by Meg Young

Everyone can agree that rape is not a joke, right? Apparently not, based on the popularity of the blog Barstool Sports.

At first glance, the blog appears to be a collection of comedic sports commentaries interspersed with predictable photos of scantily clad women, or “smokeshows,” to use the vernacular. However, this archive of good, clean misogynistic fun has a darker side. Many of the postings make jokes about rape and sexual assault, such as this commentary about the acquittal of a man accused of raping a woman wearing tight jeans: “[E]ven though I never condone rape if you’re a size 6 and you’re wearing skinny jeans you kind of deserve to be raped right?”

Now, Barstool is hosting the “Barstool Blackout Tour,” a series of sponsored dance parties on or near college campuses across the country. Think that sounds a little dicey? Women shouldn’t worry, according to the blog: “Just to make friends with the feminists I’d like to reiterate that we don’t condone rape of any kind at our Blackout Parties in mid January. However if a chick passes out that’s a grey area though.”

Your humble blogger is not the only one shaking with indignation. When Barstool scheduled the Northeastern University Blackout Party at the House of Blues in Boston, a group of Northeastern students called Knock Out Barstool began to rally students in the Boston area to boycott and protest the event scheduled for this Thursday, Feb. 2.

In an letter published in Northeastern’s Huntington News, students and members of Knock Out Barstool wrote, “We demand Northeastern University and its administration stand for women and denounce Barstool Sports and the NU Blackout Party. These organizations do not represent the values of our community nor our institution.”

Much to their (and my) dismay, Northeastern University has not come out directly against the parties, other than to tweet it doesn’t officially endorse them.

Visit Knock Out Barstool’s website, and if you’re in the Boston area, stand in solidarity with Northeastern students protesting this event outside the House of Blues in Boston at 7:30 p.m. on Thursday.

Meg Young is a sophomore at Tufts University, where she studies anthropology and community health. She became interested in women’s reproductive health during her time as an intern at Our Bodies Ourselves in 2009.

Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced that it is adopting the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations for preventive care services for women. This will ensure that women have access to the following services under health insurance plans without having to pay a co-payment, co-insurance or deductible:

• well-woman visits
• screening for gestational diabetes
• HPV testing
• STI counseling
• HIV screening and counseling
• contraception methods and counseling
• breastfeeding support, supplies, and counseling
• screening and counseling for domestic and interpersonal violence

Coverage for these services is expected to begin Aug. 1, 2012.

There is one caveat for some women regarding access to contraception without a co-pay — a provision that “Group health plans sponsored by certain religious employers, and group health insurance coverage in connection with such plans, are exempt from the requirement to cover contraceptive services.”

An announcement at the HealthCare.gov site indicates that public comment is welcome on this provision. Although I haven’t yet been able to locate it on Regulations.gov, instructions for comment and more detail about the exemption is provided in this document.

Last week, we highlighted the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation that birth control be covered without co-pays as a preventive service under health care reform.

Several other aspects of women’s health were also covered by the Institute’s recommendations, including “screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence.” While the birth control prevention got a lot of attention online, we’ve seen less discussion of this and other recommendations, so thought we’d highlight it.

An email we received from Futures Without Violence called it a “historic victory,” and explained, “This is not a requirement for screening for domestic violence. It does however, break down significant barriers to integrating comprehensive responses to domestic violence and we believe it will create new opportunities to train providers how to identify and help patients in abusive relationships.”

Seen any good discussion of this violence screening/counseling recommendation? Let us know in the comments.

As a reminder, you can view the Institute’s press release, recommendations, report brief, and full report, “Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gap,” online. The Department of Health and Human Services will still need to adopt this list of recommendations for the care to be covered under the Affordable Care Act.

Somewhat relatedly, the Department of Health and Human Services (which will decide whether to accept the Institute’s recommendations), is holding an “Apps Against Abuse” challenge, inviting people to develop applications that “provide young adults with tools to help prevent sexual assault and dating violence.” More information on entering the challenge is available here.

Last month, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the formation of the Violence Against Women Federal and Tribal Prosecution Task Force to address the staggering rates of violence against American Indian women. The Justice Department estimates that 1 in 3 American Indian women will be raped in her lifetime, and most victims who do report their assaults describe their attackers as non-Native.

The task force is composed of six assistant U.S. Attorneys and six tribal attorneys, along with other DOJ, health care and law enforcement officials. Within a year of convening, the task force is expected to:

[...] produce a trial practice manual on the federal prosecution of violence against women offenses in Indian Country. In the short term, the Task Force will explore current issues raised by professionals in the field, and recommend “best practices” in prosecution strategies involving domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.

