Girls v. Boys: Will the Boy Scouts ever be as awesome as the Girl Scouts?

Last year, I wrote about how much I loved being a Girl Scout (you can read about that here). It was such an awesome experience and now that I’m an adult, I love being able to look at the organization and support it’s message still. Empowering girls, teaching tolerance, and delicious cookies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After I wrote the article, I had a couple friends who were Boy Scouts saying the same things about their scouting days. For many of them, scouting was about empowering boys, teaching independence, and building friendships.

In fact, similar to my Girl Scout experience, sexuality was never discussed and exclusion was never an option. But for my Boy Scout friends, they can’t look at the organization as adults and be proud because the organization continues to support a shitty policy.

You see, in 2000, the Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts right to exclude members on the basis of sexual orientation in its Boy Scouts of America v. Dale decision . The court held that this right was found in the First Amendment, in the ability citizens have to engage in those rights that are protected under the First Amendment, like the right to associate

This freedom of expressive association also includes a freedom not to associate, as outlined in the Jaycees case in 1984. In the Jaycee’s case, the court outlines a whole bunch of requirements for protecting a group’s freedom to include/exclude persons but the main crux is that the group needs to engage in expressive association – basically, the group needs to have actual values that they’re furthering and control their membership based on those values.

In the Boy Scouts case, the court reaffirms this and lets the Boy Scouts choose to limit their membership to those who are furthering Boy Scout values. The Boy Scouts contended that, as a group, their official position was against homosexuality and that the purpose of the Boy Scouts was to “instill values in young people.” These values included the position against homosexuality. Accordingly, the court allowed the Boy Scouts to prohibit those who could not/would not further that position.

Recently, the Boy Scouts have come under fire for continuing to uphold this position. There have been multiple legal decisions furthering the rights of homosexuals, the mainstream media has embraced homosexuality as a sexuality and not as an aberration, and it seems like the Boy Scouts might soon be following suit.

On Monday, Deron Smith, a spokesperson for the Boy Scouts announced that after a two year investigation, the ban may be lifted noting that “[the decision] is a result of a longstanding dialogue within the scouting family. Last year, scouting realized the policy caused some volunteers and chartered organizations which oversee and deliver the program to act in conflict with their missions, principles, or ­religious beliefs.”

Sounds like progress to me.

What do you guys think of the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Boy Scouts to discriminate? What do you think of the Boy Scout’s hopefully progressive decision?

Wonky Wanking: Sperm Donors and Child Support in a DOMA State

Maybe one of my favorite things is when someone says “that sounds like a Liz case!” (or article, or poem, or whatever) because it’s really nice when someone thinks of me and also because they are usually awesome cases.

Actual Liz cases

Actual Liz cases

Last week, two of the attorneys in my office joyously presented me with the following Liz case: 

At the beginning of January, the Department of Children and Families in Kansas sought child support payments from William Marotta for the three year old child he fathered through sperm donation. Through a private agreement with Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, a committed but unmarried couple, Marotta donated his sperm on three separate occasions. On the third attempt, Jennifer became pregnant and Jennifer and Angela raised their daughter as a couple without any involvement from Marotta.

In fact, before donating his sperm to Bauer and Schreiner, Marotta signed a Sperm Donor Contract relinquishing his parental rights to any child conceived through his donation. Though the contract purports to sever Marotta’s rights, it is unsigned by Jennifer, the biological mother, and is neither notarized nor witnessed. Based on these two facts alone, the contract is suspicious, but ultimately served its purpose for three years until the Kansas court stepped in.

You see, in 2010 Bauer and Schreiner separated, but maintained joint parental responsibilities for their child. When Bauer lost her job and was unable to provide health insurance coverage for the child, Schreiner sought health insurance through Medicaid. But before the Kansas Department of Children and Families would approve the application, they requested information about the father of the child and slapped Marotta with a lawsuit for child support payments. Bauer, the non-biological parent of Schreiner’s child attempted to step in and explain that she was the other parent, not Marotta, but the Department of Children and Families and the Kansas court wouldn’t listen.

In fact, the Kansas court is allowing the DCF’s petition for child support payments from Marotta, totaling over $6,000, to go forward.  Seems a little wonky, right?

