paper.

We’re told that we should be excited about the fact that the top 5% of earners are spending gazoods of money on sparkly coats and shiny cars. Get more rich people to spend money and everyone will benefit, right?

No, not exactly.

Whether you call it “trickle down,” or “supply side economics,” or the 19th century term “horse and sparrow,” we’re not buying it anymore. No matter how much more money the top 5% or 1% or .001% makes, social safety nets meant to protect our most vulnerable are being dismantled left and right. People are being booted from their houses. Unemployment has fluctuated at a hefty 9-10% for multiple years. More and more people are being discarded from health insurance plans, food supplement programs, and other services that have helped them to stay on their feet.

And guess who is disproportionately affected by poverty? Yep - women. According to national data from 2010, 59 percent of all adults in poverty are women. Single mother households are particularly susceptible to poverty. The rate of poverty for single mother families has hit an all-time high of 42.2%, with an extreme poverty rate of a whopping 21.6%. Here in Washington State, there are plenty of examples. As a new report from the Economic Opportunity Institute details, “In Yakima County, 80% of single-mom families meet the low-income requirements for free or reduced price lunch.

Joan Entmacher, vice president for family economic security at the National Women’s Law Center points out that “we have a long history of distinguishing between the ‘deserving poor’ and the ‘undeserving poor’ in this country.” She guesses that “for a lot of people, single mothers are so far outside their idea of the deserving poor that they can hardly think straight about what might be done to help these mothers or the millions of children that live with them.

The President and chief executive of the Neiman Marcus Group had this to say about the current success of luxury item sales: “I think that she (the customer) is willing to pay whatever price the manufacturer and the retailer deem appropriate, if she sees that there’s intrinsic value in it.” When will we agree on the intrinsic value of making prosperity possible for everyone in this country, regardless of race and gender and heritage and sexual orientation and birthplace?

For those of us that already believe in the value of the social safety net, we can start this process by telling our legislators, in no uncertain terms, that we won’t stand for more cuts to vital services for those in need. The Washington State Legislature is convening a special session to talk about balancing the state budget, beginning this Monday, November 28^th. There are many direct actions planned to send a strong message that we want new revenue sources, not more cuts. Be a part of one. Contact your legislator. Spread the word.

With Liberty and Justice for . . . Who, Exactly?

2011-11-21T09:46:00.000-08:00

By Lisa M. Stone

His name was Jimmy. He lived a few doors down from me, and we were in the same class. His parents were immigrants to the U.S., and English was his second language. Though I don’t know where he is or what happened to him, he came to mind when I saw the recent flap about Seattle Schools requiring every class to recite the Pledge of Allegiance every day.

Every year, on the first day of school, Jimmy had to go to the teacher and explain that he would not be participating in the Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps his parents did it for him in the very early years, but by 4^th grade, Jimmy was on his own. His religion forbade him from saluting the flag or saying the Pledge, on the basis that it is blasphemous to worship, serve, or pledge allegiance to any secular image, because such idolatry interferes with undivided loyalty to God.

This was the 1960’s, when the country and its mores were changing. But it was still shocking to many people that anyone (that is, anyone who wasn’t a hippie burning a draft card) would refuse to say the Pledge. It was --- well, un-American. And now, at various schools around Washington State, parents are saying, in effect, “it’s un-American to force children to pledge to a symbol.”

Mind you, no one will be forced. The same right Jimmy had to stand quietly will be accorded children who refuse or whose parents disapprove of the practice. That’s different from the lack of rights of students in Florida, who may be excused only if they have a written note from their parents (apparently in the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals, the 1^st Amendment right belongs to the parents, not the students. Who knew?)

And it’s also true that however much people may try to gloss over controversy related to the Pledge, there have been objections to it since at least 1954, when Congress added the words “under God” between “one nation” and “indivisible.” Students and parents objected over the years, and in 2002 the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the phrase “under God” unconstitutional. But the U.S. Supreme Court threw out that decision on technical grounds (that is, not deciding the underlying issue.)

