NOW Public Censure Statement re: G. Todd Baugh

Today at 1:00 p.m. MDT, the Montana Supreme Court held G. Todd Baugh’s public censure hearing in Helena Montana. Here’s a video of the entire hearing, courtesy of the Billings Gazette.

 

We were one of the complainants who filed a Judicial Conduct complaint against Baugh last fall. We were in court  today to tell Baugh, the Supreme Court, and the country why we filed the complaint and what we thought of Baugh’s actions as a sitting judge who was supposed to fairly met out justice for all.

Unfortunately Montana NOW and Pennsylvania NOW were not allowed to speak about our concerns before the Court. We had expected to deliver these comments publicly. Since we were unable to speak them, we sent our statement directly to Baugh.  We have also let the press know that this statement is available on this blog.

The following is our official statement:

Stop Violence Against Women NOW diamond

Stop Violence Against Women NOW

Mr. Baugh:

We are Marian Bradley and Joanne Tosti-Vasey, representing, respectively Montana NOW and Pennsylvania NOW, state chapters of the National Organization for Women. We are one of the eight sets of complainants that filed an ethics violation complaint against you, Mr. Baugh.  We believe you mishandled this rape case and as a result you impugned the judiciary.  Your statements blaming the victim and your failure to follow state law in sentencing Stacey Rambold were outrageous and unconscionable.

We filed this complaint on behalf of men, women, and children in Montana as well as men, women, and children across the country.  We believe that it is long past time for Montana’s authorities to protect the right-thinking citizens of and visitors to Montana from sexual predators rather than freeing those predators so that they can rape again.

We represent the more than 250,000 people around the world who called for your resignation or removal and the 350 sexual assault survivors who signed a letter calling for your removal. When we filed our complaint to the Judicial Standards Commission on September 24, we included copies of the petitioners’ names, the sexual assault survivor letter and copies of two news articles condemning your actions.

On Monday, August 26, 2013, you sentenced confessed child rapist Stacey Rambold to only 31 days in jail for that offense.  You justified that slap-on-the-wrist sentence by commenting, incredibly, that the 14-year-old child victim – two years under the legal age of consent – was “as much in control” of the rape as her 49-year-old teacher because, according to you, she was “older than her chronological age.” You then attempted to justify this sentence by telling the press that this rape “was not a violent, forcible, beat-the-victim rape, like you see in the movies.”

Mr. Baugh, your victim-blaming, rape-trivializing, rapist-protecting comments and actions come less than a year after the United States Department of Justice was called in to address civil rights violations and rape victim-blaming by the University of Montana, Missoula County and Missoula City authorities over many years.

Our complaint raised three ethical issues that we believed you violated.  The issues we raised were:

That you did NOT act at all times in a manner that promoted public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary, and that you did not avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety (Rule 1.2);

That you did NOT uphold and apply the law, nor did you perform all duties of your judicial office fairly and impartially (Rule 2.2); and

That you in the performance of your judicial duties, by your words as well as your conduct, showed manifest bias or prejudice against the victim based upon her race, sex, gender, age, and socioeconomic status (Rule 2.3).

The Judicial Standards Commission found that you violated the ethical issue of impropriety. The Montana Supreme Court in overturning your 31-day sentence of Rambold on April 30 essentially found that you violated the second ethical issue by failing to uphold and apply the law. And when the Montana Supreme Court overturned this sentence, they ordered this case to be reassigned to a new judge because your statement at trial evidenced bias against the victim.  That essentially means you also violated our third complaint of showing bias against the victim – a young, Hispanic, lower-income girl.

You used three different rape myths to justify your actions. By doing so, you used a form of gender bias that destroyed the integrity of the judicial process and contravened Montana law. Rape myths are forms of gender bias that have no place in a justice system that strives to provide an impartial forum for all participants.  As the Honorable Justice Sandra Day O’Connor said in 1994, “When people perceive gender bias in a legal system, whether they suffer from it or not, they lose respect for that system, as well as for the law.”

What did you do?  You blamed the victim for the rape. You invoked the belief that this wasn’t “real” rape because it did not involve physical violence. And you invoked the myth of girl provocateur, also known as the Lolita Effect, to deny the power and control a teacher has over his student.

You relied on these rape myths to impose your sentence against Rambold. You trivialized the act of rape by stating that the crime was not a “forcible, beat-up rape.” By doing so you downplayed the fact that a teacher took advantage of and sexually assaulted a girl under his power and control. You blamed the victim by claiming she had control over the rape.

