May 2, 2008
Elaine Donnelly: One Nasty, Anti-Gay, Misogynistic Piece of Work
The puckered face
of misogyny. |
|
Just received this press release from PFLAG…
PFLAG Condemns Misleading, Anti-Gay Campaign in Support of Military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Law; Calls New Web Advocacy Site More of Same Tired & Disproven RhetoricWashington, DC — Parents, Families & Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG) today called a new campaign in support of the federal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law misleading, offensive and disrespectful to America’s military personnel. The online advocacy website, www.americansforthemilitary.com, was launched by the conservative Center for Military Readiness and urges voters to sign a Congressional petition to continue dismissing lesbian, gay and bisexual service personnel from the armed forces.
“It is outrageous that some in our country would answer the service and sacrifice of their fellow citizens by calling for them to be fired simply because of who they are,” said PFLAG executive director Jody M. Huckaby. “Ms. Donnelly has recycled the same tired, misleading and disproven rhetoric that has been used for years to keep too many qualified Americans out of our armed forces. All the while, an estimated 65,000 LGBT Americans continue to proudly report for duty in our nation’s military and keep Americans, including Ms. Donnelly, safe and secure. PFLAG supports all of America’s military and their families, including LGBT service members. No amount of shrill fear-mongering will ever change the fact that our country is better because of their service.”
Calling efforts to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” an “attack” on the armed forces, Donnelly calls for an “online Army” to support a continuation of the federal law, which results in at least two service personnel being dismissed every day. Despite polls showing that 79% of Americans support allowing gays to serve openly, the Michigan-based activist also claims voters have “insisted” the armed forces keep gays out of its ranks.
Meanwhile, retired, high-ranking military leaders, such as retired Joint Chiefs Chairman John Shalikashvili and Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, USA (Ret.) have called for an end to the law, which is estimated to have cost taxpayers more than $364 million since its inception.
“Our national priority should be on the qualification of potential service members, not on discriminating against them because of who they are,” Colonel Daniel Tepfer, USAF (Ret.), a 23-year veteran who serves on PFLAG’s national board, said in a recent statement. “I know many stellar lesbian and gay troops who also served proudly, but who could not serve openly about their lives and their loved ones. Our national priority should be on the qualification of potential service members, not on discriminating against them because of who they are.”
“The best way to show pride in our troops is by saluting their service, not signing their pink slips,” Huckaby added. “This new campaign is not only disrespectful to our men and women in uniform, but it is also a disservice to their families, who also continue to be impacted by this unconscionable law.”
Now we’ll tell you who this Elaine Donnelly is, and why she’s one nasty, anti-gay, misogynistic piece of work — beginning with this barf-making excerpt from the far-right corner of Donnelly’s sad little world in which women hate women:
The globally distributed photo of a U.S. servicewoman holding a naked Iraqi prisoner by a leash “is exactly what feminists have dreamed of for years,” according to a military expert and frequent critic of attempts to integrate all aspects of the U.S. armed forces.Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, also believes social-engineering in the military and the degradation of American culture are to blame for the abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib facility near Baghdad.
“That demeaning photo of a female soldier with an Iraqi man on a leash — a woman had to have taken that picture,” Donnelly said. “And I understand the other woman soldier has admitted that she did.” …
Although certain feminists would not admit it publicly, “they’re probably quite fond” of the photo showing the Iraqi prisoner being held on a leash, said Donnelly. That’s “because it is demeaning to a man — any man.”
The feminists to whom Donnelly refers are “the ones who like to buy man-hating greeting cards and have this kind of attitude that all men abused all women. It’s a subculture of the feminist movement, but the driving force in it in many cases, certainly in academia,” she said. …
Abu Ghraib Abuse is a Feminist’s Dream, Says Military Expert
CNSNews.com, May 10, 2004
And now, the truth from the reality-based world:
Elaine Donnelly seemingly has no actual experience serving in the military, but that hasn’t stopped her from establishing a career as president of the Center for Military Readiness through which she crusades against women and gays in the military.The Detroit News profiled Donnelly back in November 2006 and explained that she initially got her start in politics working alongside Phyllis Schlafly in defeating the Equal Rights Amendment…
Since then, Donnelly has made it her mission to ensure that women do not serve in combat and that gays do not serve at all while making outrageous statements, such as her suggestion that retired Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General John Shalikashvili recent call for the repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy was somehow tied to a stoke he had suffered. …
Huckabee Stands Alone
PFAW, December 27, 2007
In 1993, Lt. Carey Lohrenz was one of the first women to become a Navy combat pilot. In October 1994, after Lohrenz had entered the F-14 program, and received her commission on the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Pacific Fleet, another woman who had joined her in this military assignment, Lt. Kara Hultgreen, was killed during a “combat readiness” training flight, because — and through no fault of hers — her engine failed as she was landing.