As for me, though I always recited the Pledge at assemblies and other events, I also always omitted those two words. Not because of any anti-religious motivation, but because I viewed them as imposing one view of religion – Judeo-Christian – on those of other beliefs and those who do not believe in God or a god. It made me uncomfortable for the state, the school, the mass of people, to require people of different faiths to use the words of the majority. Or maybe I was just thinking of Jimmy.

But at bottom, the inclusion of those two words, or even the stern admonition to recite the pledge, is not the most troubling feature of this controversy. Rather, it’s that we ask all children to say we are one nation, and that we are indivisible, and most important, that we believe in liberty and justice for all, yet we do not ask ourselves to live that way. We are not indivisible, and we certainly don’t ensure liberty OR justice for all. As a nation, we continue to discriminate against women, we refuse to treat LGBTQ persons equally, we deprive immigrants of many of the blessings of liberty. In fact, we are horribly divided, and schoolchildren with their hands on their hearts won’t change that. Only we adults can make that true. And we don’t seem to be trying very hard.

Mississippi Boiling

2011-11-15T11:27:00.000-08:00

By David Ward

When talking about abortion rights in the U.S., my boss often uses the “boiling frog” analogy. It goes like this: If you put a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will jump out. But if you put the frog in cold water and slowly raise the temperature, it won’t perceive the danger until it’s too late.

I was thinking about how the boiling frog fits with the results of the 2011 elections. In case you haven’t heard, the most important victory for women in the elections came in the most unlikely place: Mississippi, where voters resoundingly defeated an amendment that would have declared a fertilized egg to be a “person” under state law.

This measure would have outlawed abortion without exception, as well as many forms of birth control and in vitro fertilization practices. Given Mississippi’s anti-choice history, many thought the amendment would pass easily. But after pro-choice forces put together a strong grassroots campaign, Mississippi voters rejected it by a solid 58-42 percent margin.

This victory was due to incredible efforts by abortion rights advocates in Mississippi and across the country. But advocates of the “personhood” amendment also made a mistake: They turned the heat up too high.

It looks like other anti-choice organizations recognized this error. Many anti-choice groups – including the National Right to Life Committee and the Catholic church – refused to endorse the Mississippi amendment.

Why? Publicly, they said that a “personhood” amendment would be immediately challenged in court, and would almost certainly be struck down by lower federal courts as violating Roe v. Wade. They also expressed concern that if the case went to the U.S. Supreme Court now, the Court could issue a ruling that reaffirms or even strengthens a woman’s constitutional right to choose.

But privately, Mississippi must have confirmed their fear that when voters have an up-or-down vote on their ultimate goal – outlawing abortion in all circumstances – they lose.

Instead, the cooler heads in the anti-choice movement continue to raise the temperature gradually by taking a systematic incremental approach of restricting abortion rights bit by bit across the country. While not outlawing abortion entirely, these measures have sharply limited access to abortion in many states – including Mississippi, which now has only one abortion clinic in the entire state.

And they are focusing on elections – particularly on electing an anti-choice President in 2012, who will appoint more anti-choice justices to the Supreme Court. They know that Roe v. Wade likely has just a one-vote margin of support on the Supreme Court. As a result, the right to choose could hinge on the results of the 2012 elections, when the state of the economy will be weighing much more on voters’ minds than abortion rights.

So the good news is that the frog isn’t boiling yet – not even in Mississippi. But the anti-choice forces are still trying to raise the heat across the country, and we have to dial the temperature back before it’s too late.

A Great Season For Royalty

2011-11-03T14:30:00.000-07:00

By Laurie Carlsson

Last week, the British Prime Minister proposed a change in succession laws that would allow first born women to become queen, no matter how many little brothers their royal parents happen to spit out afterwards. Yesterday we were met with more great news, this time from the land of American high school royalty. Last weekend Patrick Henry High School of San Diego, California crowned Rebeca Arellano the very first female homecoming king in the nation, and gave the title of queen to Rebeca’s girlfriend Haileigh (and no, the seasonal finale of last season’s Glee doesn’t count, people). Typical teenage screams and wild applause followed the announcement, along with words of support from classmates. One student pointed to an increase in same-sex couples showing affection at school the following week, in her mind a result of Haileigh and Rebeca’s win.