While this issue certainly deserves attention, I can’t help but be cautious about a Justice Department-led approach. The U.S. government doesn’t have a good track record when it comes to violence and Native Americans. Part of the problem stems from issues of jurisdiction. In 2007, Amnesty International released a report (more here) that outlined the various barriers to justice that these women face, noting: “The United States government has created a complex maze of tribal, state and federal jurisdictions that often allows perpetrators to rape with impunity — and in some cases effectively creates jurisdictional vacuums that encourage assaults.”

INCITE! provides this toolkit, Police Violence Against Native Women and Native Trans & Two Spirit People, which outlines history and current problems of law enforcement and military violence against American Indian women. As the organization makes clear, decreasing and preventing violence against American Indian women is not simply a matter of increasing law enforcement:

Native women and Native Two Spirit, transgender, and gender nonconforming people are subjected to gender-specific forms of law enforcement violence, such as racial profiling, physical abuse, sexual harassment and abuse, and failure to respond or abusive responses to reports of violence.

We hope the DOJ effort will represent, as one task force member suggested, “the Obama administration’s willingness to take seriously the crimes of rape and domestic violence against Native American women,” and that genuine safety improvements for American Indian women take place.

This issue has been in the Canadian news recently as well. According to the Abbostford News, a British Columbia newspaper, “The Native Women’s Association of Canada reports that 582 indigenous women and girls have disappeared or were murdered over the last five years.” The Canadian government has recently provided $2 million to the NWAC for an initiative to “help communities understand, prevent and respond to violence against aboriginal women and girls.”

See resources linked from our previous posts for additional background reading on this topic.

A new study in the journal Contraception reveals the power of a simple conversation: When trained counselors at family planning clinics ask young women if they have experienced reproductive coercion, it reduces the odds of their male partners forcing them to become pregnant.

Reproductive coercion refers to abusive male behaviors to promote pregnancy, including “birth control sabotage” (interference with contraception) and/or “pregnancy coercion,” such as threatening to harm a woman if she uses birth control or if she has an abortion, and threating to leave her if she doesn’t get pregnant.

The Family Violence Prevention Fund responded enthusiastically to the results of the study:

A brief intervention was associated with a 70 percent reduction in the odds of male partner pregnancy coercion among women who recently had experienced intimate partner violence. Study participants who were asked about reproductive coercion and then counseled about harm-reduction strategies — including switching to longer-acting contraceptives and contacting domestic and sexual-assault resources — were also 60 percent more likely to report ending a relationship because it felt unsafe or unhealthy.

“There is a strong, indisputable link between domestic and dating violence and unintended pregnancy. This study is extremely important because it identifies an effective solution that can be implemented relatively easily,” said Family Violence Prevention Fund President and Founder Esta Soler. “We need to build on these results by making this intervention the norm in health care settings throughout the nation as quickly as possible.”

The study was funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; the intervention was designed by reproductive health experts, UC Davis School of Medicine, the Harvard School of Public Health, and the FVPF.

An earlier study this year, also published in Contraception, concluded that 20 percent of women experienced pregnancy coercion and 15 percent experienced birth control sabotage.

The FVPF is calling for immediate action based on this latest evidence: “This study is extremely important because it identifies an effective solution that can be implemented relatively easily,” said Soler. “We need to build on these results by making this intervention the norm in health care settings throughout the nation as quickly as possible.”

Go to FVPF’s Know More Say More website for more information and opportunities for action. The site includes resources for healthcare providers, including suggestions on how to assess for reproductive coercion [PDF], including sample scripts, and how to integrate assessments into clinical practice [PDF].

View all Women’s Health Heroes. Voting closes May 14. Background info here.

Entrant: Deborah Schutz
Nominee: Maggie Ginsberg Schutz, freelance writer and creater of Violence UnSilenced

Violence UnSilenced was created by Maggie Ginsberg Schutz in February 2009, to shed light within the blogging community on domestic violence and sexual abuse/assault by giving survivors a voice. From the mission statement:

One of the last hurdles to eradicating abuse is the culture of silence and shame that exists yet today. You very likely have people in your life that are being abused, you just don’t realize it. Victims are led to believe they are alone, that no one will believe them, and that people will think less of them. Heavy societal pressure generally falls on the victim (ie, “Why doesn’t she leave?”) instead of on the person committing the crime (ie, “Why doesn’t he?”)

Every situation is complicated and unique, and there is no stereotype. Every single survivor of abuse is different from his or her comrades, and by sharing stories here we can educate ourselves as to just how pervasive domestic violence and sexual abuse/assault is, and how it crosses all cultural, racial, gender, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic lines. This is our society’s collective issue, not simply a problem of those directly impacted. There are 70 million blogs out there, and one in four women will experience abuse in her lifetime. We who are active in the blogosphere have a responsibility to listen to our friends and to spread the word, so that we can strip abusers of this critical power. I also believe very, very strongly in the cathartic power of writing.