It is. And there’s an explanation for this mess, but it’s a pretty crappy one. Here’s the deal: Kansas expressly prohibits same-sex marriage in its Constitution, so Bauer and Schreiner couldn’t get married. This means that any child born to the couple would not be presumed to be a child of both parties of the couple. (In most states, a child born to a married couple is presumed to be the child of both parties and parental rights are established through this presumption.)

In addition, Kansas has no existing legal avenues for second-parent adoption. Second-parent adoption is a fairly common process allowed in 23 states, whereby the second parent of the child would formally adopt the child with the consent of (or at the same time as) the custodial parent.

So, even though Bauer wanted to provide for and continue to parent the child born to Schreiner, she is kind of unable to under Kansas law. And even though she’s trying to tell the court she’s the other parent… it doesn’t matter, the DCF looks to Marotta for support.

Any state Department of Children and Families, not just Kansas, is going to exhaust all legal possibilities for providing support for a child before issuing any aid. And since Marotta is the biological father of the child and there’s a ton of legal precedent that says you can’t just contract away your parental responsibilities (off the top of my head, see In the Matter of Baby M but there is a plethora of case law to that effect in every state) his Sperm Donor Contract doesn’t work.

Bottom line? Kansas wants to ignore same-sex families and deny them a whole bunch of rights, so the court is unlikely to extend parental rights to a same-sex partner. This means that Marotta will probably be on the hook for child support even though he was never a parent to the child.

Nonsense.

What are your thoughts? Should the sperm donor be on the hook for child support payments? Should the Kansas court deem Bauer the second parent? Does this make you think twice about donating sperm or eggs?

I Make it Rain (Mostly on Abortion Access Non-Profits)

Thanks to Maya at Feministing, I now know that today is Giving Tuesday. Maya shared her reasons for giving to abortion access groups and inspired me to talk about why I give. So here goes…

I give because I can.

And I give to NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the National Network of Abortion Funds because access to reproductive health care is a big fucking deal and too many women are losing that access because of systems of inequality in our lives.

If this is your first time reading the blog, I feel like I should give you the quick and dirty of my background.  I’m white, middle class, cisgendered, and educated – especially when it comes to issues of access to reproductive health care. In short, I get to carry a freakin’ Prada backpack of privilege around with me wherever I go.

A few months ago, me and my knapsack o’privilege made an appointment at the Planned Parenthood in downtown Boston for routine STI testing. In addition to being a vocal proponent of routine STI testing, I had just capped off a week of lecture on access to birth control and abortion in light of Supreme Court decisions and figured that I might as well practice what I preach.

On the Saturday in question, I bop over to the PP center, park my car, grab a coffee, and meander on down the street blithely oblivious to my surroundings. As I walk towards PP, I notice a bunch of people outside. I think to myself someone must be selling Girl Scout Cookies.

Seriously. This is my exact thought at this moment.

It wasn’t girl scout cookies. In fact, all of those people who I assumed were queuing up for cookies are pro-life protesters.

They have signs. They are yelling. Granted, they are not yelling at any particular person but they are still there.

I pause at the corner of the street and think about calling the police.

I pull out my phone to google “Massachusetts abortion clinic buffer zone”.

I frown at the protesters.

Two women in neon yellow vests are standing in front of the protesters. I walk towards them, they escort me in.

After I hand off my giant purse and jewelry to the security guard, I start to shake. I’m mad at myself for being hesitant. I’m mad at the protesters for breaking the 35 foot buffer zone law. I’m suddenly feeling very slut-shamed for even wanting to get tested. I start to worry whether anyone saw me walking into the center – do they think I need an abortion? I start to worry about my worrying about people thinking I’m having an abortion – what does that say about society’s view of abortion? About me and the way I let society influence my thoughts?

My artistic rendering of me and my thoughts.

I set off the metal detector with my giant watch.The security guard and I laugh.

The appointment itself is uneventful. I hand over my health insurance information which I’m lucky to be able to afford, speak with a doctor and nurse who look just like me, pocket all of the free condoms, and go on my way.

When I leave, the protesters are gone but all those feelings aren’t. I’m completely shaken by the experience and if I’m shaken, I can’t imagine what people who don’t have my shield of privilege must have felt like this morning.