Time for celebration across the nation, right? Yay, it’s ok to be an out lesbian couple in high school! You can take part in popularity contests too, and even win sometimes!

Oh, but not so fast…

Though the feminist blog Jezebel reports that “for the most part, their classmates have been very supportive, with only a few haters chiming in,” news stations across the nation would like to remind you that everything is not so hunky dory. Fox 5 reports that though the election was “supposed to be a sign of tolerance and openness,” it has now “become a sign of hate.” In fact news reports all over the country are doing what they do best: dramatizing the incident in the name of their ratings (complete with doom-tone and emphasis-hands).

The people involved in this story are trying their best not to let the event be used to whip people into a state of homophobic fear. The school district’s superintendent made a statement earlier in the week expressing his disappointment in the messages the school had received from “adult bullies,” but decided not to talk about the specific nature or number of negative messages they had received. Haileigh and Rebeca have asked news outlets not to show pictures of their crowning, in order to quash the growing drama of their story.

It’s really too bad that what should have been cause for celebration has become another example of the news media promulgating the usual culture of fear. By focusing on the few threats the school district received , whether they mean to or not, the media is saying to the general public “these people are afraid…you should be too.” As consumers of tv news, are we going to send the message that we’re not going to take part in this culture of fear by turning the television off? Or are we going to take part in the culture and give them cause to conduct business as usual?

As a side note, maybe someday royalty of all varieties won’t be so gendered? (Ruler Elizabeth?). We can always hope, can’t we?

Congratulations! It’s a Queen!

2011-11-02T13:53:00.000-07:00

By Guest Blogger Lily Hereford

Finally. Parliament is getting with the times.

Bye-bye, puffy wigs.

I’m kidding, of course. I think they still wear those.

What I’m actually referring to is royal succession reform. The British Prime Minister finally proposed changing the laws of succession so that age – and age alone – will determine who inherits the crown. The reform would end centuries-old discrimination against royal daughters.

Currently, the line of succession is controlled by “male primogeniture.” No, that’s not a disease. Well, not literally. It means the firstborn son will inherit the throne – even if he’s not the firstborn child. To put this in context: If the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge (Will and Kate) have a daughter, followed by a son, their daughter won’t get to be queen, despite her being the oldest. As soon as little brother is born, he cuts big sister in line. Typical.

If it isn’t obvious, the current rules do not treat men and women equally. They’re out-dated, unjustified, and send a bad message. The British monarch is both Head of State and Head of Nation – roles that carry important duties. Among these duties are providing a focus for national identity, unity and pride and representing Britain to the rest of the world. By favoring firstborn sons, the current rules say on behalf of Britain: “Ideally we’d represent ourselves through one of our men, but if there aren’t any in the family, I guess one of our women will do.”

It’s definitely time for a change.

After all, a queen is just as good as a king, card games aside. Consider the present monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, who has reigned for nearly six decades. Or Elizabeth I, who ruled The Golden Age. I’d say queens have a pretty good track record so far.

I mean, Bloody Marys are delicious.

Yes, it’s hard to believe that queens have been a last resort for so long. BUT, if these new rules of succession become official – and, Will & Kate’s first child is a baby girl – then FINALLY, we’ll be able to exclaim:

“Congratulations! It’s a queen!”

Lily Hereford is a recent graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and is currently interning at the California Attorney General's Office in San Francisco, CA. When not fighting for women's rights, she spends her time eating and/or hanging out with friends.

DDP? RC? PC?

2011-10-26T10:47:00.001-07:00

By Lisa M. Stone

Let me just get it out of the way: I live in Seattle, and I don’t drink coffee. No, that’s not illegal; it’s just unusual. Don’t get the wrong idea, though: I am not caffeine-averse. Quite the contrary. My stimulant of choice is Diet Dr Pepper (or, as we call it around here, DDP).

