The Round Up is looking for your finest gritty flash fiction of 1000 words or less for our special “Flasher’s Edition” of the Round Up. The deadline is November 15th.
For more information and guidelines please visit here.
Oscar Pistorius, superstar athlete, was back in court this week for his sentencing hearing, after a culpable homicide conviction. Journalist Mandy Wiener says his case reminds her of a favorite book.
A plate full of yummy stuff I cannot eat for the next month or so features for this week’s Open Thread. Please natter/chatter/vent/rant on anything* you like over this weekend and throughout the week.
So, what have you been up to? What would you rather be up to? What’s been awesome/awful?
Reading? Watching? Making? Meeting?
What has [insert awesome inspiration/fave fansquee/guilty pleasure/dastardly ne'er-do-well/threat to all civilised life on the planet du jour] been up to?
* Netiquette footnotes:
* There is no off-topic on the Weekly Open Thread, but consider whether your comment would be on-topic on any recent thread and thus better belongs there.
* If your comment touches on topics known to generally result in thread-jacking, you will be expected to take the discussion to #spillover instead of overshadowing the social/circuit-breaking aspects of this thread.
- Open Thread with Scratching Badgers by tigtog September 26, 2014
- Weekly Open Thread with Parkour Plumbers by tigtog September 13, 2013
- Open Thread with Meerkat Pile by tigtog August 1, 2014
- Open Thread with Hoof Bump by tigtog October 4, 2014
- Open Thread with Wookie Griffon by tigtog September 12, 2014
The art of letter writing is also an act of preserving history. The correspondences gathered in the book Letters Of Note tell stories of delight, hope and loss — and the nature of human connection.
In El Salvador, where it is completely illegal to terminate one’s pregnancy, women who have experienced miscarriages and stillbirths can face accusations of abortion and even infanticide. In many of these cases, Salvadoran courts rely on a test performed during autopsy as evidence that these women killed their babies after they were born alive—a test that, according to a new report, researchers deemed unreliable more than 100 years ago.
The test, nicknamed the “float” test, has been used by Salvadoran courts to convict dozens of women of infanticide over the last two decades. Since 2010, psychiatrist and ardent fundamentalist Dr. José Miguel Fortin Magaña has served as the director of the Salvadoran Institute for Legal [Forensic] Medicine, which reports to the Supreme Court. In a recent interview about abortion on Frente a Frente, a right-wing national television talk show, he described the mechanisms of the test:
As part of the autopsies we took the little lungs of the babies and put them in a container of liquid, and they floated. It’s called hydrostatic docimasia. It’s when a lung has breathed, when it has taken in air. When the baby is in the mother’s womb, it has not breathed air. When someone has not breathed, when it has not been born in this sense, it [the lung] sinks to the bottom. When it floats it has breathed air.
Many of the women charged with aggravated homicide have said that while they were giving birth unattended, their babies were born dead, or that the women fainted during delivery and don’t know what happened. But Fortin, the courts, and others on the right maintain that the float test proves the babies were born alive and that they were murdered by their mothers. Indeed, throughout the Frente a Frente interview, Fortin reiterated, “This has nothing to do with abortion. They are 17 people who were convicted for assassinating their children.”
The “they” in question are “Las 17,” a group of 17 women currently in Salvadoran prison, some for up to 40 years, on abortion-related charges. Though the float test was not used in all of their cases, at least eight of them were convicted of aggravated homicide based on such “evidence.” The group’s plight has ignited mass domestic and international controversy and abroad. On April 1, the Salvadoran feminist group Agrupación Ciudadana por la Despenalización del Aborto (Citizen Group for the Decriminalization of Abortion) filed legal documents asserting that Las 17 had suffered various types of obstetrical complications—including miscarriages, stillbirths, and precipitous births—and requesting pardons for all of them. Thus far, it has received no response.
To further support Las 17, allies of Agrupación connected with Dr. Gregory Davis, a professor in the College of Medicine at the University of Kentucky. After reviewing documents related to the medical evidence used by the courts to convict some of the women, Davis—who has had 28 years of experience in pathology, forensic pathology, laboratory medicine, and autopsy services in addition to an extensive background as a medical examiner and consultant in several countries—concluded that the science behind such “proof” was unsound.
He submitted his report, Determination of Live Birth Versus Stillbirth and Consideration of Birth-Related Injuries, to Agrupación, who then delivered it in September to the Justices of the Salvadoran Supreme Court of Justice and to the Representatives of the National Assembly, two of the branches of government that will determine the outcomes of the petitions for pardons. Agrupación also made it available to RH Reality Check.