The video below was created in honor of the project’s 1-year anniversary.

View all Women’s Health Heroes. Voting closes May 14. Background info here.

Entrant: Meghan Ward
Nominee: Rachel Lloyd, Founder and Executive Director of GEMS

It is with profound admiration and respect that I nominate Rachel Lloyd as a women’s health hero for the 2010 Our Bodies Ourselves Women’s Health Hero awards. Rachel Lloyd is the founder and executive director of Girls Educational and Mentoring Services in New York City, also known as GEMS. GEMS helps girls and young women escape lives of commercial sexual exploitation and domestic trafficking.

GEMS provides counseling, shelter, educational services and many other services needed for victims of commercial sexual exploitation in the United States. In addition to helping young girls and women escape lives of commercial sexual exploitation and domestic trafficking, one of GEMS primary goals is to educate the public about the current attitudes and beliefs which treat victims of sexual exploitation as criminals.

Treating victims of child sexual exploitation as criminals is one of the worst possible things one can do. It does not help eradicate commercial sex trafficking. In fact, it does far more harm than good to those victimized by men who buy and sell young girls. Rachel Lloyd works tirelessly to change such absurd views, speaking out against these laws and sentences in the United States. Read the rest of this entry »

Publicado por Rachel / del orginial en inglés Jan 28, 2010

OBOS is committed to expanding our audience and in this spirit we’ve asked former board member Moises Russo to translate into Spanish several of our blog entries. We hope to translate more entries in the coming year.

En OBOS estamos comprometidos a expandir nuestra audiencia de lector@s  y en este espíritu le hemos solicitado a Moisés Russo, ex-miembro de la Junta de OBOS, que traduzca al español varios de los blogs que tenemos en la página electrónica. Esperamos continuar con dichas traducciones durante este año.

Un artículo en la revista Contraception,“Coerción al embarazo, violencia por parte de parejas y embarazo no planificado”, examina si las mujeres jóvenes y adolescentes han sido víctimas de sabotaje de sus métodos anticonceptivos, coacción a embarazarse o violencia física o sexual.

Investigadores de la Universidad de California Davis han llevado a cabo una encuesta de 1278 mujeres entre los 16 y 29 años que buscaron servicios en cinco clínicas de planificación familiar durante los años 2008 – 2009. Las mujeres participantes fueron hispanas (30%), afroamericanas (28%), blancas (22%), multirraciales (7%) y asiáticas u otras razas (13%). Coacción al embarazo fue definido como haber recibido comentarios de sus parejas a no usar métodos de control de la fertilidad, ser amenazadas con daño físico si no estaban dispuestas a quedar embarazadas, ser forzada o presionada a embarazarse, haber tenido que esconder métodos de control de la fertilidad por miedo a que su pareja pudiese enojarse, o haber sido amenazadas con que su pareja tendría un bebé con otra persona o a dejarlas si no se embarazaban.

Sabotaje de sus métodos anticonceptivos fue definido como haber tenido una pareja que se quitase el condón mientras tenían relaciones sexuales, que hubiese hecho agujeros en el condón en forma intencional, las hubiese despojado de su método anticonceptivo o las hubiese forzado a tener sexo sin un condón.

Las participantes también fueron entrevistadas con respecto a su historia personal con respecto a violencia sexual o física y antecedentes de embarazos previos no planificados.

Los hallazgos principales del estudio fueron:

• 53,4% declararon haber experimentado violencia por parte de sus parejas
• 40,9% habían experimentado al menos un embarazo no planificado
• 19,1% habían sido coaccionadas a tener un embarazo
• 15,0% habían experimentado sabotaje de sus métodos anticonceptivos

Los autores también reportaron que mujeres que habían experimentado violencia por parte de sus  parejas en el pasado también era más propensas a haber experimentado coacción a embarazarse o sabotaje de sus métodos anticonceptivos (35% de aquellas que indicaban haber sido víctimas de violencia comparado a 15% de aquellas que indicaban no haber sido víctimas de violencia). Las mujeres que habían experimentado control reproductivo (coacción o sabotaje) también eran más propensas a haber tenido un embarazo no planificado. Al analizar los datos en base a la exposición a violencia por parte de sus parejas, el control reproductivo estaba asociado con embarazo no planificado solo en aquellas mujeres que habían tenido exposición a violencia por parte de sus parejas.