So perhaps it’s not surprising that so many of my colleagues and friends sent me this article that describes Dr Pepper’s new advertising campaign promoting its new soft drink that is “too macho for women”. At first read, I was offended. "Here we go with more sex role stereotyping," I thought. For example, here’s how the packaging of the new product is described:

Unlike Diet Dr Pepper, Dr Pepper Ten has calories and sugar, and rather than the dainty tan bubbles on the diet can, Ten will be wrapped in gunmetal grey packaging.

Say, guys? Did you happen to notice that Dr Pepper has images of the seams of a football on the can, except when it has action figures from movies like “X-Men”? Not so very dainty or girly. Plus, I believe gunmetal grey was all over the Paris runways this season, so you’d better watch out for that high-fashion stigma.

To make it absolutely clear that Dr Pepper Ten is macho and male, there’s even a Facebook page that purports to be for men only, which includes an app that dispenses “man’ments” such as “Thou Shalt Not Pucker Up. Kissy faces are never manly,” and “Thou Shalt Not Make a ‘Man-Gagement’ Album. That is all.”

Of course my friends and I weren’t the only ones to take notice and even umbrage. There have been a number of articles dissecting the ad campaign as a reflection of the “mancession”, or as an indicator that the role of men in our society is under attack as never before: perhaps “corporate America (or its ad agencies) are attending to a male cry for help they’ve never heard before.” And as always in the world of marketing, there are analyse s of whether this campaign will succeed better than Coke’s and Pepsi’s efforts to sell their products to men. Indeed, in the cut-throat world of soft drink commerce that is an important question.

After I received the articles from a fifth friend wanting to know what I, as an avowed feminist and advocate for women’s rights, and as a dedicated (not to say addicted) drinker of Diet Dr Pepper, thought of this, I sat down to try to figure it out. Was I offended by the stereotyping of men as avoiding movies with romance, or women not liking or understanding contact sports? Or, as Dr Pepper asserts in its press releases, was I simply amused, like so many other women? I am generally annoyed (if not enraged) by advertising campaigns that feed into sexist and racist stereotypes (please don’t tell me there’s a racism or immigrant element to this one; my brain will explode), so it seemed worth pondering.

Does this sort of thing harm women (or men, which is equally possible given the level of discourse)? Were all these articles and objections just political correctness gone too far? Are we reinforcing the notion that feminists and human rights activists have no sense of humor?

In the end, here’s the deal, at least from my perspective: It’s a SOFT DRINK, people. Consume it or don’t, but please, spend your energy on figuring out how to save our constitutional democracy, or helping Occupy Wall Street take its energy into policy action, or getting involved to stop global climate change, or fighting against real oppression of women.

I’m just sayin . . .

Mothers Sentenced to Lose their Children

2011-10-13T15:48:00.000-07:00

by Lillian M. Hewko

Unless you live in a hole, you likely know that the U.S. now imprisons more people than any other nation. Unless you live in that same hole, you likely know that poverty is on the rise and that social inequity is at its greatest ever. As “Occupy Wall Street” has shown us, more and more people are realizing that the U.S. economic system is just plain unjust.

With this information, how many of us are willing to take the logical steps to realize that the rise in our prison population is not due to increased violence, that our communities are not actually safer, and instead, that our nation has become complacent with criminalizing poverty? National stories have highlighted the most aggressive prosecutions against black mothers (black women along with Latina women, are twice as likely to face poverty as white women due to various social factors). Recently, Raquel Nelson was found guilty by an all white jury for vehicular manslaughter when her son was killed by a hit-and-run drunk driver—all she did was walk across the street. Kelley Williams-Bolar, and homeless mother Tonya McDowell, were each arrested for using false addresses to enroll their children in better schools. These prosecutions continue largely in the same vein as our racialized war on drugs that disproportionately prosecutes non-whites for their drug use and/or addiction.

You may be unaware that women comprise the fastest growing population in prison. In Washington state, the rate of incarceration for women tripled from 1995-2005. It is estimated that 85% of these women are mothers. At the time of confinement, over half of these mothers were the primary caregivers of children under 18 years old. Most often, when relative placements are not available, children end up in foster care. Because of existing child welfare laws and poor access to legal information and representation, serving one’s sentence can mean permanently losing her children. Federal laws require states to terminate the parent-child relationship when a child has been in foster care for at least 15 months. Legal Voice has heard from women who have no idea what their rights are and who have not been afforded the right to be present at the hearing where their children have been taken away. Many pregnant and parenting women in prison—most of whom are non-violent first-time offenders serving short sentences—are being separated from their children unnecessarily and involuntarily.

