Category: Uncategorized

The morning after pill may be less effective on women who weigh 165 pounds or more; it may be totally ineffective on women who weigh 176 pounds or more; in Europe, the morning after pill is not recommended for women who weigh 165 pounds or more. So why doesn’t the average American woman know that her emergency contraception might not work?

HRA Pharma, the French manufacturer of the European drug, Norlevo, is changing its packaging, big time. It will now warn users that the drug is ineffective in women weighing over 176 pounds and less effective in women who weigh more than 165 pounds. It will even recommend that women who weigh 165 pounds not take the pill. But why does that matter to women in the U.S. of A? Because, as Molly Redden points out in Mother Jones,  Norvelo, is chemically identical to Plan B One-Step, Next Choice One Dose, My Way, and several generic emergency contraceptives. Given that the average American woman weighs 166.2 pounds, this is especially significant: “There’s a whole swath of American women for whom (these pills) are not effective,” explains James Trussell, a professor of public affairs at Princeton University and a senior fellow with the Guttmacher Institute. But unlike their sisters overseas, American women won’t be getting any warnings about this risk.

In Europe, it works and worked like this: in 2011 a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Edinborough published research showing that emergency contraceptive pills were less effective on women who weighed more. In 2012, HRA Pharma started reviewing this data and got permission from the European Union to update its warning. In 2014, every single box of Norlevo will say ”Studies suggest that Norlevo is less effective in women weighing [165 pounds] or more and not effective in women weighing [176 pounds] or more” and that Norlevo “is not recommended…if you weigh [165 pounds] or more.”

In the U.S., however, as Redden explains,

the Food and Drug Administration prohibits generic drug manufacturers from changing product information unless the brand name manufacturer makes a change, companies that manufacture generic versions of Plan B One-Step cannot update their packaging information unless Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, the exclusive manufacturer of Plan B One-Step, acts first.

You mean, the FDA and pharmaceutical companies aren’t doing everything they possible can to ensure the health and safety of women? I can’t believe it! (If you can’t believe it, check out Dallas Buyers’ Club)

And, of course, as the comments posted in response to the Mother Jones article demonstrate, this news is being met with a beautiful combination of fat-shaming and slut-shaming.

Originally posted on Feministing.

On Tuesday R. Kelly shared the tracklist and artwork for his subtly titled Black Panties album, which comes out December 10. The album cover, which Kelly released Tuesday, features the artist literally playing a topless woman as if she were a cello, bow and all. This, of course, is hardly shocking, given Kelly’s recent performance with Lady Gaga on Saturday Night Live, in which the two simulated having sex. Though the video went viral and set the internets abuzz with articles and blog posts, an important element was shockingly absent from the discussion: rape culture. Jenn M. Jackson, who called Gaga a rape apologist, was a notable exception.

For me, it wasn’t the simulated sex that  I found disturbing as much as hearing R. Kelly sing the lyrics, “I do what I want with your body.” Kelly has been accused of statutory rape by several women and has settled out of court on multiple occasions. He married Aaliyah when she was 15 and he was 27. True he wasn’t convicted, but the video tape of him urinating in, allegedly, a 14-year-old’s mouth, as are photos police found of him having sex with an underage woman. On top of that, his now ex-wife took out a restraining order against him and accused him of physical abuse, harassment, stalking and interfering with her personal liberty. Why is all that being largely ignored? I spoke with Salamishah Tillet, renowned scholar, writer and feminist, about R. Kelly, Lady Gaga, and redemption narratives. [Interview after the jump.]

KATIE HALPER:  The internet has been abuzz with talk of Lady Gaga and R Kelly’s SNL performance of “Do What You Want.” Everyone is talking about the fact and the way that the two stars simulated sex. But almost nothing about R Kelly’s sexual and violent history with women and girls.

SALAMISHAH TILLET: People brought it up but in a comical way. I thought it was interesting that if there was a feminist critique of R Kelly it was only about how absurd the performance was. It wasn’t about why it was problematic that Gaga was performing with him given her own politics. Gaga, for a contemporary pop artist, is one of the more politicized artists we have. She has identified as a feminist. She’s used her platform to consistently advocate for marriage equality and the end of DOMA. She’s a pro animal rights activist. So in a variety of ways Gaga has progressive politics and her art is usually in line with that. It’s odd, then, that she has this song with R Kelly at this moment that she is trying to push against certain restrictions placed on women pop artists. ARTPOP is a very liberatory album for her so I think it’s fascinating and kind of sad that she chose to make this stand with someone like R Kelly.