This young girl, Cherice Moralez, experienced such psychological and emotional damage that she ultimately died by suicide even before the case came to trial.  Your statements about the victim being as much in control of the situation as Rambold and then giving a slap-on-the-wrist sentence to Rambold is insupportable as a matter of fact and law, given her age and vulnerability.

Children and adolescents are vulnerable to coercion and social pressure by adults and figures of power. Your use of these rape myths diminished and made invisible a young vulnerable girl. Your statements result in a chilling effect on other victims of sexual assault. It also places a chilling effect on the public and others within the judicial system. If we are unable to trust and rely on the justice system to properly weigh the relevant factors in addressing sexual assaults, we all lose confidence in the integrity of the judicial process.

We would have preferred that the Montana Judicial Standards Commission and the Montana Supreme Court had immediately removed you from the bench so that you could no longer impugn the integrity of the court and return the court in Yellowstone County to a full sense of fairness for women, children, and other victims of domestic and sexual violence.  Instead they chose to give you a similar 31-day “sentence” that you gave to Stacey Rambold.  In his case, it was 31 days in jail with one day suspended; in your case it’s 31 days without pay. We accept that decision. However we are concerned that as long as you remain seated on the bench that the public in Montana, around the country and throughout the world will continue to question the fairness and integrity of the judicial system in Montana.

We therefore suggest that not only do you fully accept today’s censure and the suspension, but that you also apologize for your actions to Cherice’s mother and all victims of sexual and domestic violence and that you immediately either step down or recuse yourself from all future cases handed to you. Enough is enough. Your actions in our opinion require these responses from you.

Posted in Censure, Joanne Tosti-Vasey, Judge G. Todd Baugh (MT), Justice, Latino-Latina, Marian Bradley, Montana, Montana Judicial Standards Commission, Montana NOW, Montana Supreme Court, Montana v. Rambold, MT Judicial Standards Commission v. Judge G. Todd Baugh, Pennsylvania NOW, Rape, Rape Myths, Sexism, Stacey Rambold, Victim-Blaming | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The 2014 quest to get single women to the polls

civilrightsactivist:

This article originally appeared in the Los Angeles Times at  http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/politicsnow/la-pn-democrat-quest-to-turn-out-single-women-20140716-story.html on July 17, 2014. It was written by Maeve Reston.  She is a political reporter at the paper. She’s been covering presidential election since 2004, first in Pittsburgh PA, then Austin TX, and now in Los Angeles.  She can be reached through Twitter at @MaeveReston.

If you’d like to learn more about unmarried-women voters, you can check out the research that was conducted by the Voter Participation Center and Lake Research Partners.

Please read this great article. Review the research. And help get-out-the-vote. You can help by talking to your unmarried female friends and family  members and helping them to register to vote. And the remind them to vote on November 4, 2014.

 

Originally posted on Central Oregon Coast NOW:

la-pn-g-democrats-quest-turn-women-20140716-20140716

By MAEVE RESTON
July 17, 2014

It has been nearly a month since the Supreme Court handed down its Hobby Lobby decision, yet the issue has remained at the top of the political news now for weeks — a key facet in the battle for control of the U.S. Senate.

To explain that, look no further than the research by the Voter Participation Center into the voting trends for single women in midterm elections. Though single women make up a growing share of the electorate — nearly 4.2 million became eligible to cast ballots since 2008 — they turn out in far lower numbers in midterm elections than presidential contests.


The battle for female voters in Montana
Related video: Facing attacks in the Montana Senate race on his record on abortion, Republican Steve Daines aired his own female-focused ad touting his support for the Violence Against Women Act.

The dropoff…

View original 622 more words

Posted in Colorado, Contraception, Democracy, Democratic Party, Elections, Hobby Lobby, Lake Research Partners, Los Angeles Times, Maeve Reston, Montana, Political Parties, Republican Party, Single women, Voter Participation Center, Voting Rights | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Let’s Talk About the ‘Selfies-Make-You-Appear-Incompetent’ Study

civilrightsactivist:

According to Nancy Leong, “When research finds that women pay a price for appearing “sexy” in some way, the inevitable conclusion shouldn’t be that ‘women should change their behavior.’ Instead, it should be that ‘we should all try to change this stupid social attitude.’” Women can be happy and good looking in their own and in other’s eyes. And at the same time be smart, savvy and intelligent. To have researchers and the public say that a woman who “looks good” has to be “dumb” is misogynistic and patriarchal just as Julie Mastrine says in this article.
So the next time you hear someone disparage a woman’s mind because of how she looks, stand up and say something. Challenge that notion that women can’t look “good” and be intelligent at the same time.