Further troubling are statistics that reveal pathways to incarceration for these women that are complex, and often rooted in issues of sexual and physical violence. Instead of being treated for trauma, depression, addiction and other injuries of violence, these women have been displaced into the criminal justice system.

Sadly, with all of this information, it appears that we have come down with a case of cognitive dissonance. Locking up less people would require taking true steps towards alleviating many social ills: lack of employment, housing, food, education, and healthcare (including mental health services). These ills are much easier to stomach if we place the blame on individuals. Once they are locked up, we are then excused for our behavior of neglect and disregard for the lives of incarcerated individuals.

As reproductive rights advocates striving for true reproductive freedom, we must challenge our nation’s devaluation of motherhood for incarcerated women, who are predominately poor and/or women of color. As an Equal Justice Works fellow at Legal Voice, my aim is to raise awareness around incarcerated mother’s issues, create access to legal information, and advocate for child welfare laws and alternatives to sentencing that better address the needs of these vulnerable families. We now have significant evidence that maintaining contact with one’s incarcerated parent improves a child’s emotional response to their parent’s incarceration and supports parent-child attachment. It also lowers the likelihood of recidivism among incarcerated parents. I hope you will join me by learning more about and sharing this issue, so that we can help work to keep families together, and in turn, help re-build our communities.

Legal Voice Develops New “Are you homophobic and/or sexist and/or just plain dumb?” App *

2011-09-28T14:11:00.000-07:00

by Laurie Carlsson

On the heels of the “Is My Son Gay” Android App, Legal Voice has developed an application that will identify, in no uncertain terms, whether or not you’re a hateful, unintelligent human being. With a quick 20 question quiz, you will be able to identify yourself according to three categories:

Complete Ignoramus

Homophobic Jerk

Just Plain Dumb

When reached for comment Legal Voice said that they are “proud to offer a surefire way for people to know with certainly whether or not they should really be leading that anti-racism seminar at their place of work, or touting their gay acquaintances as proof that they’re totally ok with homosexuality. “ Here are some of the questions set for inclusion in the upcoming app:

Do you feel that participating in fist fights will quell any questions about your sexuality?

When you call a plumber, do you skip over the female names in the phonebook?

Do you own a shirt bearing any of the following phrases?
“Straight Pride”
“Nice new girlfriend. What breed is she?”
“Life’s a bitch, so don’t vote for one.”

Have you ever forced your son to withdraw from P.E. class upon learning that Bollywood dance would be included in the next lesson?

Do you publicly scoff at Barbara Streisand, while secretly admiring her amazing voice and theatricality?

Do you bully your child into attending baseball games despite the clear indications that they bore him to tears?

Do you believe that when a presidential candidate makes a joke that the wrinkles in his shirt are not to be blamed on his wife, that it’s just good ol’ fashioned Texas humor?

Do you become disproportionately outraged when a mother paints her son’s toe nails pink?

Do you believe that books about gay animals should be banned from your child’s school library?

Do you believe that we have earned the title “Post-Racial America” simply because we elected an African American president?

Legal Voice hopes that the app will hit the market in time for 2012 presidential candidates to save themselves from further just plain dumb comments. That said, representatives from the organization are not hopeful. “There’s only so much we can do.”

*This App is completely fictitious. Its sole purpose is to point out the
idiocy of certain recently released stereotype-perpetuating apps.

Porn For Pets?

2011-09-21T15:47:00.000-07:00

by Lisa M. Stone

It’s no secret in the anti-violence movement that abuse of and cruelty to animals can be an indicator of a propensity toward domestic or sexual violence. So you’d think that Legal Voice and our allies in the women’s movement would be supportive of animal rights and anti-cruelty groups. And we are, mostly.

But that support, at least for me, screeches to a halt when it comes to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. PETA’s flamboyant approach to seeking support could be intriguing . . . if it didn’t involve pornography and the exploitation and objectification of women. What are they thinking?