As it happens, Carey Lohrenz’s record shows she was a skilled pilot. She had received “first place honors” in her primary flight training. Her superior performance as a student entitled her the preference she wished, and she selected jets. Upon completion of her jet training, however, she was told there was no place for female jet pilots at that time, so she could serve as a flight instructor or leave the Navy. Then the Navy changed its policy, and she chose combat jets, for which she was qualified.
Hultgreen’s death brought new attention to female combat pilots. Among those interested was Elaine Donnelly, who heads an organization called the Center for Military Readiness. The Center says it is an independent, non-partisan, educational organization formed to take a leadership role in promoting sound military personnel policies in the armed forces. The organization is composed of hard-right civilians (for example, David Horowitz, Beverly LaHaye, and Phyllis Schlafly), along with a long list of retired military officers.
In fact, the Center is highly political. Elaine Donnelly’s agenda is keeping gays out of the military, keeping Hillary Clinton off the Senate Armed Services Committee, ensuring gender segregation in the military, and preventing women from engaging in combat. Or as one report summarizes it, Ms. Donnelly’s mission is to “monitor and measure [read: resist] the impact of new social policies that were imposed on the military to satisfy the demands of feminist and homosexual interest groups.”
In early 1995, Donnelly sent a letter to Senator Strom Thurmond, then Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, claiming that the Navy was promoting unqualified women in “the demanding and dangerous field of carrier aviation in the F-14 community.” In her letter, Donnelly quoted at length a Lieutenant Burns who had briefly been the flight instructor of both Lohrenz and Hultgreen. He sounds like a fellow who was not happy that the ladies got into the boys’ club.
In April 1995, Donnelly issued a special report from the Center for Military Readiness, publishing the letter to Thurmond - as well as Carey Lohrenz’s confidential training record, thinly disguised as the record of “Pilot B,” but clearly identifiable as Lohrenz, who was the only carrier-qualified female pilot in the Navy, not to mention on the USS Lincoln.
In May, 1995, Lt Carey Lohrenz lost her flight status — apparently as a result of Donnelly’s work. …
John Dean
Justice Scalia’s Thoughts, And A Few Of
My Own, on New York Times v. Sullivan
FindLaw, December 2, 2005
In recent years all the military services, except the Marine Corps, have eliminated separate training for male and female recruits. But the rape trial of army drill Sgt. Delmar Simpson, which ended yesterday in 18 convictions and scores of allegations against other instructors, have reignited debate about the wisdom of gender integrated training. Margaret Warner takes up the debate.
JIM LEHRER: Now, the joint gender training issue that has emerged from the army’s sex scandal. Margaret Warner takes up the debate.
MARGARET WARNER: In recent years all the military services, except the Marine Corps, have eliminated separate training for male and female recruits, but the rape trial of army drill Sgt. Delmar Simpson, which ended yesterday in 18 convictions and scores of allegations against other instructors, have reignited debate about the wisdom of gender integrated training. We get two views on the issue now. Andrea Hollen was the first female graduate of West Point in 1980. She served in the army until 1992, when she retired with the rank of major. She is now a software consultant in Denver. Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness, a public policy group on military personnel issues. A longtime Republican activist in Michigan, she was named by President Bush to the Presidential Commission on Women in the Armed Forces in 1992. Welcome, both of you. Elaine Donnelly, what does the case involving Sgt. Simpson say about whether men and women should train together in the military?
ELAINE DONNELLY, Center for Military Readiness: Well, it sounds like perhaps justice was done. There were some victims at Aberdeen; however, the larger question is: Should we have coed basic training? …
Marching Side By Side
Online NewsHour (PBS), April 30, 1997
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink | Trackback | Category: Concerned Women, Homophobia, Military/DADT, Press Releases, Radical Religious Right, Republicans, Women
The Specter of More Right-Wing Judges
WASHINGTON, DC — May 1 — Statement on judicial nominations by People For the American Way president Kathryn Kolbert:
“In the waning days of President Bush’s unpopular presidency, Senator Arlen Specter and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell are throwing temper tantrums over judges. They’ve even repeatedly threatened to shut down the Senate — which would hold up crucial legislation as the economy teeters on the edge of recession — if they don’t get their way.”