A pesar de que los autores analizaron las exposiciones históricas de las mujeres y por lo tanto no podían examinar asociaciones con relaciones específicas o el orden de estos eventos en el tiempo, uno de los autores del estudio sugirió que las asociaciones podrían explicar por qué los embarazos no planificados son tanto más comunes entre las mujeres abusadas y quinceañeras.

Los investigadores concluyen que:

Un programa integral de detección en  centros clínicos que busque las experiencias prevalentes de coacción al embarazo, sabotaje de métodos anticonceptivos y violencia por parte de la pareja debiese ser considerado una prioridad, particularmente en el contexto de planificación familiar y otros esfuerzos programáticos para reducir el embarazo no planificado. Tal detección podría facilitar el trabajo crítico de resolver las barreras de acceso a la anticoncepción entre mujeres y niñas para reducir su elevado riesgo de embarazo no planificado.

El autor principal del estudio fue también uno de los investigadores en un estudio más pequeño sobre violencia en la pareja y sabotaje de métodos anticonceptivos que nosotros reportamos en el 2007.

A forthcoming article in the journal Contraception, “Pregnancy coercion, intimate partner violence and unintended pregnancy,” looks at whether adolescent and young women have experienced birth control sabotage, pregnancy coercion, and/or physical or sexual violence.

Researchers from UC Davis conducted a survey of 1,278 16-29 year old women seeking care in five California family planning clinics in 2008-2009. The participating women were Hispanic (30%), Black (28%), White (22%), Multiracial (7%) and “Asian/other” (13%). Pregnancy coercion was defined as being told not to use birth control by a partner, threatened with physical harm if they did not agree to get pregnant, being forced or pressured to become pregnant, having hidden birth control because of fear that the partner would become upset, or being told that the partner would have a baby with someone else or leave if they did not become pregnant.

Birth control sabotage was defined as having a partner take off a condom while having sex, put holes in a condom on purpose, take away birth control, or forced sex without a condom.

Participants were also asked about their lifetime histories of physical and sexual violence and history of unintended pregnancy.

The key findings:

• 53.4% reported having experienced partner violence
• 40.9% had experienced at least one unintended pregnancy
• 19.1% had experienced pregnancy coercion
• 15.0% had experienced birth control sabotage

The authors also reported that women who had experienced partner violence in the past were also more likely to have experienced pregnancy coercion or birth control sabotage (35% of those reporting violence compared to 15% of those not reporting violence). Women who had experienced reproductive control (coercion or sabotage) were also more likely to have experienced an unplanned pregnancy. When looking at the data by exposure to partner violence, reproductive control was associated with unintended pregnancy only among those who were exposed to partner violence.

Although the authors looked at lifetime exposures and so could not look at associations within specific relationships or the order of these events in time, one co-author of the study suggested that the associations may “explain why unintended pregnancies are far more common among abused women and teens.”

The researchers conclude that:

Comprehensive screening in clinical settings for the prevalent experiences of pregnancy coercion, birth control sabotage and partner violence should be considered a priority, particularly in the context of family planning and related programmatic efforts to reduce unintended pregnancy. Such screening may facilitate the critical work of addressing barriers to contraception among affected women and girls so as to reduce their elevated risk for unintended pregnancy.

The lead author of the study was also one of the researchers for a smaller study of intimate partner violence and birth control sabotage that we reported on in 2007.

[Note: Although I was able to get a copy of the article, it is not yet readily available online. I'll try to add a link if an abstract/full text becomes available.]

The horror of rape as a weapon of war in Africa is all too common. Just in Congo, hundreds of thousands of women have been raped in the last 10 years, their stories documented by award-winning radio programs, ongoing news stories and even an HBO documentary.

International awareness and outcry against these crimes is not always swift or widespread. But an attack last month by government troops on women in Conarky, Guinea seems to be drawing a quick response.

Photos of the brutal crimes, which took place during a peaceful stadium rally protesting Guinea’s ruling military junta, are circulating on cell phones, and today The New York Times published a horrific account based on interviews with witnesses and women who had been assaulted:

“I can’t sleep at night, after what I saw,” said one middle-aged woman from an established family here, who said she had been beaten and sexually molested. “And I am afraid. I saw lots of women raped, and lots of dead.”

One photograph shows a naked woman lying on muddy ground, her legs up in the air, a man in military fatigues in front of her. In a second picture a soldier in a red beret is pulling the clothes off a distraught-looking woman half-lying, half-sitting on muddy ground. In a third a mostly nude woman lying on the ground is pulling on her trousers.

The cellphone pictures are circulating anonymously, but multiple witnesses corroborated the events depicted.

The attacks were part of a violent outburst on Sept. 28 in which soldiers shot and killed dozens of unarmed demonstrators at the main stadium here, where perhaps 50,000 had assembled. Local human rights organizations say at least 157 were killed; the government puts the figure at 56.