How many women didn’t show up for their appointments because they were afraid the protesters would harm them? Or shame them? Or recognize them?

How many women left their appointments when asked for health insurance information because they didn’t have any? How many women didn’t bother to make an appointment because they knew they couldn’t afford the care?

How many women sat in the exam room unable to communicate with their doctor or nurse because they didn’t speak the same language? Or failed to share important information because of a cultural barrier?

I get it. Throwing money at a problem this vast, with so many intersecting issues, isn’t the whole answer, but it’s part of it.

So to help those who can work at coming up with answers, I donate.

To NARAL, so they can lobby Congress to support women’s right to choose.

To Planned Parenthood, so they can continue to provide a wide range of health services, including routine screenings for breast cancer and STI testing.

And to the National Network of Abortion Funds, so they can help fund abortions for women in need who cannot afford one.

Every Vote Counts: Guest Post by Valerie C.

So last night, huh?

I emerge from my champagne haze of happiness to introduce you to guest blogger Valerie C. Val is a Boston-based attorney with a committment to social justice and the perfect margarita and has penned her voting story for your reading pleasure. Read on, lovers.

 My day was all planned out.  Go into the office.  Tie up yesterday’s loose ends.  Leave for an extended lunch to vote, and then return to the office.  Easy enough, right?  Well, not so much. 

When I got the polling place, I tried to check in.  I was not on the list.  Did I panic?  Of course not.  This was the first time I was voting in my current state.  I came prepared with photo identification and a utility bill to prove my residence.  I was ready. 

When I didn’t appear on the first list, I was sent to the “inactive” table.  Was I on that master list?  No.  Did I panic?  No.  Ok that’s a lie; I panicked a little. 

So, I took a deep breath and filled out the forms for the provisional ballot.  I signed under the pains and penalties of perjury that I believe myself to be registered to vote.  I asked three different people for a pen, and I completed my provisional ballot.  I begrudgingly folded my two-page ballot and stuffed it into the Provisional Ballot envelope.  I was provisional ballot #13.  That can’t be good (unless you’re Taylor Swift).

What do you mean provisional ballot?  But what about the letter I received which congratulates me for registering to vote?  Oh, that was from a non-governmental non-profit which doesn’t follow local election rules.  Bummer.

What about the fact that 866-OUR-VOTE showed me in their records?  Oh, you mean the information reported to them isn’t officially sanctioned?  So their records don’t mean anything either?  Bummer again. 

I continued to swallow my constitutional pride, and accepted the fact that I would not be allowed to scan my ballot into the giant tally machine. 

I’ll cut to the chase.  After the following: driving from my office to my polling place to my house then back to the polling place then to City Hall, around town and back to City Hall – and two calls to 866-OUR-VOTE and two calls to my local Secretary of State’s office, the bottom line is my completing the provisional ballot was the right thing.  Now, I have to wait 2-10 days for the inquiry to be complete to see if my vote will ever be counted.

The thing is, I was prepared. I knew what to do. But how many other people were told the same thing and just walked away?  How many other people could not have afforded to take 3 hours off of work to do all of that footwork?  How many other people had the resources or simply the smart phone to research the proper next steps?  How many other impediments have people faced without the proper resources to fight back?  I fought back, and I still don’t know what will happen. 

I have always cherished my right to vote.  I have never had it challenged, and have exercised it freely in two states.  This should have been my third.  I take pride in voting my beliefs (even when I was in college and joined the Turn AZ Blue campaign – I’ll let you guess how that one turned out).  As a member of the legal community, I have always maintained my focus on championing the rights of all people.  I didn’t realize how much I take for granted until my right to vote was challenged today.

Want more info on election protection? Check out the following links.
 
Election Protection:   http://www.866ourvote.org/
National Association of Secretaries of State: http://www.nass.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=180&Itemid=391

Constitutional Lawgasm

City Hall Plaza, Boston, Massachusetts

City Hall Plaza, Boston, Massachusetts (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This morning, Eric Randall at the Boston Magazine blog posted an article about Mayor Menino’s concerns over Trojan’s distribution of vibrators on City Hall Plaza. Of course, I immediately got excited and not because of FREE VIBRATORS but because errrrmehgerrrd, con law nerd awesomeoness is occurring.Seriously. So. Much. Awesomeness.