“Senators McConnell and Specter conveniently forget that over 300 of President Bush’s judicial nominees have been confirmed — a greater percentage than were confirmed for President Clinton. More importantly, the longstanding and bipartisan Senate practice known as the ‘Thurmond Rule’ dictates that only non-controversial judicial nominees should be processed in the months preceding a presidential election.
“Senator Pat Leahy, who has gone far above and beyond what is required as committee chairman, announced that three additional federal circuit court nominees would be confirmed in short order. But that didn’t suit McConnell and Specter. They’re simply not interested in mainstream nominees that can win bipartisan backing — not when there are political points to be scored. Instead they’re playing to the base by pushing three highly controversial nominees.
“Senator Specter apparently learned a lesson four years ago when he nearly lost a primary to Patrick Toomey, the handpicked candidate of the Religious Right and Club for Growth. Ever since, Specter has been a pit bull for right-wing judges. That’s bad for Pennsylvania and bad for America.
“Senators Specter and McConnell will continue their pressure tactics around judges, but Senate Democrats must stand strong. The clock is ticking for President Bush, but it’s already run out for his controversial nominees.”
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink | Trackback | Category: Press Releases, Republicans, U.S. Congress
April 23, 2008
I wonder what St. Peter had to say when Cardinal Trujillo arrived?
Oh, no, I’m not being flippant about a death — I really do wonder what St. Peter had to say to Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, the Vatican’s poster boy for a Dark-Ages mentality on same-sex marriage, stem cell research, and a woman’s right to choose, and who, most
(in)famously , outright lied when he said condoms don’t do anything to prevent the spread of HIV. (The World Health Organization set everybody straight — so to speak — on that note, reiterating that condoms are 90% effective, and failure was usually due to improper installation.)Not, mind you, that I really believe in the whole St. Peter/Pearly Gates thing; I don’t. But I’m a happy little agnostic quite content with the idea that wherever we end up, it’s of our own making: If you expect to see St. Peter, or some Pearly Gates, then you will.
But I digress, as usual.
Serendipity flowing freely this week, it was ironic, but rather satisfying in a mean, Schadenfreude kind of way, to hear that the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (chaired by one of our few remaining heroes in the Democratic Party, Henry Waxman [D-Calif.]) is holding a hearing today to re-open the issue of whether or not abstinence-only programs work.
The reality is: They don’t. But as long as Radical Righteous Religionists exist — and as long as they maintain their stranglehold on our government — the reality of the situation needs to be hammered into many thick skulls before the U.S. gives up this killer (and I do mean killer) notion that if you withhold contraceptives and fact-based sex education, people will stop getting STDs, and stop having abortions.
What needs to stop is handing over taxpayer dollars to “faith-based” institutions that do nothing to decrease the spread of STDs or unwanted pregnancies, and in fact only serve to exacerbate the situation(s).
Sometimes it seems the only way to a new Age of Englightenment is to outlive the troglodytes who think they can pray the AIDS away. And so it is with an uncomfortable mixture of both sadness and relief that we mark the passing of Cardinal Trujillo: There was a man who stood no hope of being enlightened and reborn into a healthy, helpful, reality-based way of thinking, and now he’s gone. That’s the sad part. The relief (which troubles me to admit to) comes with the knowledge that there is one less powerful person on this planet standing in the way of countless millions being equipped with the knowledge and tools they need to save their own lives, and the lives of many others.
I’ll leave you with that thought, and with the ACLU’s writeup on today’s abstinence-only hearing — so my “faith-based” readers might understand that I’m not some sort of heartless ghoul celebrating the death of an “enemy.”
You see, Cardinal Trujillo called every struggle for control over our own lives and our own bodies, from same-sex marriage to euthanasia, a “culture of death,” when the truth is that lying about condoms and stem cell research and all the rest kills people. It is the Cardinal Trujillos of this world who propagate a “culture of death.”
Evidence Once Again Shows Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Programs Don’t Work
WASHINGTON, DC — April 23 — The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will hold a hearing today titled “Domestic Abstinence-Only Programs: Assessing the Evidence.” The ACLU applauds Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) for bringing new attention to this deeply troubling policy and the committee’s willingness to examine the public health policy implications of abstinence-only programs. We look forward to the testimony of scientists, clinicians, researchers and youth activists who will report on the failures of abstinence-only education programs.