But even more than the shootings, the attacks on women — horrific anywhere, but viewed with particular revulsion in Muslim countries like this one — appear to have traumatized the citizenry and hardened the opposition’s determination to force out the leader of the military junta, Capt. Moussa Dadis Camara.

Bernard Kouchner, the foreign minister of France, told the Times France could no longer work with Camara and urged “international intervention.” Camara seized power in a bloodless coup in December. He had promised he would not run in January’s presidential election but has since changed his mind. As the Times notes, growing internal opposition could force Camara to leave power, or the government could become even more authoritarian. Camara contends that members of the opposition, not the military, were responsible for the assaults and killings.

Amnesty International is calling for an international commission to investigate the human rights violations that occurred.

“The perpetrators of these brutal attacks must be identified and brought to justice,” said Erwin van der Borght, director of Amnesty International’s Africa Program. “This can only be achieved through an international inquiry as the Guinean authorities have already been discredited by their lack of political will to carry out a national investigation into accusations of human rights violations by security forces in 2007.”

While rape as a tool of military oppression is all too common, it previously has not been used as government tactic in Guinea.

“This time, a new stage has been reached,” Sidya Touré, a former prime minister who was beaten during the opposition rally, told the Times. “Women as battlefield targets. We could never have imagined that. [...] Where could people get the idea to start raping women in broad daylight?”

“They especially tore into the women,” François Lonsény Fall, another former prime minister who was also at the stadium, said. “They were seeking to humiliate them.”

Last week we heard that Roman Polanski’s rape of a 13-year-old girl wasn’t “rape-rape“; the media downplayed the crime; and celebrities petitioned for Polanski’s release.

Comedian Chris Rock’s disbelief over the reaction captured our own. During an interview on The Jay Leno Show, Rock cut through the messy rhetoric and exclaimed, “Rape! It’s rape!”

“People are defending Roman Polanski because he made some good movies?” Rock continued. “Are you kidding me? He made good movies 30 years ago, Jay! Even Johnnie Cochran don’t have the nerve to go, ‘Well, did you see O.J. play against New England?’”

Jezebel has the clip:

Latoya Peterson writes:

As Rock says at the end of the clip: “The United States, we want to capture Osama Bin Laden, and murder him. We don’t want to rape him – that would be barbaric!”

Rape is a barbaric act.

And I’m amazed it took a comedian to say it outright.

So am I. Yet while I want to cheer Rock on, a quick search shows that in 2001, when a woman accused Rock of rape (after first claiming she was pregnant with Rock’s child, which proved to be false), Rock turned to Anthony Pellicano, one of Hollywood’s sleaziest private detectives.

Their conversation, which came to light during Pellicano’s 2008 trial on charges of wiretapping and racketeering, was excerpted on Gawker. Pellicano describes how he would ruin the woman, and his comments are pretty ugly. As for Rock, Ryan Tate sums it up at Gawker: “For most of the call, Rock sounds annoyed and aloof, if shifty about his story. But however annoyed he might sound, he is the one who hired this guy.”

More good reads:

“Roman Polanski Has a Lot of Friends,” by Katha Pollitt

“Reminder: Roman Polanski Raped a Child,” by Kate Harding

That’s what reform advocates are hoping, as a video from Friday’s Senate Finance Committee spread over the weekend. The short clip, embedded below, shows a great practical and philosophical divide over women’s health care.

During discussion on the health care bill proposed by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), the committee debated one of Sen. Jon Kyl’s (R-Ariz.) amendments, which would prohibit the government from defining specific health benefits that insurers must offer.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) argued that under a new system, insurance companies should be required to cover basic maternity care. According to Kaiser Family Foundation, only 18 states mandate maternity coverage, and that number falls to 14 when applied to individual insurance markets.

Women who seek insurance on these open markets face other barriers, too; they can be disqualified for having had a previous c-section — or even for having been pregnant. Yes, pregnancy is a pre-existing condition. You can read more frustrating facts about the open insurance market — like how it’s still legal in nine states and the District of Columbia to deny a woman coverage because she’s been the victim of domestic violence — in this report by the National Women’s Law Center (covered here in October 2008).

But Kyl doesn’t plan on getting pregnant, so really, what’s the big whoop?

“Well, first of all, I don’t need maternity care,” Kyl said. “So requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something that I don’t need and will make the policy more expensive.”

Stabenow, smiling, interrupted: “I think your mom probably did.”

Kyl brushed off the remark, noting that was more than 60 years ago. Follow-up on insurers covering Viagra and prostate cancer did not ensue.