KH: The lyrics are about media exploitation and violation, and in the SNL performance R Kelly, to some extent plays the violator, who will “do what [he] want[s] with [her] body.” What do you think about this choice?

ST: I think she’s suggesting that she and R Kelly are these iconic figures whose status has been exploited and abused by the media. The song is obviously complaining. To me what’s dangerous is that the song is contingent on remembering but ultimately forgiving R Kelly for his sexual violence towards girls and young women.

What does it mean that nobody’s talking about it?

Because this was violence against girls and young women and an African American teenager–people who are really invisible in our culture. So, we can technically move on because he was found not guilty even if we do think he actually did commit these crimes. Nobody is talking about it because there’s really no impetus to talk about those issues because we don’t really care about the population this happened to.

Is it also about people not considering statutory rape or child pornography as criminal acts?

Or just not caring.

R Kelly was obviously never convicted. He was indicted and he settled out of course several times and there was a charge of child pornography, though the evidence had been seized but unlawfully. But I still think he committed statutory rape and violated young women. Something I struggle with is how to reconcile my response to these realities. I mean, on the one hand there’s someone I think truly has perpetuated violence against women, and the other hand there’s a racist criminal justice system that I can’t support.

I agree with you, the criminal justice system is biased against African Americans and it’s not always a good way of holding people accountable. And people get locked up all the time for crimes they didn’t commit. But with R Kelly in this situation it’s more about the kind of feminism that Gaga is practicing. And are young black girls included in that feminism? And, if so, how can she explain her R Kelly duet? He’s been accused of rape, so the performance reminds us of the way black women become invisible even as a self proclaimed feminist is trying to invoke R and B.

Would she have done this with a famously known racist? With a famously known homophobe who may have committed violence against a certain group because they are different. Whether or not you and I think R Kelly is guilty, it’s interesting that Gaga chose to do that performance with him with that history. Part this is how do we redeem certain people.  Why are they redeemable? And what can we gain from doing with this? She’s part of his redemption narrative right now.

We’ve been blogging quite a bit about the Military Justice Improvement Act, which will help decrease sexual assault in the military. Well, watch senators debate the bill now! I (@kthalps) will be live tweeting it later.

Last night Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) took to the twitters to annoucne he’s co-sponsoring Senator Gillibrand’s Amendment which would improve how the military responds to rape and sexual assaults. Check out who else is behind this important amendment and what you can do today to help end the epidemic of rape and sexual assault in the Armed Forces.

Booker is one of the nearly 50 supporters of the Military Justice Improvement Act (MJIA) which  ”moves the decision whether to prosecute” rape and sexual assault out of the chain of command and “to independent, trained, professional military prosecutors.” This would be a step against impunity enjoyed by attackers and  embolden survivors to report the crimes because it would increase impartiality and decrease the chance of bias and retaliation.

BREAKING– as I write this, another Senator Dean Heller (R-Nev) has joined the list of supporters.

Let’s get the number even higher! We’re only 11 senators shy of the 60 needed to pass the amendment. Join another lunch-time twitter storm, which is being organized by SWAN (Service Women’s Action Network).

1. Between 1 and 2 today, tweet at the senators who are not yet in support of the MJIA. (see the list below).
2. To find their twitter handles, look here.
3. Check out the sample tweets here. Use the hashtags  #PassMJIA and #EndMilitaryRape.
4. If your senator is on the list of non-supporters listed below, call him or her at 1-888-659-8549.