Well, apparently they are thinking they’ll get attention, and to some degree, that’s a correct assumption. But it’s time for feminists and our supporters to call PETA out and demand they stop pushing their own agenda by making it harder for those of us working for equality, safety and justice for women to combat harmful stereotypes and cultural themes.

Maybe it was effective when PETA put out the ads showing celebrities saying, “I’d rather go naked than wear fur,” maybe it was eye-catching and (to some people) amusing. But it was still objectifying women. I tried not to get too worked up about it (there is such a thing as being too feminist or PC, after all), and for the most part, succeeded. Then there was the picture of an obese woman with the caption: “Save the Whales. Lose the Blubber. Go Vegetarian.” Offensive, unnecessary, stupid and discriminatory.

This week PETA plan s to have naked women lying on the sidewalk in Spokane, Washington, to “lie like dead fish in front of a sushi restaurant.” So wrong, in so many ways. What is the connection between being naked and being a fish (aside from the fact that fish don’t wear clothes, but really – so what?). And why women? Maybe no one wants to see a naked man lying on the street. More likely, PETA is buying into and perpetuating the centuries-old tradition of exploiting women as objects of lust.

It gets worse. In an attempt to get more people interested in PETA, the organization is launching a porn site. No typo: A PORN SITE. And no, I am not going to link to it. You can read about it here, though. And don’t worry: no animals were harmed in the making of the site. Whew, that’s a relief.

Really, PETA? REALLY? Sure, it may attract even more attention --- from people who are already interested in naked women and men. And yes, I know that pornography is an issue that divides people in the feminist and women’s rights communities, and it’s one on which I am not taking a stand. But whatever your view about that, it seems clear to me that PETA’s site is about sensationalism and exploitation, which doesn’t further any feminist agenda. Here’s hoping that the majority of porn viewers are not natural PETA supporters, and that the whole project is a bust. (No pun intended.)

IUDs: A Neglected Reproductive Right.

2011-09-07T09:16:00.000-07:00

by guest blogger Lindley Mease

Why do women still have to fight for their reproductive rights? Regence Blue Shield recently had to reimburse 984 women $150,000 for not covering the cost of their intrauterine device (IUD) removal. An additional $100,000 fine brought the message home—women still need to fight for their healthcare rights.

I was fortunate to hear about the hormonal IUD through friends during my sophomore year of college. More recently, I dug around in the research and discovered all of the unsung benefits it offers. I am more certain than ever of my choice of contraceptive, but I am mystified by the misconceptions that continue to plague friends, peers, and doctors alike.

For those of you who have not heard much about IUDs, you are not alone. Only about 5% of women use the IUD in the United States, while in France over 23% do. Why the discrepancy? It is mostly due to misrepresentation in public forums and negative bias by medical professionals. Ninety-six percent of education about contraception in medical school focuses on birth control pills, and only 76% of students have learned about IUD’s.

A study among obstetrics and gynecology residents showed that over half did not know the health benefits of the hormonal IUD. A study examining current medical textbooks found that 9 out of 13 had inaccuracies regarding the device’s functioning and risk of infection. Furthermore, most online searches are riddled with misinformation related to the IUD’s risks and safety.

Why does the IUD deserve better advocacy? Both the copper and hormonal IUD are over 99% effective, the most effective form of non-permanent birth control. It is safe to use and far, far safer than the many risks associated with unintended pregnancy. Often when you ask women over fifty their opinion on IUD’s, they will recall the early, faulty Dalkon Shield technology of the 70s. But modern IUD’s have millions of users around the world—women who are thrilled with their efficacy, safety, and advantages.

The hormonal IUD is the only FDA approved contraceptive that treats dysmenorrhea or heavy, prolonged bleeding. Hormonal IUD use results in discontinuation of menses 60% of the time. Why is this advantageous? Women menstruate over three times as many times during their lifetime today than our ancestors due to early menarche, late menopause, and fewer pregnancies.