After reviewing three women’s cases in which prosecutors used the float test as evidence, Davis determined that in two of them, “there is no way to state that the baby of [the woman] was born alive. He could just as easily have been born dead (miscarriage).” In the third, he stated that the time lapse between the death and the autopsy, “would have rendered any determination of live birth by such methods as the ‘float test’ unreliable.” Commenting on a fourth case, in which the court had apparently imprisoned a woman based on her [deceased] baby’s cranial injuries, Davis argued, “There is no way to determine from the evidence reviewed that the injuries sustained by the baby of [redacted] were deliberately inflicted.”
Regarding the float test, Davis wrote that it does not constitute a valid way to determine whether an infant was stillborn:
The fact that the lungs floated at autopsy does not prove or disprove live birth. Such a “hydrostatic test” or “float test” test is invalid in unattended births. Such a test has actually been held as non-reliable for over a century. Saukko and Knight note on pp 445-446 of their textbook, Knight’s Forensic Pathology, 3rd ed (London, Arnold, 2004):
There are too many recorded instances when control tests have shown that stillborn lungs may float and the lungs from undoubtedly live-born infants have sunk, to allow it to be used in testimony in a criminal trial. Even one such failure negates the whole history of the test and the authors are saddened to contemplate the number of innocent women who were sent to the gallows in previous centuries on the testimony of doctors who had an uncritical faith in this crude technique. As this is such an important issue and one that is still contested today, the words of the late Professor Polson may be recalled from his notable textbook [Polson C, Gee D, Knight B. 1985. Essentials of Forensic Medicine, 3rd ed. Pergamon Press, London]:
The test was suspect even in 1900 and requires not detailed discussion, because it is now known to have no value.
In fact, Davis continued:
Keeling notes in Paediatric Forensic Medicine and Pathology (London, Hodder Arnold, 2009), p. 185:
The use of the property of lungs to float in water (or buffered formalin) as a determinant of live birth is fraught with difficulty. It is unwise to rely on it as the only determinant of live birth even when some or any of the published modifications, which allegedly improve reliability, are introduced. It may be falsely positive because of putrefaction, even to a minor degree.
And yet, poor, young women in El Salvador who give birth without assistance continue to be imprisoned based on these tests—effectively, as authors Saukko and Knight wrote, condemned “on the testimony of doctors with an uncritical faith in this crude technique.”
Are Fortin and his colleagues aware of this medical literature, but choose to ignore it and use the test anyway? Or are they heedless of this critical information in their field, thus placing their qualifications in serious doubt? Either way, this apparent failure of ethics and professionalism has devastated the lives of these 17 women and their families, as well as other women imprisoned over the years in the country. Moreover, it further heightens the vulnerability under which all poor Salvadoran women already live.
Unfortunately, reliance on this grossly outdated “science” and “medicine” is often par for the course in El Salvador, where it frequently goes unquestioned in the courts and the mainstream media. In fact, members of the fundamentalist right in the country have attempted to intimidate and threaten those who raise critical questions.
In response to this campaign of fear, Agrupación has called for a civil, objective national dialogue on the consequences of the absolute criminalization of abortion. Thanks to the growing publicity surrounding the law’s impact on Salvadoran women—including a report by Amnesty International—and collaboration with individuals like Davis, that dialogue is ramping up. Ultimately, Agrupación’s challenges to the medical and legal systems could shake the foundations of these two pillars of fundamentalist control over women’s lives.
The post Report: ‘Scientific’ Test Used to Convict Women in El Salvador Is Anything But appeared first on RH Reality Check.
Content note: This article contains a description of alleged sexual assaults.
Charges were filed by the Middlesex County Prosecutors Thursday night against seven Sayreville, New Jersey, high school football players who were investigated for participating in a hazing ritual in which seniors allegedly held down their freshmen teammates and anally penetrated them with a finger.
Three players remain in custody.
The situation in Sayreville first made news a few weeks ago when Superintendent Richard Labbe announced the Sayreville War Memorial High School’s football team, known as the Bombers, would forfeit a weekend game amid rumors of a police investigation into violent hazing by older members of the team.
Labbe then canceled the remainder of the season, saying that the investigation had uncovered “enough evidence to substantiate there were incidents of harassment, intimidation and bullying that took place on a pervasive level, on a wide-scale level, and at a level in which the players knew, tolerated and in general accepted.”
