Students

August 7, 2013

Third Circuit Upholds Girls’ Free Speech Rights in School

In September 2011, just before I stepped down as Pennsylvania NOW President, PA NOW along with the Feminist Majority, Legal Momentum, and several other feminist organizations signed onto an amicus brief written by the Women’s Law Project in support of two middle school girls from the Easton Area (PA) School District who participated in a youth breast cancer awareness program by wearing “I ♥ boobies” breast cancer awareness bracelets to school.

"I ♥ Boobies" bracelets made by the Keep a Breast Foundation

Sample “I ♥ Boobies” bracelets that were banned by the Easton Area School District; photo courtesy of Keep a Breast Foundation

Kayla Martinez and Brianna Hawk, then seventh and eighth graders, were suspended for wearing Keep A Breast bracelets on Breast Cancer Awareness Day.  Subsequently the school district instituted a district wide ban on the bracelets because they were supposedly “lewd” statements about women’s bodies.  These young women, citing 1st Amendment rights, refused to take them off and then filed suit through their parents after the district-wide ban was instituted.

On August 5, 2013, the 14-member 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 9-5 en banc decision, upheld the District Court injunction against this ban on educational free speech.  They looked at the question of whether or not speech about women’s bodies and their health “could [be] interpret[ed] as lewd, vulgar, profane, or offensive [when that] speech could also plausibly be interpreted as commenting on a political or social issue.”  The court decided that breast cancer is a social issue exception and thus protected speech.  This means that talk about breasts and breast cancer is protected speech in schools throughout Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey, the three states that fall under the jurisdiction of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals.

According to the Keep A Breast Foundation, the makers of this bracelet, the 3rd Circuit Courts decision

“[M]arks the first time a federal court of appeals has ruled that the First Amendment protects student speech that is plausibly understood as commenting on political or social issues.”

The Court’s bottom-line statement in its en banc decision, I believe, says it all:

“The bracelets are intended to be and they can reasonably be viewed as speech designed to raise awareness of breast cancer and to reduce stigma associated with openly discussing breast health.”

Thanks to Mary Catherine Roper of the ACLU of Pennsylvania  for taking this case to the 3rd Circuit and to Terry Fromson and staff of the Women’s Law Project for working on this issue in support of young women’s free speech rights when talking and taking a stand on their bodies and their health!

February 14, 2013

A Further Comment on Violence Against Women and Children on V-Day

I received a comment on LinkedIn this morning in response to my posting titled VAWA Passes Senate: One Step Toward Ending the Climate of Indifference Towards Violence Against Women.  My status statement said, “Feb 14 is V-Day. Rise to end indifference towards violence against women.”  A man in one of the groups I am a member of responded with a question:

So, please explain how we are being “indifferent” towards violence against women. There are laws against violent attacks on any human being – women included. Are these laws being ignored in cases where a woman is the victim?

I think not.

What we see here is another group who wishes to reap the benefits of victim status whether the facts bear them out or not. Beware of those who believe that they deserve special treatment – especially when that special treatment comes at the expense of others.

His question deserves a response.  Which I gave him within LinkedIn.  Since there are many others how might have a similar question but aren’t on LinkedIn, I’m commenting here as well.

The Violence Against Women Re-Authorization Act (VAWA S.47) does not call for special treatment of anyone. VAWA is calling on fair treatment of ALL victims of violence.

A climate of indifference is a climate where attacks against others – sexual assault, acquaintance or domestic violence, sexual harassment, and stalking– are ignored, covered up, or made light of. And in some instances, the climate of indifference is perpetuated when the alleged perpetrator is treated more lightly than someone else who may have committed the assault simply because of his status or affiliation.

That’s what has partially been happening with the Athletics program at Penn State University since 1994 and which helped lead to the situation of the child sexual assaults done by Jerry Sandusky. That’s part of what is happening in Steubenville, OH in the rape case where perpetrators made a video of themselves and others carrying a teenage girl from one house to another and raping her. That’s what led to the DC police refusing to take a police report last week from a friend of mine after a man exposed himself to her and masturbated because she didn’t stay with the man until the police came!