Their testimony is supported by research which has repeatedly shown that, at best, abstinence-only programs do not delay sexual initiation and, at worst, may actually cause harm by providing young people with dangerously inadequate and inaccurate information. A troubling recent report found teens in Florida, a state that relies on abstinence-only programs, who believed drinking a can of Mt. Dew would prevent unintended pregnancy, or drinking a capful of bleach would prevent HIV/AIDS.
In addition to the clear and compelling public health concerns of abstinence-only programs, the ACLU has submitted a statement to the committee addressing the civil liberties concerns raised by these programs. Abstinence-only programs censor information, reinforce gender stereotypes, provide inaccurate and misleading information, promote religion, serve a narrow ideological agenda, stigmatize lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth, and jeopardize the well-being of young people.
“The evidence leads to only one conclusion: abstinence-only programs represent a failed policy,” said Vania Leveille, legislative counsel at the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “They are driven by ideology and politics, rather than by science or good public health policy, and our young people are suffering as a result. Most troubling, they represent a purposeful campaign to mislead, distort, stifle and censor, and are part of a disturbing trend to politicize science. The ACLU urges congressional action to bring this failed policy to an end.”
Since 1996, the U.S. government has poured more than a billion dollars into abstinence-only education programs so ineffective and dangerous that seventeen states have refused funding. At a time when the administration emphasizes accountability in funding only programs with demonstrated success, the continued funding of unproven abstinence-only programs is unacceptable.
The ACLU’s statement to the committee is available here
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink | Trackback | Category: Catholicism, Democrats, HIV/AIDS, Health & Wellness, Homophobia, Marriage Equality, Press Releases, Radical Religious Right, Religion & Spirituality, Science & Technology, U.S. Congress, Women, Youth
April 22, 2008
California Marriage Equality in Danger
The purveyors of lies, intolerance and inequality have done it. From Equality California:
They claim they did the unconscionable.
Extremist anti-LGBT organizations spent an unprecedented amount of money to pay people to collect signatures and are now saying that they succeeded in buying their way onto the November ballot.
The measure seeks to amend the California Constitution from being a document that protects all people to one that excludes us from equality.
…..
EQCA is a leading partner in the Equality for All Campaign that is made up of leadership from LGBT and allied organizations fighting this dangerous initiative.
We estimate that the opposition spent well over $1.5 million to gather signatures. This means they’re serious about spending millions more to pass the amendment. We need to prepare for what will likely be the most expensive LGBT rights ballot measure in our nation’s history. Here’s what you can do:
* Make a donation to Equality California Issues PAC. We have to match them dollar for dollar. EQCA Issues PAC is committed to fighting this and every attack on our families and our community and every dollar raised will be spent to defeat this measure.
* Tell your friends and family. Tell them why you are giving and ask them to make a donation as well.In the coming months our community is going to be tested in ways it has not been tested before. So much hangs in the balance.
Granted, Governor Schwarzenegger stated that he is against a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. But we need to fight this hateful initiative tooth and nail nonetheless.
Posted by: Buffy
Permalink | Trackback | Category: Bisexuality, California, FRC, Family, Friends, & Allies, Homophobia, LGBT Organizations, Marriage Equality, Press Releases, Radical Religious Right, United States
April 21, 2008
Saudi Arabia: Male Guardianship Policies Harm Women; Sex Segregation Keeps Women Out of Public Life
LONDON — April 21 — Saudi Arabia’s male guardianship of women and policies of sex segregation stop women from enjoying their basic rights, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Saudi women often must obtain permission from a guardian (a father, husband, or even a son) to work, travel, study, marry, or even access health care.
In a 50-page report, “Perpetual Minors: Human Rights Abuses Stemming from Male Guardianship and Sex Segregation in Saudi Arabia,” Human Rights Watch draws on more than 100 interviews with Saudi women to document the effects of these discriminatory policies on woman’s most basic rights.
“The Saudi government sacrifices basic human rights to maintain male control over women,” said Farida Deif, women’s rights researcher for the Middle East at Human Rights Watch. “Saudi women won’t make any progress until the government ends the abuses that stem from these misguided policies.”
The authorities essentially treat adult women like legal minors who are not entitled to authority over their lives and well-being. Saudi women are similarly denied the legal right to make even trivial decisions for their children. Women cannot open bank accounts for children, enroll them in school, obtain school files, or travel with their children without written permission from the child’s father.
Saudi women are prevented from accessing government agencies that have not established female sections unless they have a male representative. The need to establish separate office spaces for women is a disincentive to hiring female employees, and female students are often relegated to unequal facilities with unequal academic opportunities.