More menses during a lifetime is directly correlated with more menstrual disorders, costing women a 25% decrease in productivity during menses and taxing US industry 8% of its potential efficiency. Originally the pill was created with a 21 day progestin cycle in order to imitate a “natural process”. These synthetically induced “periods” were not grounded in medical reasoning and do not offer any natural benefits. Therefore, these factors suggest the hormonal IUD may offer a healthy advantage beyond its function as a contraceptive.

The hormonal IUD also represents preventative healthcare. It protects against uterine fibroids, anemia, adenomyosis, endometriosis, ovarian cancer, and other menstrual irregularities. With over 2.5 million women that suffer from menstrual disorders, it is astonishing that there is such a dearth of information available about this relatively cheap and safe therapeutic option.

The paucity of knowledge about IUD’s is an injustice, particularly to the underserved. While usage is increasing among top income groups, Hispanic and black women are more likely to opt for sterilization because it is a cheaper choice.

The US Department of Health and Human Services has decided to provide free birth control as preventative healthcare, which is a good start for strengthening women’s reproductive rights. However, often medical professionals and online sources tout the contraindications of the IUD falsely. Medical students and family health clinicians must also be educated and trained on this neglected contraceptive.

In the United States 49% of pregnancies are unintended and 45% of these end in abortion. Britain’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence reported that 73,000 unplanned pregnancies and 29,000 abortions could be prevented if a million women moved from the pill to the IUD.

Women should have the right to learn about the safest, healthiest, and most efficacious choices for their reproductive health. Why should insurance companies offer ubiquitous coverage of Viagra, and not a reproductive choice option for women?

The actions by Regence to deny women their healthcare rights is not only deplorable, it seems downright last century. Although many women have been monetarily compensated, the scar remains—we are not giving women proper reproductive and sexual freedoms, or even the knowledge to choose those freedoms.

Lindley Mease is a recent Stanford graduate with interests in environmental education, conservation, and policy. She currently works for California Environmental Associates while finishing her masters in Earth Systems. She is also an advocate for reproductive rights and family planning.

2011-08-24T17:29:00.001-07:00

By Laurie Carlsson

We’re all so quick to label each other, aren’t we? There’s some innate need in us that feels satiated by neatly delineated categories of people. And when people step outside of our nicely drawn lines, we get our panties in a bunch and feel frustrated with those who dare to be different, rather than with our own need for simplicity.

Immediately after I started dating women there were plenty of folks prepared to give me the lowdown on my sexuality. I was told that since it seemed I had enjoyed relationships with men in the past, I must be bisexual; or I was dating women because my relationships with men had gone wrong; or sex wasn’t important to me; or it was the hip new thing to do. Then there was my personal favorite: “You’re just on your way to gay-town.” (did they mean Capitol Hill, I wonder?)

I was also told that there was no scientific evidence to support the existence of bisexuality which, much to my chagrin, affected how I felt about identifying as such. Since then I’ve had some time to grapple with my identity and finally decide that I don’t care to define myself as one thing or the other. I’m glad I was able to make peace with the notion of bisexuality before this (insert sarcastic tone here)“shocking” finding was announced earlier this week…

IT’S OK TO BE BISEXUAL NOW! Science says that you exist, bisexuals. Neat, huh? Now society will stop assuming that you’re indecisive, sex-crazed harlots, taking all the would-be suitors of both genders for yourselves. What I hate most about studies like this is that they play into another innate human characteristic: our need to belong. Scientists are all excited because they think they’ve given validation to those who identify as bisexual. I can only hope that this is not the case.

Don’t get me wrong; I agree that we all need affirmation. But does it have to come from a lab? Does a sexual impulse measured by a machine tell the story of who you are? And how do you decide for yourself where the line is between gay and bi, bi and lesbian, let alone their intersection with transgender.

