October 2009 – Page 6

Shackling Pregnant Prisoners in Labor Found to be Cruel

In other news: sky is blue and grass is green.

I worked on this issue for a while, and was delighted to see this decision. Ridiculous that it should have ever come up for debate. Anyway, sorry for the length here, but this letter isn’t posted on the website. I received it a few days ago from the National Advocates for Pregnant Women:

On Friday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit (the federal level appellate court that reviews decisions from federal district courts in North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri, Minnesota, and Arkansas) issued the long-awaited decision in Nelson v. Norris. In this case, Shawanna Nelson argued that being forced to go through the final stages of labor with both legs shackled to her hospital bed was cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. She argued that she should be allowed to sue the director of the prison and the guard who repeatedly re-shackled her legs to the bed. Ms. Nelson, an African-American woman, was incarcerated for non-violent offenses of credit card fraud and "hot checks."

In this historic federal court decision, the Court held that the guard was not immune from (protected from) suit because it has been clearly established by the decisions of the Supreme Court and the lower federal courts that shackling pregnant women in labor violates that 8th Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The Court suggested that the corrections officers should have known that the medical risks of shackling were "obvious" and that "the shackles interfered with Nelson’s medical care, could be an obstacle in the event of a medical emergency, and caused unnecessary suffering at a time when Nelson would have likely been physically unable to flee because of the pain she was undergoing and the powerful contractions she was experiencing as her body worked to give birth."

Friday Random Ten – the Panama edition

You probably didn’t notice with all the great guest-blogging going on, but I was away for a while at the end of August and beginning of September, galavanting around Panama and Colombia. I’m still in the process of uploading the hundreds of pictures I took, but I figured FRT was a good place to throw up some travel photos. So this week, instead of videos, I give you Panama City. Next week: the San Blas islands.

Panama

You know the drill: Put your MP3 player on “shuffle” and post the first 10 songs that come up.

1. The Pogues – Fairytale of New York
2. Tom Waits – Gun Street Girl
3. Pissed Jeans – Don’t Need Smoke to Make Myself Disappear
4. The Decembrists – Oceanside
5. Etta Jones & Strings – Hurry Home
6. The Kinks – The Village Green Preservation Society
7. Clap Your Hands Say Yeah – Over and Over Again (Lost and Found)
8. Puff Daddy & The Family – It’s All About the Benjamins
9. Guided by Voices – 14 Cheerleader Coldfront
10. Chris Garneau – Castle Time

More travel photos below the fold.

Name ‘n Shame

Meet the senators who voted against Al Franken’s amendment which punishes contractors that “restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court.”

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)

Lovely to see so many “family values” conservatives on the list.

Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

Nice work, O!

There are, of course, some skeptics on the right and on the left (and guess who I think has a bit more of a point). Yglesias rightly points out that Obama has a lot left to accomplish when it comes to promoting peace — brokering an Israel/Palestine peace deal, normalizing relations with Cuba and promoting international climate agreement. And PZ Meyers adds that Obama hasn’t done away with some of the worst leftovers from the Bush years.

On the right, they’re crying “affirmative action” — because, you know, all the qualified people on the entire planet are white. They’re also “stunned,” and suspect this may be the Nobel committee’s way of criticizing George W. Bush. But hey, at least they’re on the same page as the Taliban — how’s that for international diplomacy?

I’m not sure it’s a criticism of the Bush years as much as a reaction to the fact that George W. Bush destroyed our international reputation and earned us more than a few enemies. Obama has a lot to repair, and has made responsible statesmanship central to his presidency. That’s a good thing.

We absolutely should push Obama to do better — and he has a lot to improve — but the attacks on him for being awarded such a prestigious prize are disturbing. We have a sitting president who won a Nobel Peace Prize. That was unthinkable a year ago. I realize that a lot of people on the right are sore losers, but this is getting ridiculous. The Nobel conversations are already sounding like the flipside of the conservative reaction when Chicago didn’t get the Olympics — there, conservatives were giddy that America had lost something just because Obama wanted it; here, conservatives are devastated that an American leader won something, just because Obama is that leader.

I was in the Chicago area (in the suburbs, not the city) when the news of the Olympic rejection broke, and it was disconcerting to see that right so celebratory when most Chicago residents looked like this:

Chicago

Admittedly hilarious photos aside, right-wingers were just bad sports about the whole thing. It’s disappointing, but not surprising, to see them being jerks about Obama’s Nobel prize win.

To be clear, there are lots of reasons to criticize Obama winning the Nobel while Guantanamo is still open and the U.S. still tortures people. But “OMG he’s black and liberal and therefore obvs not qualified!!!” is not one of them.