Though Labbe was accused by some players, parents, and community members of overreacting, more information surfaced in the days since suggesting that the hazing incidents were frequent and involved anal penetration.
The prosecutor’s office focused on four separate incidents that allegedly took place at the high school between September 19 and September 29. Three players have been charged with aggravated sexual assault, aggravated criminal sexual contact, conspiracy to commit aggravated criminal sexual contact, criminal restraint, and hazing.
One of those defendants and four others were also charged with various criminal counts, including aggravated assault, conspiracy, aggravated criminal sexual contact, hazing, and rioting. The names of those charged have not been released, as all are juveniles between the ages of 15 and 17.
Aggravated sexual assault is a first-degree crime and even a juvenile could face up to five years in prison if found guilty. Prosecutors can ask to try the young men as adults. If found guilty, they could get longer prison sentences and could be required to register as sex offenders upon their release.
While the players face criminal charges, it is unclear what will happen to the coaches.
The Sayreville football program had eight coaches, five of whom are tenured employees of the district, while three serve as substitute teachers. Labbe has told a local paper that he doesn’t believe the coaches had knowledge of what was happening in the locker room.
“I think that if the coaches would have known what was going on or even participated, they would have been criminally prosecuted. I’m not an attorney, but I believe that would have been criminal,” he said. “It was noted in the Middlesex County prosecutor’s statement that at this point no coaches have been charged.”
Labbe and his staff have not been able to question the coaches yet because they remain part of the prosecutor’s investigation.
The coaches were told to report for work this week but their fates remain in question. Firing a tenured employee requires a long process and evidence of at least some kind of misconduct or failure to perform duties. The district school board could decide to suspend the coaches for up to 120 days with pay when it meets again on Tuesday.
In a separate incident apparently unrelated to the Sayreville football program, one assistant coach was arrested in neighboring Somerset County after a routine traffic stop revealed he had steroids and 14 hypodermic needles in his pickup truck.
Labbe and the school board say they are continuing to take the hazing incidents seriously and will cooperate fully with police and prosecutors. In a statement, Labbe said:
As should be evident by now, the Sayreville Board of Education takes this matter extremely seriously and thus will continue to make the safety and welfare of our students, particularly the victims of these horrendous alleged acts, our highest priority. In the ensuing days, weeks, and months, we will come together as a school district and greater community to harness the strength required to support the young men who may have been victimized and then to begin the healing process for our beloved community.
Wendy Rondeau, a community member, told NJ.com that she always believed the allegation were true because “you don’t just make stuff like that up.”
She added, “For something like this to happen is shocking. But we will get through this.” The unnamed parent who first leaked the details of the allegation said: “The only hero in this town are the kids, these freshman kids that stepped up.”
The post Charges Filed Against Seven Sayreville Football Players; Coaches’ Futures in Question appeared first on RH Reality Check.
Appearing at No. 13, The Map of Heaven examines people's near-death experiences alongside beliefs about the afterlife.
Someone, Alice McDermott's story of a young Irish-American woman in Brooklyn, appears at No. 9.
In Being Mortal, Atul Gawande argues against the premise that medical practitioners should always aim to extend life. It debuts at No. 3.
A wandering woman falls in love with a reverend in Marilynne Robinson's latest novel. Lila debuts at No. 2
The lists are compiled from weekly surveys of close to 500 independent bookstores nationwide.
The Maine Democratic Party recently sent campaign mailers that reignited a controversy caused by state Rep. Lawrence Lockman’s (R) statements comparing abortion and rape.
“If a woman has the right to abortion, why shouldn’t a man be free to use his superior strength to force himself on a woman?” Lockman said. “At least the rapist’s pursuit of sexual freedom doesn’t in most cases result in anyone’s death.”
Lockman hasn’t held elected office in Maine for very long—he was first elected in 2012—but he has a long history of making comments like the one printed in the Democratic mailers.
Maine political reporter Michael Tipping this year compiled a list of some of Lockman’s comments, ranging from opining on the spread of HIV to protesting the IRS.
Lockman, in a 1987 letter to the editor of a local paper, wrote about the spread of AIDS, saying, “In the overwhelming majority of cases, people are dying because of their addiction to sodomy. They are dying because progressive, enlightened, tolerant people in politics and in medicine have assured the public that the practice of sodomy is a legitimate alternative lifestyle, rather than a perverted, depraved crime against humanity.”
Lockman doubled down in 1990, saying that “the practice of sodomy is learned behavior, and those addicted to this form of biologically-insane sex are at high risk for all manner of serious medical problems.”