  1. Do you guys remember Eisenstadt v. Baird?! That was the case that extended the right to privacy for decisions re contraceptives to single as well as married people. AND IT HAPPENED IN BOSTON. This lecturer was talking about birth control and giving out free contraceptives and then this whole awesome extension of fundamental rights happened as a result of it.
  2. And what about Williams v. Pryor?! Remember how that case questioned whether people had a fundamental right to sex toys??? And then the court said no, but it was a serious question anyway and then there were all these other cases that kind of sort of extended the right to privacy to include sex toys?
  3. Holy crap. And WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT? City Hall is a public forum. A PUBLIC FORUM. Which means that Mumbles can’t just totally curtail this freedom of speech, assembly, association, etc.

You guys. This has the potential to become the perfect storm of conlaw questions and I literally (like Chris Traeger) couldn’t be more excited.

Well, except if I had 10 free vibrators.

Be the Teacher’s Pet. Register to Vote!

If you’ve ever taken a class with me, you know that I tend to get all worked up about 10 minutes into lecture and then the rest of the class is spent with us shouting at each other about whatever issue we’re focusing on, culminating in my clasping my hands together in prayer, shouting “YOU ARE SO SMART” at you, and then leaving you with one last devastating real world news item to ruminate on until next time.

You probably also know that no matter how hard I try, come election season I become easily distracted by any mention of politics and try to connect everything to the election. Yes, you are right, this case is about the right to privacy. SPEAKING OF THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, WHAT ABOUT ROMNEY’S STANCE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE? TELL ME YOUR THOUGHTS.

Recently, as I was yelling about something or other in my Global Health class, we started talking about voting and I was super super sad to hear that a bunch of my students weren’t voting for a bunch of different reasons. But the main reason that kept coming up was that they didn’t really know how to register.

I know, I know. You’re thinking but P Diddy is always talking about Rocking the Vote. (Ok, maybe you’re not thinking that because I don’t know if P Diddy is called P Diddy anymore, if he’s made any attempts to Rock the Vote since the Kerry/Bush election, or if Rock the Vote even exists.) But there are always people talking about how to register.

Except, would you trust them? With all the crazy political manuevering that happens – the voter fraud, the ID requirements, and the general chicanery, would you be willing to just sign up to vote with some person on the street?

I might not. I’d want to go to the source. So I’m here to help

For Massachusetts Residents

Here is a link to the form you need to fill out. It must be mailed before October 17, 2012 to the Town Hall in the place where you live. All you have to do is fill out the form and stick it in the mail. Plus, if you’re unsure who you’ll want to vote for come November, you can register as an Independent and make the choice when you get to your voting place.

For Residents of Other States

Here is a link to the form you need to fill out. In most cases, it must be mailed before October 17, 2012 to the town hall in the place where you live. All you have to do is fill out the form and stick it in the mail… and you guessed it, you can register as Independent. If you feel like it, you can submit a copy of your ID with your registration form – that way you shouldn’t have to show ID when you go to vote. (Obv there are exceptions here, but in general.)

Voting is a pretty awesome right and I think that, no matter your political affiliation, you should exercise that right. Because if you don’t vote, you lose your voice. And then who will speak for you?

Today in History…

One year ago today, the repeal of Don’t As, Don’t Tell was enacted. In his remarks on September 20, 2011, President Obama fiercly took down the discriminatory law preventing homosexuals from openly serving in the US military, stating “As of today, patriotic Americans in uniform will no longer have to lie about who they are in order to serve the country they love. As of today, our armed forces will no longer lose the extraordinary skills and combat experience of so many gay and lesbian service members. And today, I want those who were discharged under this law to know that your country deeply values your service.”

For many, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was a discriminatory policy that existed in the background of military service. Gay and lesbian servicemembers quietly served their country fearing exposure and discharge. But for law buffs, DADT’s brief and complicated history highlights many of the civil rights violations facing members of the LGBT community.

You see, in 1950 President Truman signed the Uniform Code of Military Justice which established discharge rules for openly homosexual service members. Under these rules, service members who were openly homosexual could be discharged under Section VIII of the Code which provided discharge for “ineptness or undesirable habits or traits of character.” Up until 1973, homosexuality was considered a psychiatric disorder by the American Psychological Assoication, the American Psychiatric Association, and the American Public Health Administration. Accordingly, discharging a service member for homosexuality was akin to discharging a service member for bipolar disorder.