In addition, VAWA’s re-authorization has been delayed for over two years because some legislators – mostly Republican, including the majority of the US House of Representatives – are indifferent to the violence perpetrated on Native Americans, immigrants, and gays, lesbians, bisexual, and transgendered persons. This “indifference” towards violence against specific people is based solely on the victim’s status, is disparate treatment, and IMO is discriminatory.

Yes there are laws in place. Yet, until all victims are treated fairly and in a timely fashion, I will continue to call out people and communities for creating a climate of indifference that allows this to continue. All people need to live in safe communities and homes.

Ending this climate of indifference wherever it occurs is a start towards caring for our loved ones.  PASS VAWA NOW!

February 4, 2013

The  rule related to access to contraception and who pays for this insurance coverage under the Affordable Care Act was once again modified by the Obama Administration on February 1, 2012.

Fortunately, this new rule does not cave into the Catholic bishops call to allow businesses to opt-out of paying for family planning but did give them a slight loop-hole. If the business can successfully argue that they are a religious institution that is just like a house of worship, then they can be treated like a house of worship and opt out of the business paying for contraception, leaving the insurance company to pay for it.  This will affect any employee of the business/institution as well as students receiving health care coverage and services at their religiously affiliated school that can meet the requirements for this new exemption.

This blog by Erin Matson does a good job of describing this new change.

 

Erin Matson

Today, the Obama administration issued a new proposed rule regarding the contraceptive mandate under the Affordable Care Act. Many reproductive rights organizations are calling it a victory. Some advocates, not so much.

So what just happened?

1. The new proposed rule spurned lobbying led by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that would have made businesses eligible to opt-out of the contraceptive mandate. 

All along these men have been arguing that the owner of a Taco Bell, a craft store chain or any business should be able to dictate the terms of what private insurance companies will provide to beneficiaries. That didn’t happen today. No ifs, ands or buts. The Obama administration did not cave. This is probably why some reproductive rights organizations are calling the new proposed rule a victory.

2. The new proposed rule did slightly expand the religious exemption, at a minimum creating a new gray area…

View original post 753 more words

January 23, 2013

Trial on the Constitutionality of PA’s Voter ID Law Scheduled

In 2011, the Pennsylvania General Assembly introduced a discriminatory Voter ID law that went into effect in the spring of 2012.  At the time of the introduction of this bill, I was President of Pennsylvania NOW and blogged about this law on the Pennsylvania NOW blog website.

In 2012, the new law was challenged in Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court.  Plaintiffs in the voter ID case are represented by the Public Interest Center of Philadelphia, Advancement Project, the ACLU of Pennsylvania, and the Washington, DC law firm of Arnold & Porter.

The initial hearing held the week of July 31, focused on the lack of time available to implement the law.  I one of the people who testified at this hearing of the problems obtaining a photo id that I observed at the local PennDOT driver’s license center.

Initially Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Simpson upheld the law as timely.  It was then appealed to the PA Supreme Court and the majority of this court remanded the case back to Judge Simpson telling him that unless he could affirm that no one would be adversely impacted by the new law, he would have to enjoin (delay) implementation.

Which is exactly what happened.  So in the November 2012 election, people were asked, but not required to show a photo id.  As a matter of protest, I was one of many who refused to present my id on November 6, 2012 because of the disparate effect that this law would have on low-income people, non-drivers, the elderly, people of color, students, and people with disabilities.

After Judge Simpson enjoined (stopped) the implementation of the law, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint alleging that the law is unconstitutional due to its disparate impact on women, people with disabilities, and people of color.  The initial filing of these arguments occurred in December, 2012.  This morning, Judge Simpson announced that a full hearing on the constitutionality of the law would commence on July 15, 2013; he expects the hearing to last about one week.

Meanwhile he also announced that by March 21, 2013 he will decide whether or not to modify the injunction he wrote last fall.  If he does not modify it, the law will be in full effect for the Primary on May 21, long before the constitutionality of this law is determined.

For more information on this announcement, click here (Associated Press) and here (ACLU of PA).