Almost a decade earlier, Lockman founded a group called the Maine Patriots, which espoused the belief that taxes are voluntary and that the IRS is unconstitutional. A federal tax court in 1983 found that Lockman owed more than $17,000 in unpaid taxes.
The Maine Democratic Party called for Lockman to resign after his recent rape comments were made public. Lockman refused to step down and has never issued an apology for his statements, though he did say that he regrets the comments he made.
The post Maine Republican Has Not Apologized for Comparing Abortion to Rape appeared first on RH Reality Check.
Audie Cornish speaks with Frank Ciulla about a poignant letter cherished by his family. It was written after his father was killed in the Lockerbie bombing in 1988.
No Americans allowed on this upbeat mixtape of female artists from around the world.
In a piece for RH Reality Check last month, Erin Matson highlighted anti-abortion groups’ false advocacy for people with disabilities. As Matson put it, it’s “well past time” for feminists to more robustly utilize a disability rights lens so anti-choicers can’t continue to monopolize the discourse.
It’s true that, for political reasons, we can’t afford for those on the other side to be the only ones talking about this issue. But I’ll go a step further: If we in the pro-choice movement don’t start paying serious attention to the ways in which our own practices contribute to the dehumanization of people with disabilities, we can’t claim to operate under a reproductive justice framework at all.
As Matson wrote, such a framework pushes people at the margins “to the center of analysis and activism.” For the most part, however, the reproductive rights movement has failed to publicly connect insidious abortion legislation with its effects on people with disabilities. In Texas, for instance, abortion advocates have heavily promoted discourse about how HB 2 has affected poor, rural women of color, especially in the Rio Grande Valley. Such rhetoric is certainly legitimate and worthy of attention. However, feminists have said little about how a pregnant person with mobility issues might have a more difficult time reaching their nearest abortion clinic; how a person with a chronic condition may have a more expensive abortion because of medical complications; or how a pregnant person with mental illness might have to choose their medications over their pregnancy. Though these issues have always existed, restrictive abortion legislation like HB 2 exacerbates the situation by closing clinics, thus forcing patients to travel long distances, pay higher costs for their procedure, or both. And the narrative surrounding HB 2 is just one example; when it comes to restrictive laws’ impact on people who need reproductive health care, those with disabilities are repeatedly left out of the picture.
At the same time, the kinds of disability-related rhetoric that have made it into public awareness ultimately do more harm than good. The most common example of the pro-choice movement’s ableism lies in many activists’ decision to call attention to “fetal abnormalities,” particularly when explaining the necessity of legal later abortions. Abortion advocates frequently remind the public that such “abnormalities”—conditions that could manifest as disabilities after a fetus is born—are usually not discovered until the 20-week mark of pregnancy or later.
This strategy attempts to justify later abortions to anti-choicers by trading on the rhetoric that some abortions—of fetuses with “abnormalities”—are inarguably necessary. Rather than reasoning that all abortions should be equally accessible no matter what, many pro-choice advocates lean on the argument that of course people, including anti-choicers, would opt out of having a disabled child if they had the means. Thus, later abortions should be legal.
And this plan often does work. The text of HB 2, Texas’ aforementioned omnibus anti-abortion bill, explains that the 20-week ban does not apply to fetuses “with severe fetal abnormalities.” The fetal abnormality exception has been publicly supported both by Wendy Davis and her gubernatorial opponent Greg Abbott, suggesting, again, that even anti-abortion politicians seem to relax their positions when confronted with the idea of a fetus with severe disabilities.
But I have a problem with the idea that certain fetuses are more available for abortion because of their apparently disabled futures. When people who aren’t usually pro-choice (like most Texas legislators) start making exceptions for fetuses with “abnormalities” in the same way that feminists do, I get nervous. I have to conclude that the rhetorical choice to justify abortion this way sacrifices the humanity of all people with disabilities on the altar of feminism.
The “fetal abnormalities” argument actually does devalue the lives of real people. When we rely on that stance, we’re trading on discourse that says, “No one would want to live if they had disabilities like those,” or “No one would want to take care of children with those kinds of disabilities.” What does that say about the people who are living with disabilities like those? That they should have never been born?
Of course, feminists’ most commonly invoked “fetal abnormalities” are the fatal kinds. And no one should have to carry a non-viable fetus to term if they don’t want to, which is one reason later abortions should always be available. Yet only giving examples of non-viable fetuses as representatives of those with “abnormalities” obscures the breadth of people’s reasons for obtaining later abortions. In a world where the majority of fetuses diagnosed with non-fatal Klinefelter, Turner, and Down Syndromes are terminated, for instance, we can’t afford to pretend that later abortions happen only for reasons that make us feel comfortable.