Obama and the Nobel Peace Prize

Like everyone else, I was hit with the news this morning that Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. And, like seemingly everyone else, my first reaction was “Really? Already? But why?”

Luckily for me, just as I began to ask that question, I came across this article from the AP, which debunks several Nobel Peace Prize related myths. Of most significance is the last:

_ Myth: The prize is awarded to recognize efforts for peace, human rights and democracy only after they have proven successful.

More often, the prize is awarded to encourage those who receive it to see the effort through, sometimes at critical moments.

Assuming the AP is correct, suddenly (at least to me), this whole thing makes a lot more sense.

Now, I’m not saying that closes all opportunity for criticism of the decision, by any means. Please, criticize away — there’s definitely room for it! But it makes sense to do it from a fully informed perspective. A lot of the criticism I’ve seen appears to be working off of a mistaken assumption — one which I myself thought was correct — so it certainly seems relevant to clear things up. I, for one, am glad to see that someone did.

Crickets Indeed

Fillyjonk has a question:

Out of curiosity, and because I’m sure we could all use a break from 500-comment threads in which men drop by to deny or devalue our experience: I’d like you to comment on this post only if you are a woman who has NOT had a man continue interacting with you against your will after you have answered tersely, turned away, walked on, put on your headphones, gone back to your book, resumed your conversation, told him you did indeed have a boyfriend, denied his request, or asked him to leave you alone. Comment only if the men you’ve encountered have consistently respected your boundaries and acknowledged your right to have them.

You don’t have to go on at length — just let us know how old you are and where you live.

…anyone? Bueller?

Yes Means Yes at Colgate University

Awesome news: Yes Means Yes, an anthology that Cara and I both contributed to, is being used as the basis for a sex education class at Colgate University.

Colgate University has introduced an official sexual education class on campus. “Yes Means Yes” is a series of five non-credit classes held on Wednesday evenings over dinner from 7 to 8:30 p.m. The topic of discussion will be Colgate’s “hook-up culture,” what one wants in a relationship, how to navigate one’s own sexuality better and how to help others with these areas. Facilitators will focus on the formative novel, Yes Means Yes! Visions of Female Sexual Power & A World Without Rape.

Berger selected Yes Means Yes! Visions of Female Sexual Power & A World Without Rape, written by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti, to emphasize positive sexuality and consensual sex. An individual chapter is assigned for each week’s discussion in order to have a strong foundation for conversation and plenty of participation.

Pretty cool.

Is This Fat-Hate?

Reading this New York Times round-up, it sounds like the Corzine campaign in New Jersey is targeting Republican candidate Christopher Christie for his weight. But after watching the video, I’m not sure. Check it out:

Yes, the video uses the phrase “throwing his weight around,” and it shows Mr. Christie getting out of a car where you can see the fact that he’s fat. But the ad is criticizing Christie for bad behavior on the road — evading tickets and whatnot. The entire video leading up to the footage of Mr. Christie features different shots of automobiles. It makes sense, in context, to show him getting out of a car.

If the Corzine campaign is trying to use Christie’s weight against him, that’s obviously abhorrent. After watching the ad, I’m just not convinced that’s what’s going on here.

Domestic violence: one more reason for health care reform

I just received this email from the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. I’m embarrassed to admit that I didn’t already know this:

Eight states (Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming) and the District of Columbia allow insurance companies to consider domestic violence a pre-existing condition, a medical issue present prior to obtaining health insurance. Eight of the 16 major insurance companies have used this right to deny coverage to victims of domestic violence.

This is a cruel ruse to increase company profits at the expense of the health and well-being of patients. Although insurance companies can apply this rationale to any condition, the denial of coverage for women who are victims of domestic violence seems especially glaring.

And this should be interesting: Senators Barbara Mikulski, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray, Mary Landrieu, Debbie Stabenow, Maria Cantwell, Amy Klobuchar, Jeanne Shaheen, Kay Hagan, and Kirsten Gillibrand are slated to appear on Larry King tonight (9:45pm EST on CNN) to discuss gender inequality in the health care system and how it must be addressed in the health care reform debate.

RCRC also has an action on their website where you can send an email to your senator or representative (or, you know, for DC residents, into the ether – no offense, EHN) urging them to eliminate all “pre-existing condition” restrictions on coverage.

Thursday Pick-Me-Up

Why hasn’t someone dubbed this woman on some ironic hipster rap album yet? What is keeping me from reenacting this bodacious routine in my cubicle this afternoon? Find it, feel it, do it. YEAH!

The week is almost over.