Male guardianship over adult women also contributes to their risk of confronting family violence, making it difficult for survivors of violence to avail themselves of protection or redress. Social workers, physicians, and lawyers told Human Rights Watch about the near impossibility of removing guardianship even from male guardians who are abusive.
And even where permission from a male guardian is not mandatory or stipulated under government guidelines, some officials will ask for it. Despite national regulations to the contrary, some hospitals require a guardian’s permission to allow women to be admitted, agree to medical procedures for themselves or their children, or be discharged.
Officials do not always follow limitations on the power of guardians imposed recently by the government. Despite an Interior Ministry decision allowing women over 45 to travel without permission, airport officials continue to ask all women for written proof their guardian has allowed them to travel. Travel restrictions can also be humiliating for many women.
Fatma A., a 40-year-old Saudi woman living in Riyadh, cannot board a plane without written permission from her son, her legal guardian. “My son is 23 years old and has to come all the way from the Eastern Province to give me permission to leave the country,” she told Human Rights Watch.
A Saudi woman’s access to justice is also severely constrained. Women continue to have trouble filing a court case or even being heard in court without a legal guardian. Women are required to wear a full-face veil (niqab) in court and be accompanied by a male relative able to verify their identity. Saudi Arabia has established no minimum age of criminal responsibility for girls, while the authorities generally decree puberty as the threshold for treating children as adults.
“It’s astonishing that the Saudi government denies adult women the right to make decisions for themselves but holds them criminally responsible for their actions at puberty,” said Deif. “For Saudi women, reaching adulthood brings no rights, only responsibilities.”
By failing to eliminate these discriminatory practices, the Saudi government is failing in its commitment to guarantee women and girls their rights to education, employment, freedom of movement, health, and equality in marriage. In doing so, the Saudi government ignores not only international law but even elements of the Islamic legal tradition that support equality and full legal capacity for women.
Human Rights Watch calls on Saudi Arabia to take immediate action to address the human rights abuses resulting from male guardianship policies. The Saudi government should abide by its international obligations and dismantle this grossly discriminatory system. The king should establish an oversight mechanism to ensure that government agencies no longer request permission from a guardian to allow adult women to work, travel, study, marry, receive health care, or access any public service. The authorities should establish female sections or other accommodations in every government office and courtroom in order to ensure women have equal access to every level of government.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink | Trackback | Category: Press Releases, Saudi Arabia, Women
April 11, 2008
Desmond Tutu is the one person who doesn’t have to apologize to us. But he does anyway.
Media release from The Task Force:
Article of Faith: Archbishop Desmond Tutu thanks lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people and asks for forgiveness“Even more moving, Archbishop Tutu also asked for our forgiveness on behalf of the church, which has so often made us, he said, a ‘lesser part’ of God’s creation. He compared this sin to the long tradition of excluding women from ordained ministry. We now see, he said, how such exclusion ‘impoverished’ the church and its work for far too long.”
— Rev. Jay Emerson Johnson, Ph.D, National Religious Leadership Roundtable
WASHINGTON, April 10 — Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu called for inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people in the church, while receiving the Outspoken Award from the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC) on April 8 in San Francisco, Calif. What follows is an Article of Faith addressing the inspiring advocacy of a globally renowned faith leader in favor of LGBT people.
Article of Faith by the Rev. Jay Emerson Johnson, Ph.D.
National Religious Leadership RoundtableArchbishop Desmond Tutu once again set a stellar example for religious leaders and faith communities with his outspoken and unrelenting stand for justice and human dignity.
Hundreds of enthusiastic admirers gathered in San Francisco’s Grace Cathedral as the archbishop received the 2008 Outspoken Award from the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission. He received the award with the same humor, humility and grace that have marked his long and remarkable career as Archbishop of South Africa in the midst of apartheid, the 1984 recipient of the Nobel Peace Price and chair of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
His remarks, though brief, were poignant, perhaps especially for those in attendance who so rarely hear such a prominent religious leader speak clearly and passionately on behalf of LGBT people. He began by thanking us, and by extension LGBT people everywhere, for our courageous witness to human dignity in the face of both religious and civic oppression. This witness, he said, makes a profound difference to so many, and he cited just two of examples in the lives of openly gay clergy with whom he has closely worked over the years in Cape Town.
Even more moving, Archbishop Tutu also asked for our forgiveness on behalf of the church, which has so often made us, he said, a “lesser part” of God’s creation. He compared this sin to the long tradition of excluding women from ordained ministry. We now see, he said, how such exclusion “impoverished” the church and its work for far too long.