In 1973, the APA formally removed homosexuality from its list of psychiatric disorders; however, the military continued to discharge service members for standard unfitness and unsuitability reasons. There were exceptions to this rule, like retention, so higher ups had discretion to keep openly homosexual service members in their ranks.

During this same time, service members began challenging the constitutionality of the military regulations. The cases were heard at the appellate court level and in some cases, the court held that the government did a pretty shitty job of proving that gay and lesbian service members and civil servants weren’t good employees and therefore shouldn’t have been discharged or fired. In other cases, the court noted that the military could discharge gays and lesbians, but that individual service men and women had a right to be judged on their individual merits, not just blanketly fired for being gay.

Despite the challenges, these rules remained on the books until 1982 when President Reagan set out a defense directive that stated that homosexuality is incompatible with military service and established that persons who engaged in homosexual acts or even stated that they were homosexual or bisexual would be discharged. Reagan’s directive sent the message that even identifying as homosexual would be grounds for discharge. (Which is… RIDICULOUS.)

Then in 1992, presidential hopeful Bill Clinton promises to lift the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military. And despite my deep, abiding love for Bill, he is a master at wordplay and only kinda sorta lifted the ban. In 1993, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is introduced as a compromise – lifting the ban on service while silencing those who serve. Congress attempts to get the military to continue to abide by Reagan’s defense directive and Clinton issues a defense directive that military applicants can not be asked about their sexual orientation. And this give us DADT.

Maybe Clinton’s solution was better than the blanket discharge for even identity politics directed by Reagan, but DADT was a craptastic rule. More than 14,000 service members were fired under DADT from 1993 to 2011. In fact, in 2003, the military discharged more than 750 mission-critical service members and more than 320 with skills in important langauges like Arabic, Korean, and Farsi as a result of Reagan’s directive and DADT.

On top of how shitty the regulation was, it was also super inconsistent. On the civilian side of the CIA, FBI, State Department, and the Department of Defense there are no regulations banning homosexuals from employment and there are laws preventing discrimination.

Partly because of glaring inconsistencies, partly because of basic civil rights, and partly because multiple courts challenged the validity of DADT and Reagan’s directive, President Obama repealed DADT on July 22, 2011 with the formal end date of September 20, 2011.

And the world didn’t end. And the military didn’t falter.

And this awesomeness happened.

Basic Human Rights – They Do Exist.

I really don’t want to hate on Romney.

I really don’t want this to become a political blog.

But, as they say “the personal is political” and Romney’s most recent 47% statement really felt like a gut punch.

If you haven’t already heard, Mother Jones released video of Romney’s statement to donors during a private fundraiser where he said:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax. My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Ugh. Ugh. Ughhh. So gross.

AND SO WRONG.

Let’s start with this “entitlement” bullshit. Did you know that many entitlements are constitutionally protected under the Due Process Clause? Under the DPC “life, liberty, or property” cannot be taken away from a US citizen without due process of the law. In the 1970′s, the Supreme Court told us that if the state created a relationship or expectation of continuation for something (like a tenure contract at a state university or welfare benefits), then citizens can keep that “entitlement” unless and until there was some really good reason to take them away AND procedural due process was had.

So that means that YES, those people who are on government benefits are ENTITLED to them. And under the Constitution, you can’t take away those entitlements without due process.

And what about these “entitlements” Romney references? Health care, food, and housing. God, I can’t believe people would even want these so-called entitlements. I mean, I can survive just fine when I’m starving, dying of TB, and living under the Tobin Bridge. That’s just me, though.

I think most people would agree that these entitlements sound like basic human rights. You know why? Because they are. Under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, these rights are protected.

Just take a look at Article 25:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health  and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing  and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the   event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of   livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. 

See that? Health care, food, shelter. Basic. Human. Rights. Laid out in the Declaration of Human Rights.

No matter how you look at it – whether under US law or UN Declarations - every citizen should have these basic rights. So stop flapping your gums, Romney.