The Kyl-Stabenow exchange made the rounds in news stories and blog postings over the weekend. Almost 3,000 comments have been left on just this one Huffington Post brief. This version of the video has been viewed more than 122,000 times as of Monday morning.

Kyl should be thanked — it’s not every day a senator appears so stunningly tone-deaf on an issue that affects the entire population.

There are 4.3 million births per year in the United States, according to Childbirth Connection, which recently released a report (pdf) outlining how health care reform should address maternity care. Kyl’s staff should have held up flashcards noting that 85 percent of all women give birth, and 23 percent of hospital discharges are childbearing women or newborns. A woman’s health before and between pregnancies can have a major impact on pregnancy outcomes — and costs.

But again: Why should Kyl care?

For the record, Kyl’s amendment was defeated 14-9.

All this went down exactly one week after First Lady Michelle Obama made a personal appeal for health care, emphasizing the benefits to women and families. Speaking at an event sponsored by the White House Council on Women and Girls, Obama said “it’s still shocking” that women face discrimination when it comes to insurance premiums and coverage.

“I think it’s clear that health insurance reform and what it means for our families is very much a women’s issue,” said Obama (read her full remarks here).

Perhaps after watching Kyl, more Americans will be outraged that women can be denied coverage because of pregnancy. And maybe — just maybe — Stabenow’s six words, likely the first “your mother” joke  ever told during a debate on health care reform, will persuade voters that maternity coverage is worth it for everyone.

*For more compelling reasons why women need comprehensive health reform, see this fact sheet (pdf) from the National Women’s Law Center, and these statistics on health insurance coverage compiled by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

Update: As noted in the comments below, the NWLC is asking people to send in baby photos to show Kyl why maternity coverage is basic health care for all.

Supreme Court Decisions and You: The National Women’s Law Center has released an analysis of 2008-2009 Supreme Court decisions that have a direct effect on women’s lives. Here’s the report (pdf); more discussion at the NWLC blog, Womenstake:

In Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee, the Supreme Court safeguarded women’s and girls’ rights by allowing them to pursue remedies for gender discrimination in schools under both Title IX and the Constitution. In Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, the Court ruled that employees are protected from being subject to retaliation for cooperating with an employer’s internal investigation of discrimination. “The Court’s decisions in these two cases kept hard-won protections in place,” [NWLC Co-President Marcia] Greenberger said.

But not all outcomes were positive:

“In AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen, the Supreme Court ignored the realities of the workplace and the intent of Congress and ruled against female workers,” Greenberger said. As Justice Ginsburg noted in a strong dissent in the case, the Court’s decision permitted AT&T to pay women lower pension benefits for the rest of their lives.

Gag on Global Gag Rule: Ever since President Ronald Reagan instituted the “global gag rule” in 1984, its existence has been dependent on which party is in the White House. If it’s a Democrat, it’s revoked; if it’s Republican, it’s reinstated. On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted 17-10 to approve an amendment to a Department of State and foreign affairs appropriations bill that would make permanent President Obama’s reversal of the global gag rule. Emily Douglas has more.

The global gag rule, also known as the Mexico City policy (the site of the United Nations International Conference on Population where it was first announced), prohibits international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from offering abortion services or providing information about safe abortion, even if they use other funding. It would be great to see it gone, for good.

New NIH Director: President Obama has nominated Francis Collins, best known for leading the public effort to sequence the human genome, to be director of the National Institutes of Health. Chris Wilson at Slate looks at how Collins, an evangelical Christian, has combined his faith in God with his faith in science.

New Violence Against Women Advisor: “Vice President Joe Biden’s June 26 announcement of a White House Advisor on Violence Against Women stirred some public grumbling about President Barack Obama’s recent ‘czar frenzy,’” writes Kayla Hutzler at Women’s eNews.

“But at a time of rising pressure on domestic violence shelters, representatives of two of the largest advocacy groups for ending domestic violence were far more enthusiastic about the creation of the post. They were also excited at the naming of Lynn Rosenthal, a former executive director at the New Mexico Coalition against Domestic Violence in Albuquerque, with a substantial resume of safety advocacy and working ties to Biden.”

Here’s the White House announcement, and a New York Times editorial in favor of the appointment.

The Last Word on Sarah Palin (Fingers Crossed): Go read “Palin’s Long March to a Short-Notice Resignation,” then head over to Slate for Dahlia Lithwick’s parting shot: “[Wh]en the dust settles, the lesson may be that she was simply a woman who made no sense.”

Looking Ahead to 2012: Jill Miller Zimon wonders, “Could we see a female-female GOP ticket for president and vice president in 2012?”