This pairing of gratitude and repentance set the tone for the evening’s celebration as Tutu deflected the attention away from himself and toward the ongoing struggles for human rights and dignity throughout the world. He likened himself to the biblical prophet Jeremiah, who could no more stop speaking truth to power than he could stop breathing. Like Jeremiah, he said, God’s word of justice has always “burned within my breast,” from the scourge of racism to the exclusion of women and the persecution of LGBT people.
The archbishop concluded his remarks by referring to his own Anglican Communion and noting how “sad” and how “tragic” it is to see his church distracted by human sexuality at a time when a world marked by poverty and war demands our full attention. Reminding us that the Olympic torch would arrive in San Francisco the very next day, he deftly connected our struggle for justice and dignity to the work of freedom in Tibet.
As an Episcopal priest, I took great pride in this moment of honoring one of my own faith leaders. Even more, the Archbishop’s humble courage made me long for that day when such courage and leadership no longer seems rare or worthy of an elaborate award ceremony. The work of justice and witnessing to the full dignity of every human being belongs to all of us. As Archbishop Tutu’s life and ministry so clearly shows, that work is what religion and faith are all about.
About the author: The Rev. Jay Emerson Johnson, Ph.D., a member of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Religious Leadership Roundtable, is an Episcopal priest and the programming and development director for the Center for Lesbian and Gay Studies in Religion and Ministry at Pacific School of Religion in Berkeley, Calif.
For more information about Archbishop Tutu’s appearance at IGLHRC’s Celebration of Courage, click here.
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink | Trackback | Category: Africa, Anglicans / Episcopalians, Christianity, Press Releases, Religion & Spirituality
March 24, 2008
High Court Refuses to Review Arizona Prison’s Abortion Policy
Via the ACLU:
High Court Refuses to Review Arizona Prison’s Abortion Policy
Lower Court’s Ruling Upholding Women’s Right to Reproductive Freedom Will Stand
WASHINGTON, DC - March 24 - The United States Supreme Court announced today that it would not review a lower court decision preventing prison officials in Maricopa County, Arizona, from interfering with women prisoners’ access to timely, safe, and legal abortion care.
“As we have shown throughout this case, a pregnant woman in prison does not lose her right to decide to have an abortion any more than she gives up her right to have a child,” said Brigitte Amiri, a staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. “It is not up to prison officials to decide whether a woman prisoner should carry a pregnancy to term or not.”
At issue in the case was an unwritten Maricopa County Jail policy preventing women in prison from obtaining abortion care. The policy prohibited jail officials from transporting a prisoner for an abortion unless she first obtained a court order. The jail transports prisoners without a court order for all other necessary medical care, including prenatal care and childbirth. The jail also regularly transports prisoners for various non-medical reasons, including visits with terminally ill family members or attendance at relatives’ funerals.
“Today’s announcement puts an end to Maricopa County prison officials’ blatant disregard of the law and failure to ensure that prisoners get the health care they need,” said Alessandra Soler Meetze, Executive Director of the ACLU of Arizona. “It’s the end of the road for Sheriff Arpaio’s campaign against reproductive freedom.”
After weeks of being denied access to abortion care, a pregnant prisoner, represented by the ACLU, sued in May 2004 on behalf of herself and future prisoners seeking abortions. In August 2005, the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, struck down the jail’s policy, holding that it violates women’s reproductive rights and serves “no legitimate penological purpose.” In January 2007, the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld that decision, and in September of last year, the Arizona Supreme Court refused to review the case.
ACLU briefs note that Joe Arpaio, the sheriff in charge of Maricopa County Jail, has “maintained the Policy throughout his tenure, consistent with his well-publicized stance against abortion and his ‘America’s toughest sheriff’ persona.” Arpaio himself has admitted that under this policy, “The gal may have the baby by the time it gets through the court system.”
In a similar case brought by the ACLU, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit earlier this year upheld a lower court ruling allowing women prisoners in Missouri to obtain timely, safe, and legal abortion care.
Today’s case is Arpaio v. Doe, 07-839. Lawyers on the case include Amiri, Talcott Camp, Louise Melling, and Steven R. Shapiro of the ACLU and Daniel Pochoda of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona.
To read the ACLU’s brief visit:
www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/abortion/34557lgl20080220.html
Posted by: Sapphocrat
Permalink | Trackback | Category: Press Releases, United States, Women