And you know what? I just can’t hold back. It’s coming up, like word vomit. Blech, here it is: DIDNT YOU GO TO HARVARD FOR A LAW DEGREE AND A BUSINESS DEGREE? BECAUSE MY UNDERGRAD STUDENTS LEARN ABOUT THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE ON DAY 1 OF CLASSES. DAY 1. I think they’re also better at math than you. Because even though I can’t add 2+2, I am pretty sure your use of 47% throughout that statement makes no sense. All the people who won’t vote for you don’t pay income taxes? That can’t be true – I know a bunch of unemployed people who HAVE INCOME TAXES TAKEN OUT OF THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT. Ya turd.

I’m as Liberal as a Llama and why Alliteration Doesn’t Always Work

I am a giant, gay-marriage loving, Affordable Care Act adoring, DREAM Act dancing liberal. So it is no surprise that Barack Obama is my main man and I spend most of my time appraising Romney/Ryan with cocked eyebrows and a sneer of scorn across my face.

And yet, despite my liberal beliefs I try to maintain some semblance of impartiality. Because more than politics, more than liberal social programs, maybe even more than tiramisu, I like being right. And I am always right about the Constitution.

So that’s why I can’t let Mitt Romney’s comment “I’m as Conservative as the Constitution” go untouched. Apparently, during an interview that aired on Meet the Press, Romney discussed his conservative politics, telling NBC’s David Gregory, “I believe in the principles this nation was founded upon. I understand how our economy works. I’ve lived in the economy. I also understand how to work across the aisle. You get elected in Massachusetts where 87% of your Legislature is of the opposition party, you’ve got to work with people across the aisle.”

In response, media outlets are citing to Romney’s time in Massachusetts, during which he implemented the MA health care reform law, and his flip-flopping on abortion to question his “conservative” values. I mean, gay marriage was legalized in Massachusetts during his tenure as governor.*

I don’t know if Romney fits the bill as an ultra-Conservative that will assuage Tea Partiers and I don’t really care. They’ve got their politics and I’ve got mine. But I do really care about how our Constitution is interpreted and what Romney’s statement means for people’s view of the document.

You see, Romney is claiming that the Constitution is a conservative document… and that’s not quite right. Let me tell you why.

The Constitution was written and adopted in 1787 by a whole bunch of guys who belonged to political parties that reallllly don’t match the political ideologies of Democrats or Republicans today. Sure, there are similarities but a lot of the issues facing our political parties today weren’t even a blip on the radar for the framers. If Romney’s statement that the Constitution is a conservative document refers to the values of conservative republicans today, then he’s not quite right.

In fact, our Constitution is pretty bare bones. One of the reasons our Constitution has lasted so long is that it lays out basic freedoms and leaves it up to the political system to hash out exactly what those freedoms are.

Take the 2nd Amendment - the Right to Bear Arms (heh.) - sure the Constitution has granted that right to US citizens, writing “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” but the Constitution also establishes state’s rights, the Legislature, and the Judicial Branch. And as a result we’ve got a whole bunch of qualifiers on that right – what “well-regulated militia” means, who “the people” are, and what “keep and bear arms” means.

This raises a whole bunch of questions: is the right to bear arms a conservative value? was it considered a conservative value at the time the Constitution was written? did the framers intend to let every person bear arms?

And exactly what does “the right to bear arms” mean?

That’s the thing about the US Constitution. It has no political ideology. The framers drafted the document in fairly vague terms and left the interpretation up for grabs. Over the years, depending on the makeup of the Supreme Court, our Constitution has been wildly Conservative, incredibly Liberal, and sometimes something else entirely.

What does all this mean for Mitt Romney’s comment that he’s “as Conservative as the Constitution”? You know what I’m going to say…

*Mitt Romney had nothing to do with Goodridge v. DPH and the decision to legalize same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. I’m just throwing political nonsense.

I am Woman, Hear Me Roar.

I just can’t.

I have spent the last week+ staring, mouth agape at the internets, news outlets, and twitter trying to formulate a coherent response to the absolutely horrifying comments made by Todd Akin, Paul Ryan, Steve King and a whole bunch of other people on both party lines. And I just can’t.