Enter the letter Q. Though some may roll their eyes at the ever-increasing string of letters in the acronym of non-hetero orientations, I find the Q to be of the utmost importance. I realize that there are those who don’t identify with the term queer – or even find its use offensive – and that what I’m suggesting could also amount to trading one label for another. But in my community, I’ve found that it offers asylum for those who are trying to fit themselves into a letter that does not stand for them. Expanding the acronym to 5 letters (or 7…or 8…) gives all of us a place to be and something to confirm that we exist. Please do not try to tell me that it’s just too difficult to remember all of those letters. By saying this, you are showing that your boxes are more important than a person’s identity (and really, if remembering them is the most difficult thing in your life, I suppose you can count yourself lucky). And for the love of god, don’t let science dictate who you are, or who anybody else is for that matter.

You Pays Your Money, and You Takes Your Chances --- Good luck with that.

2011-08-12T10:58:00.000-07:00

By Lisa M. Stone

When the health care reform law passed last year, I was both pleased (some action! Something at least marginally progressive!) and disappointed (let’s pick on women’s necessary reproductive health care and on immigrants! This is all about abortion! – because everything is, apparently). And of course, it’s no surprise that we have spent much of the last year hearing how the Affordable Care Act will bring on the death of America, democracy, our financial system, and of course, us (death panel, anyone?). Still, at least parts of it will likely survive to be implemented in 2014.

One of the most contentious aspects of the debate over reform related to insurance, and who should/could/must be covered under the new law. Should employers have to make sure all their employees are covered? Should insurance companies be prohibited from turning people down for coverage? And so on.

Being a history geek, I’ve long been intrigued both by how insurance came to be, and by how it used to operate compared to its current reality. I’ll spare you most of the details, though you can find some here, but what always impressed me was that when insurance was just becoming big business, out of the London coffeehouse of Edward Lloyd (yes, that Lloyd of London), it was a way for merchants and early venture capitalists to pool their money and cover the risks of a ship being lost at sea, with each participant deciding how much of the risk on a particular voyage he wanted to insure. Practical, fairly efficient, and quite workable. Notably, when ships were lost, the underwriters paid up.

Not so anymore. Now, insurance seems to be a way for corporations to make vast amounts of money and become ever more clever about not paying out. Yes, a generalization, but stick with me here. The insurance industry made $9.3 billion profit in just the first nine months of 2010, up an average 41% over 2009.

As the director of a non-profit with only nine employees, which is basically a small business (we just put any ‘profit’ to work carrying out our mission), I have always been proud that we offer health care coverage to all our employees. We regard it as a basic worker right, much like paid sick and safe days, for which we are advocating in the City of Seattle. And we work hard to make sure it’s decent coverage, with women’s reproductive health care well-covered, a not-entirely outrageous deductible, reasonable co-pays, etc. We contribute to that $9.3 billion profit: $468 per month per employee for medical, plus $58 per month for dental, which adds up to more than $60,000 per year. And it’s worth it. Our colleagues are worth it.

You can imagine, then, how horrified – no, outraged – we all were to discover that our plan imposes a 9-month waiting period for any employee who starts working for us and has a pre-existing condition. For those of you wondering, the nine months is not a coincidence: it’s a common waiting period, and yes, companies do adopt it to avoid providing coverage for women during pregnancy. (Oh, to have that $9.3 billion to spend on women’s reproductive health care!)

Our employee who needs health care is not pregnant. My colleague has a long-standing condition that she manages carefully, working very hard to avoid getting seriously ill, having to go to the emergency room, or experiencing any of the other events that drive up the cost of health care. You would think our carrier would want to keep that responsible behavior going. Nope. Instead, my colleague must wait the full nine months before she gets any part of her ongoing health care management covered, paying out of pocket for her needed visits and medication. And as her employer we will pay $4,734 for ----------- NOTHING.

But wait: there’s more. A recent report by the Kaiser Family Foundation ranked states by the price of insurance rates per individual. Washington is in the third-highest paying group, though it’s ironic that the average in this state is still much lower than what we actually pay per employee. Even more ironic: the study’s authors conclude that some states have higher premiums because they make it easier for individuals with pre-existing conditions to get coverage. Except we pay more than the average in the most expensive states, and still, our colleague gets ---------- NOTHING.

Do I have the solution to this? I have several, and among the more printable are 1) universal health care/single payer system; 2) prohibit pre-existing condition exclusions sooner than 2014; 3) get another carrier. For now, we’re working on #3. How about you?