List of senators who have not expressed support for MJIA.
• Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
• Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
• John Barrasso (R-WY)
• Max Baucus (D-MT)
• Roy Blunt (R-MO)
• John Boozman (R-AR)
• Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
• Richard Burr (R-NC)
• Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
• Dan Coats (R-IN)
• Tom Coburn (R-OK)
• Thad Cochran (R-MS)
• Bob Corker (R-TN)
• John Cornyn (R-TX)
• Mike Crapo (R-ID)
• Dick Durbin (D-IL)
• Michael Enzi (R-WY)
• Deb Fischer (R-NE)
• Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
• Lindsay Graham (R-SC)
• Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
• Dean Heller (R-NV)
• John Hoeven (R-ND)
• James Inhofe (R-OK)
• Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
• Ron Johnson (R-WI)
• Tim Kaine (D-VA)
• Angus King (I-ME)
• Mike Lee (R-UT)
• Carl Levin (D-MI)
• Joe Manchin (D-WV)
• John McCain (R-AZ)
• Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
• Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
• Jerry Moran (R-KS)
• Chris Murphy (D-CT)
• Bill Nelson (D-FL)
• Rob Portman (R-OH)
• Jack Reed (D-RI)
• Harry Reid (D-NV)
• James Risch (R-ID)
• Pat Roberts (R-KS)
• Marco Rubio (R-FL)
• Tim Scott (R-SC)
• Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
• Richard Shelby (R-AL)
• Jon Tester (D-MT)
• John Thune (R-SD)
• Pat Toomey (R-PA)
• Mike Warner (D-VA)
• Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)
• Roger Wicker (R-MS)

Originally published on November 19, 2013 on Feministing.

You probably know the U.S. Military is plagued by an epidemic of sexual assault: there were an estimated 26,000 cases of rape, sexual assault or unwanted sexual contact in 2012. But did you know you could do something about it? Today?

Today, join Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN) for a lunch-time twitter storm in support of a bill that would empower survivors of rape and sexual assault and decrease the rampant immunity enjoyed by those who commit these heinous crimes. The  Military Justice Improvement Act (MJIA) would move the decision to prosecute sexual assault and rape out of the chain of command. Why does this matter? In the current system, a victim of rape or sexual assault has to report the crime to his or her superior, which means the superior will know the victim. Given that 25% of women and 27% of men who received unwanted sexual contact said the offender was someone in their military chain of command, it is likely that their superior will know the criminal or, even worse, be the criminal. So survivors are understandably reluctant to report these crimes. Under-reporting is rampant:

• The Defense Department itself estimates that while there were 26,000 cases of unwanted sexual contact, only 3,374 cases were reported!

And with good reason:

• 62% of those who did report a crime experienced some form of professional, social, and/or administrative retaliation.

Of the 67% of women who experienced unwanted sexual contact but did not report,

• 47% said fear of retaliation or reprisal prevented them from reporting. 
• 43% heard about negative experiences from other victims who had reported. 
• 50% thought nothing would be done.

Under the MJIA, the cases would be handled by independent, trained, professional military prosecutors. The bill is so logical, that it has the support of not only Senator Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY], who spearheaded it, and several other Democrats, but Republicans like Rand Paul [R-KY] and Ted Cruz [R-TX].

So, help get this bill passed! Join the twitter storm!

Between 1 and 2 today, tweet at the senators who are not yet in support of the MJIA.

Find out who isn’t in support and their contact info here.

Check out the sample tweets here.

Come back here for updates on what to do next.

Originally posted on Feministing.

3,278 people have been condemned to die behind bars for non-violent crimes, like stealing a tool from a shed or borrowing a co-workers truck. I feel so much safer.

None of the 3,278 people who are currently in jail sentenced to die behind bars committed a violent crime. I know it is self-explanatory, but none of these 3,278 people “will ever come home to their parents and children,” as the ACLU points out in a chilling report A LIVING DEATH: Life without Parole for Nonviolent Offenses released on Wednesday. What are the crimes that deprived some of these people of their liberty for the rest of their lives?

For Patrick Matthews it was stealing a welding machine, and tools from a tool shed when he was 22. He had never committed a violent crime but thanks to mandatory minimum sentences, an unarmed burglary he committed when he was 17 means that he will literally die in jail. He will never be able to go home to his children, aged 6 and 8who have been deprived of their father by our criminal “justice system.”  Matthews says, “I never in the world would’ve thought that could happen… Made one mistake and was treated like a murderer.”

When Teresa Griffin tried to leave her abusive boyfriend he hit her and vowed to kill her. A few years later, seven months pregnant and 26 years old, Griffin was arrested for  working as a  mule for her boyfriend. 22 years later and 47 years old, Griffin reflects, “I know I did something wrong, but not enough to take away my life.”