Update on Conscience Clause: Kay Steiger has written a good round-up of efforts at the state level to pass legislation that allows medical professionals to refuse to provide services that violate their religious or moral beliefs.

Speaking of conscience clauses, anyone remember the federal rule instituted in the final days of the Bush administration? It cut off federal funding for state and local governments, hospitals, health plans and clinics that did not fully accommodate doctors, nurses, pharmacists or other employees who refuse to provide care they feel violates their beliefs. Aimed at abortion and family planning services, it went beyond laws that already provide for healthcare workers and threatened access to many health services, including infertility treatment, end-of-life care, blood transfusions and mental health counseling.

President Obama moved to rescind the rule, as expected, but the process has been very slow. The 3o-day public comment period on rule changes ended in April; Health and Human Services Department is still reviewing the hundreds of thousands of comments received.

Administration officials acknowledged early on that they were looking for a compromise, but we haven’t heard much more on the subject until President Obama told a group of religion reporters earlier this month that the new policy would “certainly not be weaker” than what existed before President Bush’s expansion:

We will be coming out with I think more specific guidelines.  But I can assure all of your readers that when this review is complete there will be a robust conscience clause in place.  It may not meet the criteria of every possible critic of our approach, but it certainly will not be weaker than what existed before the changes were made.

David Brody has the full transcript of Obama’s remarks.

Prop 8 Decision Due Tuesday: The California Supreme Court will announce its decision on Proposition 8 on Tuesday, May 26. The court’s decision will be posted online at 10 a.m.: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme

Check www.marriageequalityusa.org or www.equalityactionnow.org for info about where and how to organize a response.

“If we must reverse Prop. 8 at the ballot, we will do so,” Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights and a lawyer for couples in the case. “We will win – if not on Tuesday, then one day soon.”

A post-decision event is scheduled for Saturday, May 30. Marriage equality supporters from across California will “Meet in the Middle for Equality” at Fresno City Hall to celebrate or protest the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Standing Up For Her Own: Vogue’s Anna Wintour does her best to fulfill every dreaded stereotype of how fashion magazine editors regard the rest the word.

Ruling Against Tobacco Companies: A federal appeals court on Friday upheld a 2006 court ruling that found cigarette companies deceived consumers for decades about the dangers of smoking (view the decision [pdf]). From the Washington Post:

In a 93-page opinion, a three-judge panel cleared the way for new restrictions on how cigarette companies market and sell their products. Under the decision, the manufacturers will no longer be allowed to label brands “light” or “low tar” and will have to purchase ads on television and in major newspapers that explain the health dangers and addictiveness of their products.

Tobacco companies indicated that they will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, a process that would probably put compliance with the ruling on hold for at least several months.

Vermont Shines Light on Payments to Doctors: The Vermont Legislature has passed the nation’s strictest law (pdf) concerning the relationship between the medical industry and doctors. Under the law, which will take effect July 1 (assuming the governor signs it, as expected), pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers would be required to disclose all money given to physicians and other health care providers. Natasha Singer of The New York Times writes:

The Vermont law promises to provide a window into the considerable efforts and spending by device and drug makers to woo doctors even in a small state.

Makers of medical products spent about $2.9 million in fiscal year 2008 on marketing to health care professionals in Vermont, according to a report last month from the state’s attorney general. Of Vermont’s 4,573 licensed health practitioners, almost half received remuneration, including payments for lectures, meals or lodging from pharmaceutical companies in the 2008 fiscal year, the report said.

“If the drug industry gives $3 million on average for three years now to physicians in a small state like Vermont, what is happening in California and New York?” said Ken Libertoff, director of the Vermont Association for Mental Health, an advocacy group that supported the law.

Plus: Richard A. Friedman, MD, a professor of psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical College, writes about the popularity of “sexy blockbuster drugs” that are newer, but not necessarily better, and the effect that drug company marketing has on both patients and physicians.

Midwife Shortage in Mexico: IPS reports on the shortage of professional midwives in Mexico and the training at the only officially accredited Mexican school of midwifery, run by the non-profit Centre for Adolescents of San Miguel de Allende (CASA). Since the school was founded in 1997, 38 professional midwives have graduated; currently, 32 women are being trained.

Violence Against Women – Yawn: “We are so used to violence against women we don’t even notice how used to it we are,” writes Katha Pollitt, in a column on the shooting death of Johanna Justin-Jinich, a Wesleyan University student.

“When we’re not persuading ourselves that women are just as violent toward men as vice versa if you forget about who ends up seriously injured or dead, or pointing out that most murders are of men by men, we persuade ourselves that violence against women just comes up out of nowhere. Murder is serious, especially if the victim is young, white, middle-class, pretty; harassment, abuse, domestic violence, even rape, not so much.” Do go and read the rest.