But, Erin Gloria Ryan over at Jezebel has done a pretty phenomenal job putting my thoughts into words (I am sort of concerned she has burrowed into my brain), so instead of continuing to try to respond, I will quote her:

“What needs to happen before spouting ignorant, anti-woman crap in public is uniformly met with the same sort of derision we now reserve for politicians who appeal to ethnic stereotypes during drunken tirades? How much longer are we all going to have to stay angry, after our mothers spent their lives angry? And is it even working?

Eventually a person gets to the point where they can longer withstand the constant blitzkrieg of bullshit. So, Steve King, Todd Akin, and shouty Twitter conservatives: you win. Rape outrage limit reached. I have given this all of my fucks, and the fucks I have given are still not enough fucks. So many more fucks need to be given, and I have exhausted my fuck supply. The fucks are on backorder. Employees are working overtime to restock my fucks, but in the meantime, please accept this 10% off coupon while we wait for the fucks to arrive via FedEx. I’ll be over here, drinking wine from a Pac Man mug and watching cartoons.”

Just replace “Pac Man mug” with “Bob Marley mug” and “watching cartoons” with “watching That 70′s Show” and her response is exactly what I have been thinking.

While Erin and I spend some time refueling our fuck supply, I thought you should know that there are lots of really really really awesome people out there with unlimited awesomeness that they continue to share with society in spite of the glut of women-hating politicians and pundits running around spewing hate.

So if you need to take a break from being angry/sad/horrified, check out just a few of my favorite (feminist) organizations – these people inspire me to keep on keepin’ on, so I’m sure they’ll help combat your war on women fatigue:

Hollaback! (Wooo woo!)

“Hollaback is a movement to end street harassment powered by a network of local activists around the world.  We work together to better understand street harassment, to ignite public conversations, and to develop innovative strategies to ensure equal access to public spaces. By collecting women and LGBTQ folks’ stories and pictures in a safe and share-able way with our very own mobile phone applications, Hollaback! is creating a crowd-sourced initiative to end street harassment. Hollaback! breaks the silence that has perpetuated sexual violence internationally, asserts that any and all gender-based violence is unacceptable, and creates a world where we have an option—and, more importantly—a response.”

Girls, Inc.

Girls Inc. inspires all girls to be strong, smart, and boldSM through life-changing programs and experiences that help girls navigate gender, economic, and social barriers. Research-based curricula, delivered by trained, mentoring professionals in a positive all-girl environment equip girls to achieve academically; lead healthy and physically active lives; manage money; navigate media messages; and discover an interest in science, technology, engineering, and math. The network of local Girls Inc. nonprofit organizations serves 125,000 girls ages 6 – 18 annually across the United States and Canada.

RH Reality Check

RH Reality Check is an online community and publication serving individuals and organizations committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights. Protection is our watchword—we are contributing to the global effort to empower people with the information, services and leadership they need to safeguard their sexual and reproductive health and rights and to guard against false attacks and misinformation.
RH Reality Check exists as a resource for evidence-based information, provocative commentary, and interactive dialogue. We enjoyed the support of the UN Foundation and the editorial independence entrusted to us for six years, from 2006-2012. In January 2012 we branched off officially as our own independent 501 c3 (non-profit) organization, and that’s what we are today.
The Crunk Feminist Collective (CFC) will create a space of support and camaraderie for hip hop generation feminists of color, queer and straight, in the academy and without, by building a rhetorical community, in which we can discuss our ideas, express our crunk feminist selves,  fellowship with one another, debate and challenge one another, and support each other, as we struggle together to articulate our feminist goals, ideas, visions, and dreams in ways that are both personally and professionally beneficial.
The FBomb.org is a blog/community created by and for teenage girls who care about their rights as women and want to be heard. The main purpose of the fbomb is to create a community and dialogue amongst teenage girls, and therefore any and all submissions are accepted on an ongoing basis. There is no limit for the number of submissions per person and multiple submissions and submissions sent over time are encouraged.
There are so many super rad organizations out there supporting girls and women so it was kinda hard to just pick a few of my favorites, but I think you get the point.
Yes, there is a war on women, but look at our army. We rock.
What are some of your favorite organizations, blogs, collectives by and for women? I’m always on the lookout – please share!
And ok… I do have one thing to say about the whole media mess: