Backward Motion

For the past two months, the news, both local and national, has been full of stories of insults and discrimination toward women. There is a pattern developing that cannot be denied; the gains that women have made in their personal lives and careers are under threat. There are many men in positions of great power in the media and in politics who want to turn back the clocks on women's pay, women's autonomy, and women's healthcare. They show blatant disrespect for women.

Missouri law has required health insurers to cover birth control since 2001, but the Missouri House and Senate have voted to overturn that law by passing SB749. This bill allows employers to discriminate against women by refusing to provide insurance to cover contraceptives and sterilization.

When 60 year old Rush Limbaugh called 30 year old law student Sandra Fluke a "slut" and demanded she post online videos of herself having sex, it wasn't personal. He didn't even know her, nor did his words have any relationship to her actual testimony. He was insulting every woman who uses or has used modern forms of contraception (99% of us). He equated the use of contraception with sexual addiction and prostitution.

Some have argued that he is just a shock jock entertainer not be taken seriously. But his tactic of making sexual insults against a woman because he disagrees with her policy on public health should be examined carefully. This barbaric rhetoric sinks into the public consciousness and does real damage to women and to our society. These very public messages work on women's psyches to produce shame and silence about their health care needs.

The reality is that the advent of the birth control pill has been exceptionally good for women. Researchers at the University of Virginia recently released a report (March 2012) showing that women who go on the pill between ages 18-21 have an 8% higher income by age 50. These are the exact ages that most unplanned pregnancies happen, so preventing those pregnancies, which often interrupt higher education, gives women a real advantage toward ultimate career and financial success. It is no accident that women began working outside the home in greater numbers in exactly the same decade that the birth control became available.

A career not only produces financial stability, but also generates personal autonomy and sense of accomplishment. How many of those reading this journal would be where they are without access to the pill? Perhaps in this recession this is exactly what some men fear-that women are becoming too talented, too great a presence in the marketplace.

The current backlash against women is falling under the creative new smokescreen of "religious liberty". We have heard the religious arguments against contraception for 50 years, but women, public health officials, and legislators generally favored common sense and personal choice over ideology from an earlier century. But in this election year, common sense seems a distant memory as religious zealots seek to control whether a woman can access affordable contraception, whether she has a choice in which contraception to use, and whether she has to disclose her prescriptions and medical conditions to her employer.

Some of these zealots argue that pregnancy is not a disease and therefore preventing pregnancy is not healthcare. But pregnancy does have real health implications, both simple and complicated. A pregnancy can be life-threatening, but even a routine pregnancy causes bodily changes that may call for medical remedies. Women younger than 21 and older than 35 face the possibilities of more medical complications due to pregnancy. Childbirth itself can be a difficult medical procedure, and a woman with a new baby has lower immunities due to lack of sleep and changes in her hormones. Women are healthier if they space their pregnancies in such a way that allows the body to regain its full strength between nursing one child and conceiving another. A study by the American Association for the Achievement of Science (February 2012) showed that taking hormonal birth control, even with all of its publicized side effects, is medically safer than pregnancy.

Some employers may be excited about the chance to reduce their insurance costs by refusing to cover contraception, but if so, they aren't thinking ahead. Contraception is far cheaper than maternity care. And it is far cheaper than child care and maternity leave. Contraception is good for business. It allows female employees to carefully plan their children in such a way that it does not disrupt their careers. It keeps them on the job longer between pregnancies so that they develop stronger job skills and make long-term contributions to the stability of their company.

Contraception is also good for the state and federal budgets. The Guttmacher Institute reports that the United States has the highest rate of unplanned pregnancy (49%) among the industrialized nations and that we spend over $11 billion dollars in government money on those pregnancies. How much higher will these numbers soar if contraception costs are not covered by insurance?

Limiting access to contraception and publicly shaming women who use contraception is, quite simply, bad policy. It's bad for the government, bad for business, and bad for women. We cannot be persuaded that the medical needs of a woman in any way restrict the religious freedom of her employer. Nor can we be persuaded that the religious preference of the employer should in any way interfere in the private medical affairs of the female employee.

We have come too far in our advancements toward equality to allow this backward motion.

-Rev. Rebecca Turner

What legacy are we promoting?

As a child I visited the Missouri capitol with my school classes. I visited many more times with my parents. As a parent I proudly took my own children to Jefferson City to help them understand our process of government. As a minister I have taken youth groups and concerned citizens to visit the capitol and to meet with our elected leaders. On every visit, I walked the hallowed hallways, admired the murals of Thomas Hart Benton, and studied the history of Missouri in the museum. I have always felt a spirit of reverence for our democratic process and for all of the people who walked those halls before me.

Now, Missouri House Speaker Rep. Steven Tilley has commissioned a sculptor to create a bust of Rush Limbaugh to install in the Hall of Famous Missourians in the State House in Jefferson City. Among the likenesses of Mark Twain, Stan Musial, Dred Scott, and Sacajawea, Missouri children will now learn about the hatred and bigotry promoted by Limbaugh, thanks to Speaker Tilley.

My prayer is that the great state of Missouri should promote a legacy of kindness and humanitarianism, which should be reflected in the Hall of Famous Missourians. By adding Limbaugh's bust to our Hall, we are acknowledging a history of hate. As Missourians, Midwesterners, and Americans, this is a public shame. We want our children to know of the great advances of Edwin Hubble, the journalistic achievements of Walter Cronkite, and the historic implications of Dred Scott and his famous lawsuits. These Missourians are famous for making our world a better place. Of every single person in the Hall of Famous Missourians, it can be said that they set an example of excellence. But Rush Limbaugh shows no excellence; his infamy is for vitriolic insults and drug scandals.

This is not the story I want to share with my grandchildren. It is a scar upon all our people that can only bring us ridicule.

We need to stand united against the Speaker's attempt to memorialize a dark, embarrassing piece of Missouri's history. Rush Limbaugh does not belong in the Hall of Famous Missourians. Our children deserve better. Please, let us promote a proud Missouri legacy of love, not a history of hate.

-The Reverend Rebecca Turner

Sandra Fluke is Every Woman

This is the Wikipedia entry regarding the controversy between bigoted dickwad Rush Limbaugh and Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke, after Ms. Fluke testified to a House committee about President Obama's mandated health coverage of contraceptives:

"On February 29, 2012 Limbaugh commented on law student Sandra Fluke, who had testified before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee in support of mandated health coverage for contraceptives. On his radio show, Limbaugh described Fluke as a "slut", "prostitute" and "round-heeled", while questioning whether her parents were proud of her for supporting the government's ruling that religiously affiliated institutions should provide health insurance plans that include contraception. Already facing criticism, he repeated his claims the following day and further suggested that Fluke, "and the rest of you feminazis," make a sex tape in exchange for contraceptive funding, along with offering to buy the women of Georgetown University "as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want."

Rush Limbaugh has crossed a line, and from my (albeit unexperienced) legal perspective, Sandra Fluke needs to sue.

In Washington, D.C., in order to prove a case of "slander" in civil court, a plaintiff need only show four elements:

1. the defendant (Rush Limbaugh) made a false and defamatory statement concerning the plaintiff (Sandra Fluke) --> DUH.
2. the defendant published the statement without privilege to a third party --> Pretty sure Fluke wasn't okay with Limbaugh calling her a "slut," among other things, via a national radio show.
3. the defendant's fault in publishing the statement amounted to at least negligence --> can you be negligent for being a misogynist bigot?
4. either the statement was actionable as a matter of law irrespective of special harm or itspublication caused the plaintiff special harm --> yeah, I think Fluke was pretty harmed by Limbaugh's idiotic remarks.

Seriously, it's that easy. Fluke would have little to prove, since all of these statements have been publicized and spread around so much among conservatives and liberals alike. All her attorneys would need to do is flip on CNN, and their case would be proven.

As a female law student, I took personal offense to Limbaugh's statements. There is no doubt in my mind that Fluke already knows about the defamation law. But as a woman, I can understand her hesitation to take further action. She likely doesn't want to relive those painful statements Limbaugh made about her, even though the misogynist bigot had never met her. Fluke probably, understandably, wants to put this whole incident behind her.

But this is her moment to strike, to get justice for herself, and for all the millions of women who use contraceptives to improve their qualities of life. Limbaugh is like a child - he keeps pushing buttons and crossing lines because no one will tell him "no" or punish him for his blatant wrongdoings. But Fluke has a real chance here to slap a defamation suit on him - and to make a positive mark on history by putting one of the biggest bullies of our time in his place.

Sandra Fluke could have been any woman. In Rush Limbaugh's mind, we women are all the same - "sluts," "prostitutes," and "whores."

A petition has been started on Change.org, supporting Fluke and calling for the House Republicans to denounce Limbaugh's senseless, hurtful remarks: http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-republican-leaders-denounce-rush-limbaugh-s-anti-women-tirade

Regardless of their affiliated party, political leaders need to publicly condemn these statements and take a stance on bullying, bigotry, and misogyny.

- Chelsea

My Beef with Rush Limbaugh

Yesterday, the St. Louis Post dispatch announced that Missouri House Speaker Rep. Steven Tilley was commissioning a bust of Rush Limbaugh to place in the Missouri State House, alongside Stan Musial, Dred Scott, Sacajawea, Jack Buck, Walter Cronkite, Bob Barker, Edwin Hubble, and Mark Twain. REAL famous Missourians, who did hugely important things in their respective fields.

Rush Limbaugh is famous for the same reasons that Paris Hilton and Kim Kardashian are famous - for being a spotlight-desperate fame seeker . Limbaugh has made no contribution to society except when he promotes hatred, bullying, and misinformation. But to the Missouri House Republicans, this is noteworthy and worth glorification.

Since when do we immortalize drug-addled, racist, misogynist bigots in the sacred halls of one of our most prestigious buildings?

Here is my problem with Rush Limbaugh, despite all of the aforementioned reasons: he is a genuinely bad person. Literally last week, he called a law student from Georgetown University a whore because she relied on government assistance to pay for birth control. THEN he demanded to see videos of her having sex, because the way he saw it, if he had to pay for her sexual protection, he wanted some benefit out of it.

If some other dirty old man said that to any other 20-something year old woman, he would be criminally charged with sexual harassment. But because he is Rush Limbaugh, he somehow gets a free pass.

And need I remind you of him calling the Duke lacrosse team's victim a "ho" after she was brutally raped? Or his insensitive remarks about Michael J. Fox "over exaggerating" the effects of his Parkinson's disease? Or what about his "phony soldiers" insults aimed at veterans who had publicly criticized the Iraq War?

Rep. Tilley argues that the federal courthouse in Cape Girardeau is named for Limbaugh's grandfather, and his uncle was a federal judge in St. Louis. So that's why he should get a statue of himself next to a handful of individuals who did magnificent things?

Rush Limbaugh is an immoral, genuinely bad human being. He uses his publicity to bully, slander, insult, and hurt other people, and that is something that should NEVER, EVER be recognized by our politicians. Limbaugh has yet to make the world a better place. Rep. Tilley and the Missouri House Republicans insult Missouri's past and present by their desire to forever memorialize Limbaugh.

Please take a few moments to email Rep. Tilley at steven.tilley@house.mo.gov or call his office at 573-751-1488 and let him know that you do not appreciate a racist, homophobic, misogynist, bigoted druggie being immortalized in our state capitol! Faith Aloud has also started a petition on Change.org that you can sign: http://www.change.org/petitions/mo-house-speaker-steven-tilley-stop-the-plan-to-honor-rush-limbaugh-with-a-bust-in-the-mo-capitol?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=share_petition

-Chelsea

The War on Contraception

There are literally dozens of things that bother me about this week's battle on birth control in Congress. But as a law student, I'm more concerned about the effect this irrational, inane war on women's health will have on our work force. All compromises and politics aside, my biggest question is: where is HIPAA in all of this?

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act is a federal act that governs health insurance plans of employers and establishes standards for providers. However, the most important part of HIPAA, in my opinion, is the barrier of privacy it affords between employers and employees in regards to workers' health. Employers, under HIPAA, are federally blocked from accessing medical records, payment information, etc., of their employees, strictly for policy reasons.

Can you imagine what would happen if your employer found out about your private, very personal health issues? Would they be inclined to retire you if you were on Plavix, question you if you took Viagra.....and fire you if you were on oral contraceptives? Would they deny you anti-depressives and tell you that they believe mental health problems are really demon possession?

If the current, Republican-dominated congressional hearings have their way, employers may be able to access your health records and deny you access and employment benefits. I'm not talking just churches here, and not even just religious-based universities, organizations, and hospitals. ANY employer! All the boss has to do is get religion to deny you your right to privacy and your right to medical care under the new healthcare act.

Religious "leaders," hand-selected by Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who is leading the charge against women and their autonomy, have been crying afoul on President Obama's mandate that all employers must provide employees with birth control coverage. They claim that it is a violation of their First Amendment right to religious freedom, and the big, bad government is stomping all over that.

Okay, that's nice, but what about the FOURTEENTH Amendment and its Equal Protection clause? Last I checked, if your First Amendment rights trample on others' abilities to be treated as a normal human being, you keep your mouth shut and/or your religion to yourself. (See copyright laws, Engel v. Vitale, Lemon v. Kurtzman).

And did I mention that no Constitutional lawyers or women were allowed to testify at these hearings? Rep. Issa and his warmongering cronies apparently only want to hear one side of the argument - the side that is gunning for the female worker's body and autonomy.

When committee member Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland asked Rep. Issa to include a certain female witness at the hearing, Issa refused and said that because "the hearing is not about reproductive rights and contraception but instead about the Administration’s actions as they relate to freedom of religion and conscience,” a law student at George Washington University was unqualified to testify at his hearing.

In the Senate, it's Republican Sen. Roy Blunt (MO) leading the charge for an amendment (to the transportation act, no less!) that would allow employers to avoid providing health coverage on moral grounds. This transcends the abortion debate - if an employer doesn't like gays, interracial couples, your religion, whatever, Sen. Roy Blunt would grant them power to refuse you your health coverage! They're calling this a "religious freedom" issue, but it's really about your access to contraception.

Regardless of the reasons why you use it.

Regardless of HIPAA laws.

And regardless of the protections afforded to you by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection clause.

If you're not pissed off yet, go watch a few more marathons of "Real Housewives of Beverly Hills."

To rage, contact:

Rep. Darrell Issa 202-225-3906

Sen. Roy Blunt (202) 224-5721

To show your support, contact:

Sen. Claire McCaskill (202) 224-6154

Sen. Nancy Pelosi (202) 225-4965

And come join us Wednesday, February 22 as we protest at the home office of Sen. Roy Blunt, 7700 Bonhomme, Clayton from noon to 3 p.m. It's Ash Wednesday, and Sen. Blunt needs to repent of his sins against women!!

-Chelsea

Unconscionable, part 2

After decades of public and private debate, a sweeping health care plan was passed by Congress that included provisions for every American to be covered by health care insurance, thus gaining access to basic medical care. Women across the nation cheered when they learned that all forms of contraception were on the list of basic care to be covered without a copay.

When some religious institutions insisted they should be exempt from providing insurance coverage for contraception based upon the "conscience" of the institution, President Obama overcame hostile reactions from the religious right and stood by women, providing that the insurance company will have to pay for it instead of the employer.

We applaud this decision by the President to stick by women and ensure their access to contraception, no matter their employer.

But for those of us in Missouri, the fight is not over! Senator Lamping has proposed a bill that would allow any employer, no matter the nature of business, to claim a religious exemption to providing any particular health insurance coverage based upon their personal religious beliefs.

AND, there is a movement to get a ballot initiative on the November ballot to enshrine this religious exception into our state constitution!

That any employer would claim his/her "conscience" to be more important that the right of individuals to receive equal access to medical care is, quite frankly, unconscionable. We do not accept the premise that employers can hide behind God in order to discriminate against a segment of their employees. There is nothing godly in discrimination.

Contraception is indeed basic health care. 98% of all women use modern forms of contraception during their fertile years. There is nothing more basic to a woman's health than the timing of children. Nor is there anything more basic to her role as a productive employee.

Should where a woman works be the determining factor in whether she is eligible for insurance coverage? Certainly not. Should she face religious discrimination by her employer and be refused this basic care? Unconscionable.

We must all fight back against this ridiculous move to take away our contraception and to grant special privileges to the religious values of the few.