Student Activists: In her first column as The Plain Dealer’s philanthropy writer, Margaret Bernstein writes about a group of high school girls who are taking on relationship violence. “These girls may not sound like philanthropists, but I think they are. They’re grass-roots philanthropists, using their actions instead of money to spark change.”

Rape Escalates in Eastern Congo: Dominique Soguel reports for Women’s eNews on the worsening sexual violence in the Eastern Congo. “Last week,” she writes, “the Congolese army came under scrutiny from the United Nations and human rights groups for its role in raping, killing and looting sprees during military operations in the two eastern provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu.

“Human Rights Watch called on the army to hold accountable soldiers involved in the rape of 143 women and girls, more than half of the 250 rape cases the organization documented in North Kivu.”

Plus: Eve Ensler, writing about the war on women in the Congo, asks: “I was in Bosnia during the war in 1994 when it was discovered there were rape camps where white women were being raped. Within two years there was adequate intervention. Yet, in Congo, femicide has continued for 12 years. Why? [...]

“What is happening in Congo is the most brutal and rampant violence toward women in the world. If it continues to go unchecked, if there continues to be complete impunity, it sets a precedent, it expands the boundaries of what is permissible to do to women’s bodies in the name of exploitation and greed everywhere. It’s cheap warfare.”

Being “Maddy”: Jennifer Finney Boylan wrote a beautiful piece about her relationship with her sons as she transitioned from male to female. Published as a New York Times “Modern Love” column, the essay was adapted from “The Book of Dads,” to be published in May by Ecco.

Determining Which Medical Therapies Work: “Good luck trying to learn what medical treatment works best to relieve low back pain, alleviate depression or prevent the spread of prostate cancer. The information isn’t available — to you or your doctor — because studies comparing potential treatments and how effective they are haven’t been done,” writes Judith Graham at the Chicago Tribune.

The story looks at the government’s plan to invest $1.1 billion in “comparative effectiveness” research and evaluate potential therapies head-to-head. Four medical experts weigh in on conditions they consider most deserving of research on comparative effectiveness. Rachel previously wrote about public input sought on research priorities.

The War Against Women: Writing at The New York Review of Books, Hilary Mantel discusses the four volumes of “From Eve to Dawn: A History of Women in the World,” by Marilyn French. The collection is published by Feminist Press.

Words Matter: Feminist Peace Network has posted useful tips for reporting about domestic violence and sexual assault. It’s a good resource for bloggers, journalists and anyone writing about these issues.

Sticker Shock: “A new national poll, conducted by NPR, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health, shows that what most uninsured people are willing to pay is a long way from what insurance really costs,” reports NPR’s “Morning Edition.”  “Two out of three uninsured Americans say they’d be willing to pay no more than $100 a month for coverage. But, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, the average individual health plan costs about $400 a month, and a family policy costs more than $1,000.”

When Accidents Happen: According to the Guttmacher Institute, more than half the pregnancies in the United States each year are unintended; poor women are four times as likely to have an unplanned pregnancy compared with higher-income women. NPR’s “Morning Edition” looks at the use of and access to contraceptives. Reporter Brenda Wilson notes that “the health system often throws up barriers to contraception, especially for young women who are the most vulnerable.” The story, however, focuses more on one woman’s situation.

Call for More Family Planning Aid: Dominique Soguel writes at Women’s eNews about a report released Tuesday calling for aggressive investment in family planning to curb population growth, poverty and maternal mortality. Five former directors of the population and reproductive health program of the U.S. Agency for International Development recommend the United States increase its spending to $1.2 billion in the next year’s funding round from $475 million in 2008.

Also from Women’s eNews: Five women will be recognized this week for their scientific discoveries.

“There is still a very big glass ceiling for women in science,” said Milbry Polk, director of Wings WorldQuest, which runs the awards. “You don’t find them in the history books. Women are left out. Their projects aren’t.”

Search Me: One of my favorite reads last week was Dahlia Lithwick explaining how Supreme Court justices can act like total dingbats:

When constitutional historians sit down someday to compile the definitive Supreme Court Concordance of Not Getting It, the entry directly next to Lilly Ledbetter (“Court fails utterly to understand realities of gender pay discrimination”) will be Savana Redding (“Court compares strip searches of 13-year-old girls to American Pie-style locker-room hijinks”). After today’s argument, it’s plain the court will overturn a 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion finding a school’s decision to strip-search a 13-year-old girl unconstitutional. That the school in question was looking for a prescription pill with the mind-altering force of a pair of Advil — and couldn’t be bothered to call the child’s mother first — hardly matters.

Read the rest.