When Lance Saltzman, pictured here with his sister, was 21, he “broke into” his own home and removed his stepfather’s gun in order to protect his mother. The Stepfather had repeatedly threatened Saltzman’s mother and had shot it at her. Saltzman’s mother told the ACLU “As far as I’m concerned, I would be dead right now if he hadn’t taken the gun.” Saltzman was sentenced to life with no parole because of prior non-violent crimes.

Saltzman, Griffin and Matthews are just three of the 3,278 people who will breath their last breaths behind bars for committing non-violent crimes. Other people have been sentenced to life with no parole for crimes like shoplifting two jerseys or making a drunken threat to a police officer while handcuffed in the back of a patrol car. The fact that these people are condemned to life with no parole while a rapist can serve one year or even one month makes these punishments even more disturbing.

If you’re not outraged and appalled on a moral and emotional level (get thee to a therapist), you should be upset that the government is wasting money housing, feeding and providing health care for on people it would be much easier and cheaper to rehabilitate. In fact, it costs tax payers $1.8 billion dollars a year to keep these non-violent offenders in jail.

So, do something about this injustice. Sign this ACLU letter urging We urging President Obama to review these cases and consider reducing their sentences.

UPDATE: check out this post and chart on the racist application of life sentencing.

Originally published on Feministing.

Earlier, I wrote about a disturbing ACLU report on non-violent offenders being sent to jail for life without parole (LWOP). Here are some handy charts which point out just how egregiously racist the application of life sentences is.

Originally posted on Feministing.

The sentencing of Marissa Alexander to 20 years for shooting at the wall to scare off an abusive husband provoked national outrage. And Alexander was granted a new trial that will take place in March 2014. So why is this 32-year-old mother still in jail?

It should be unbelievable and shocking, but it’s tragically consistent with Marissa Alexander’s experience with the criminal justice system. Even Alexander’s ex-husband, who is the alleged victim of the shooting, wants Alexander to be out on bond until her trial in the spring. And yet a judge postponed her bail hearing and the District Attorney maintains that Alexander should be denied her freedom. Why? As Joy Reid explains at The Grio, it’s because of Angela Corey, the Florida DA, politics and PR.

Apparently Republicans aren’t racist. But the biracial family of future NYC mayor Bill de Blasio makes them want to vomit.

First Mike Bloomberg told us that Bill de Blasio was racist because he had a biracial family he didn’t keep locked up in a basement. Now, Washington Post Columnist Richard Cohen informs us that de Blasio’s family disgusts conventional people, who are not racist:

Today’s GOP is not racist, as Harry Belafonte alleged about the tea party, but it is deeply troubled — about the expansion of government, about immigration, about secularism, about the mainstreaming of what used to be the avant-garde. People with conventional views must repress a gag reflex when considering the mayor-elect of New York — a white man married to a black woman and with two biracial children.

First of all, it’s not clear what the hell Cohen is talking about. This reads more like a stream-of-consciousness-writing-without-lifting-your-pen-or-realizing-you’re-a-racism-apologist exercise than it does a column… meant for publication. But let’s try to break it down. Cohen is saying

• Harry Belafonte called the tea party racist.
• The Republican Party, however, is not racist.
• They just don’t like things like the government or the avant guard.
• The totally non-racist Republican Party is made up of conventional people who are nauseated by inter-racial marriage.

Here’s the thing. There are people who have visceral reactions to inter-racial marriage and relationships. And those people are racist. And it’s fine to write about these people. It’s just not cool to call them conventional. And when you are trying to prove that a group of people are not racist, you may want to not use evidence like nausea at the sight of interracial relationships.

What is still unclear, though, is what Cohen is saying about Harry Belafonte and the relationship between the tea party and the Republican Party. Is Cohen saying that while the tea party is racist, the Republican Party, which is distinct, is not? That Belafonte was right about the tea party? Is he saying that the Republican Party and the tea party are the same thing? And Belafonte was wrong to call them racist? I’m pretty sure Harry Belafonte’s racism-dar is more fine tuned than Cohen’s. Either way, I’m pretty sure Mr. Cohen owes Mr. Belafonte and Mr. de Blasio, and his entire family, and all bi-racial families, and all of New York City an apology.

First published on Feministing