Originally posted on Julie Mastrine:

selfie_by_AmyMastrine

Illustration by Amy Mastrine

There’s a study making the rounds that finds women perceive other ladies who post “sexy selfies” on social media to be “incompetent.” The takeaway for many is that women should just stop posting selfies — but that’s bullshit. This study is really an opportunity to examine societal attitudes toward femininity and beauty.

The headlines alone are the metaphorical equivalent to throwing gallons of gas on the slut-shaming fire:

Study Proves Your Sexy Selfies Make You Seem Less Attractive and Competent, asserts FitFabFun. How Sexy Selfies Are Making You Lose Friends, warns Yahoo! Sexy Profile Pictures Make Women Look ‘Stupid,’ says MyDailyUK.

Over at the Washington Post, columnist Caitlin Dewey warns women that they should be “listening to [their] peers” if they “want to be taken seriously.” Many commenters have gone so far as to say women need to tone down the sexy selfies if they want to be taken seriously in the workplace.

View original 417 more words

Posted in Body Image, Feminism, Harassment, Julie Mastrine, Justice, Misogyny, Nancy Leong, Patriarchy, Washington Post | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

ALICE, Throw ALEC Out

civilrightsactivist:

ALICE- The American Legislative and Issue Campaign Exchange – is an alternative to ALEC. It’s new, but may help push back against the conservative business backlash. Let’s hope so.

Originally posted on Nel's New Day:

The corporate-funded American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been active for over four decades. Businesses pay for conservative federal and state legislators to take copy-ready bills to Congress and state legislatures. ALEC has been responsible for lax gun regulations—including the infamous “stand your ground” laws—as well as laws that roll back civil rights, pollution regulations, unions while privatizing public services which costs taxpayers far more money. Thanks to ALEC, schools, prisons, public transportation, and social and welfare services have been taken over by for-profit businesses that only help the private owners.

Since  I learned about ALEC, I have longed for a way to fight back. Lo and behold, there is one! Meet ALICE, The American Legislative and Issue Campaign Exchange, that also provides “model bills,” ones free to state and national legislatures.

During the Occupy Movement about two years ago, New York City Councilman Brad Lander met with Seattle Councilman Nick…

View original 780 more words

Posted in ALEC - American Legislative Exchange Council, ALICE- American Legislative and Issue Campaign Exchange, Legislation, Lobbying, Net Neutrality | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

It’s a Black and White Issue

overturn_hobbylobby_ruling_now.jpg

Show your support for overturning the Hobby Lobby Ruling

Women have rights. It is a black and white issue. Show your support for overturning the Hobby Lobby decision by the US Supreme Court

Rally near your nearest Hobby Lobby protesting this decision. Here’s a link to the Hobby Lobby’s “Store Locator.” Your local NOW chapter may also be participating in a local action. 

Wear Black and White on July 5.

Women Have Rights. It's black and white issue.. Show your support this July 4th. Wear black and white or red and blue.  Change your profil picture to a black and white one. Keep your pic up until August 26.

Women Have Rights. It’s a black and white issue.

And turn your profile picture or banner on all of your social media sites black and white through August 26; this is the anniversary of women’s right to vote being placed into the US Constitution.

Thanks for your support of this action continuing to oppose the War on Women.

Posted in Affordable Care Act, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Civil Rights, Contraception, Contraceptive Mandate, Hobby Lobby, NOW Inc. (National Organization for Women), Protests, Reproductive Justice, Sex Discrimination, Social Media, Twitter, US Supreme Court, War on Women | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Repeal the RFRA and Ratify the ERA

ERA words buttonCorporations should not have more religious rights than woman.  With the US Supreme Court’s (SCOTUS) Hobby Lobby decision, women’s personally “sincerely held” beliefs now mean nothing.

The Hobby Lobby decision is not based on the US Constitution.  Instead it’s based on a bill known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or RFRA combined with the recent Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that granted personhood status to companies. Since there is no constitutional equality for women and therefore no strict scrutiny review for women’s religious and civil rights, this decision eliminating women personal religious beliefs and access to reproductive health coverage occurred.

The RFRA, when combined with this SCOTUS decision, makes women non-persons.

Therefore in order to place women back on equal footing with men (and the “personhood” of corporations as this activist Court has mandated), we need to do two things:

    1. Ratify the ERA — the Equal Rights Amendment — and put women into the US Constitution so that women WILL be equally treated as people and not as objects to be pushed around by the will of corporations and by gender bigots.
    2. Repeal the RFRA  -  The Freedom From Religion Foundation placed an ad in the New York Times entitled Dogma Should NOT trump Civil Liberties that in part states:

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people. Now, the Supreme Court asserts that corporations have “religious rights” that surpass those of women.In the words of Justice John Paul Stevens, “Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings,no thoughts, no desires” — but real women do. Allowing employers to decide what kind of birth control an employee can use is not,as the Supreme Court ruled, an “exercise of religion.” It is an exercise of tyranny.

I agree.  Repeal the RFRA and put women into the US Constitution.

The repeal of the RFRA would require an act of Congress. That means we need to elect new members to Congress who respect and will stand up for women. So we all need to register to vote and then vote.

We only need three more states to ratify the ERA to make it the 28th amendment to the US Constitution. Illinois is halfway there; their Senate ratified it and we’re now awaiting the vote in the state House.  Just two more states and then we can proudly say:

Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.

 

Posted in Affordable Care Act, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Civil Rights, Congress, Contraception, Contraceptive Mandate, Corporate Welfare, Equal Rights Amendment, ERA, ERA (Equal Rights Amendment), Federal Court(s), Freedom From Religion Foundation, Gender Equality, Hobby Lobby, Illinois, Misogyny, Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), Sex Discrimination, Sexism, US Supreme Court, War on Women | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Pennsylvania Agenda for Women’s Health: Phase Two

Logo for the Pennsylvania Agenda for Women's Health

Logo for the Pennsylvania Agenda for Women’s Health

On June 3, I gave an update on the second roll-out of bills associated with the Pennsylvania Agenda for Women’s Health. At the time, I did not have the bill numbers associated with each of these new bills nor did I have the information on where they were sent to. Now I do. Here’s that information.

Phase Two

Curbing Political Interference in Providers’ Medical Decisions:

H.B. 2303 will soon be introduced by Rep. Dan Frankel (D—Allegheny) to protect the doctor-patient relationship from directives to practice care in a manner that is not in accordance with standards of care. Senator Mike Stack (D—Philadelphia) has agreed to introduce the Senate version of this bill

Identifying gaps in health care for women veterans:

S.R. 262 has been introduced by Senator LeAnna Washington (D—Philadelphia and Montgomery) establishing a 17-member Task Force on Women Veterans’ Health Care that will study health care issues unique to women veterans, along with the quality of and access to care for women veterans. It is currently in the Senate VETERANS AFFAIRS AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS Committee. The House version is sponsored by Representatives Pam DeLissio (D—Philadelphia an Montgomery) and Kevin Schreiber (D-York); their co-sponsorship memo is currently being circulated, but no bill number has yet been assigned.

Fighting deep poverty among women with children:

There are three different bills designed to address this issue.

    1. S.R. 62 has been introduced by Senator Chuck McIIhinney (R—Bucks). This resolution “directs the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee (LBFC) to study approaches to family work support programs which will increase income, keep families working and mitigate the circumstance referred to as the cliff effect.  This effect occurs when working parents receive a minor increase in their income that makes them ineligible for various programs that allow them to work such as child care assistance, transportation, food stamps and free and reduced school lunches.  The phenomenon often creates disincentives for poor families to achieve self-sufficiency.” It was sent to the Senate Aging and Youth Committee for review. On June 10, this committee unanimously voted in support of the bill and the bill is now waiting for the next review by the full Senate.
    2. H.B. 2305 will soon be introduced by Rep. Madeleine Dean (D—Montgomery). It will increase the monthly Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) benefits for women in need. This bill will increase the maximum TANF grant amount to 50% of the Federal Poverty Level and would allow annual adjustments to be made based on revisions to this index of poverty.
    3. H.B. 2306 will soon be introduced by Rep. Michelle Brownlee (D—Philadelphia). It will increase in the TANF Earned Income Disregard from 50% to 75% to encourage individuals to work by acknowledging that working families have unique expenses that take up a large percentage of their take home pay. This increase would help offset the additional taxes, transportation, clothing, and child care co-pays associate with working. The current disregard level is not enough to offset these additional costs.  A Senate version to be introduced by Senator Judy Schwank (D—Berks) is circulating a co-sponsorship memo to introduce this same legislation in the Senate; a bill number has yet to be assigned.

Ensuring widows of state and municipal employees get fair pensions:

There are two different bills designed to address this issue. These bills require that a public employee select a retirement plan payment structure that provides no less than a fifty percent (50%) survivor annuity to the employee’s surviving spouse. These bills would bring spouses of public employees the same survivor protections that all other employees currently have. This is necessary since the federal Retirement Equity Act of 1984 does not cover employees of the state, local municipalities, or public schools. These bills mirror the spousal protections provided in federal law. Rep. Steve Santarsiero (D—Bucks) is circulating the co-sponsorship memo in the House for H.B. 2307 and H.B.2308. Senator Vincent Hughes (D—Montgomery and Philadelphia) is circulating the co-sponsorship memo in the Senate to introduce similar legislation in the chamber.

Protecting all employees against sexual harassment:

H.B. 2300 has been introduced by Rep. Michael Schlossberg (D-LeHigh) to amend the PA Human Relations Act to extend the prohibition on sexual harassment to all employers in the state. Currently law only affects employers with four or more employees. This bill is currently in the House LABOR AND INDUSTRY Committee.

Taking Action on the PA Agenda for Women’s Health

Ni-Ta-Nee NOW logo of a woman successfully scaling Nittany Mountain and working for equality

Ni-Ta-Nee NOW logo

And FYI, my local chapter of the National Organization for Women — Ni-Ta-Nee NOW — will be circulating a petition in support of this Agenda at the Central Pennsylvania Festival of the Arts in State College, PA on July 10-12, 2014. Our table will be located in front of Freeze Thaw Cycles, 109 S Allen St, State College, PA 16801 from 10 am to 8 pm each day. Please drop by, learn more about this Agenda, sign the petition, register to vote, and join NOW.

Posted in #PA4WomensHealth, Aging, Harassment, Health Care, Ni-Ta-Nee NOW, Paycheck Fairness Act, Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania General Assembly, Pennsylvania House of Representatives, Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Pennsylvania Senate, Pensions, Pensions, Poverty, Rep. Dan Frankel (D-PA-Allegheny), Rep. Kevin Schreiber (D-York), Rep. Madeleine Dean (D-Montgomery), Rep. Michael Schlossberg (D-LeHigh), Rep. Michelle Brownlee (D-Philadelphia), Rep. Pam DeLissio (D- Philadelphia and Montgomery), Rep. Steve Santarsiero (D-Bucks), Reproductive Justice, Retirement, Retirement Equity Act, Sen. Chuck McIllhinney (R-PA-Bucks & Montgomery), Sen. Judy Shwank (D-PA-Berks), Sen. LeAnna Washington (D-PA 4 - Montgomery and Philadelphia), Sen. Mike Stack (D-Philadelphia), Sen. Vincent Hughes (D-PA 7), Senior Citizens, Sexual Harassment, Spousal Pension Benefits, TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), Veterans, Women's Equality | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Health Care is a Human Right

Mike Stout has just created his newest song entitled Heath Care is a Human Right. Tim Murray made the video of this new anthem for universal single payer health care. Both premiered  on Saturday evening, June 7 in Pittsburgh at a fundraiser for Healthcare for All PA. The video was posted on Sunday on YouTube.

Here’s the video.

And here’s a link to Healthcare for All PA, where you can obtain more information on Single Payer healthcare, how it improves upon the Affordable Care Act (ACA), what’s happening in the US and Pennsylvania to move us toward universal healthcare, and how you can join those of us who see and advocate for Healthcare as a Human Right.

Posted in Health Care, Health Care for All PA, Medicare for All, Mike Stout, Single-Payer, Video | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

My Fortune Cookie

Graphic rendering of a fortune cookie

My Fortune Cookie

Have you ever opened a fortune cookie and read something that speaks to your soul?

I have. Twice.  The most recent one was a “fortune” I got over the weekend when my family went out to our local Chinese restaurant.  As a civil rights advocate, this struck home with me:

To love what you do and feel that it matters–how could anything be more fun?

Quote | Posted on by | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

Marriage Equality throughout the United States

civilrightsactivist:

Thank you Nel for a great summary of the current status on marriage equality in the US. Twenty states recognizing same-sex marriages. And the remaining thirty states with pending lawsuits. As you quote the misnamed National Organization for Marriage (NOM), all 50 states are likely to recognize same-sex marriages by the beginning of 2016.

Originally posted on Nel's New Day:

Oregon, my own state, is keeping its status as one of the 19 states legalizing marriage equality, according to a decision delivered today by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. After a U.S. district judge ruled in favor of removing the state constitutional ban, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) appealed to both the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. Today, the Kennedy refused to give NOM any standing in the case. Since Judge Michael McShane issued his ruling on May 19, hundreds of same-sex couples have married in Oregon.

NOM’s case opposing McShane’s ruling is on behalf of three Oregonians: a county clerk, a wedding provider, and a person who voted to ban marriage equality in 2004. All the individuals, who refused to give their names, would not publicly explain how they would be harmed by legal same-sex marriage in the state. State officials are fighting NOM’s appeal in…

View original 1,188 more words

Posted in Civil Rights, Court Decisions, Gay Marriage, Marriage, Marriage Equality, National Organization for Marriage (NOM), Same-Sex Marriage, States | Tagged , | Leave a comment