It would be better to use specific examples, such as, “We need legal later abortions because sometimes fetuses are not viable,” or “We need legal later abortions because people get medical diagnoses without the resources to make sense of them,” rather than, “We need later abortions because sometimes fetuses are abnormal.” The latter is just too broad for its impact to be anything but dangerous.
By marginalizing people who are already excluded by systems of able-bodied privilege in this way, the feminist movement is working in opposition to a reproductive justice framework. At the same time, as a young, queer, poor mother of color who has experienced disabilities and sometimes still does, I understand the fear of giving birth to a baby with disabilities. It is incredibly difficult to raise children with disabilities in a neoliberal, capitalist society that creates obstructions to accessibility for them and those who support them. I can never condemn anyone who has been in the position of having to make that decision.
So I’m not interested in criticizing individual choices. Rather, I’m calling attention to the (supposedly) feminist discourse that reproduces stereotypes about people with disabilities, in turn reinforcing the barriers to rights they already confront. My focus is on those who shape the debate: media outlets, organizations, corporations, and people who are trying to change the culture around abortion. Because if we’re truly interested in crafting a just movement, we have to stop emphasizing narratives that implicitly encourage the abortions of fetuses with disabilities.
For example, as the president of Fund Texas Choice, a nonprofit organization that funds abortion travel for low-income Texans, I have a responsibility to use words with care. The truth is, I’ve used ableist terminology in fundraising campaigns before. In my experience, donors more frequently contribute to a client’s travel if their story is extreme; buzzwords like “fetal abnormalities” instantly place an abortion story into that category.
Lately, though, I’ve realized that making the money flow more quickly in this way isn’t just unethical—it’s a bad long-term strategy. Promoting “compelling” stories only hurts our ability to fight for the “boring” ones, too: the people who need abortions because they just don’t want to carry a fetus, give birth to a baby, or raise a child. As Merritt Tierce reminds us in the New York Times, “We have to stop categorizing abortions as justified or unjustified.”
By contributing to society’s hunger for a “compelling” abortion story, we’re reinforcing the idea that abortion is an exceptional right, not a human right, and that only certain kinds of “undesirable” pregnancies fit into that exception.
When it comes to justifying the legal necessity of later abortions, we should shift our focus to the other dangers of outlawing those procedures. For example, the high cost of abortions, especially when compounded by travel expenses, can mean that it takes time for a person living in poverty to save up enough money for the procedure. Of course, by the time they have amassed that money, they’re several more weeks along, and their procedure costs even more. Emphasizing this narrative brings attention to the difficulties of abortion access for poor people in a country that has expressly prohibited, via the Hyde Amendment, the expenditure of federal funds such as Medicaid for abortion. This new focus sets the stage for anti-Hyde Amendment activism. In other words, intentionally not talking about fetuses with disabilities is strategic, beneficial, and powerful.
Another way feminism can do better at centering a variety of needs is by supporting the leadership of people with disabilities. Having diverse people in charge means that ableist rhetoric will be more easily spotted, public events will become more accessible by necessity, and disability rights issues will become more intensely integrated into our reproductive rights work overall.
In addition, we also need to actively educate ourselves on disability rights issues and boost campaigns started by those within the community. For example, in the wake of the #SolidarityIsForTheAbleBodied movement, the lesson feminists should have learned is that being more attentive to the intersections between disability and race, class, sexuality, and gender requires work. Rather than expecting people with disabilities to do the educating on demand, it’s time for abled people in the pro-choice movement to start reading.
All I ask is that feminists acknowledge the systemic pressures felt by pregnant people whose fetuses have been diagnosed with a disability. I want to open up space for individuals to come forward and talk about their abortions without censorship. But if we don’t encourage a variety of narratives, we are contributing to the idea that certain abortions are justified and others aren’t. Until feminists begin to openly recognize and work against this argument, people with disabilities and those who care about them will continue to be alienated by pro-choice rhetoric. If feminists are going to claim to use a reproductive justice lens, we had better stop marginalizing the very people whose lives we’re claiming to save.
The post How the Pro-Choice Movement Excludes People With Disabilities appeared first on RH Reality Check.
In Milwaukee, black women are disproptionately likely to be evicted. Photo by Adam Norwood.
Each year, approximately 16,000 tenants are evicted from rental units in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. But digging into the demographics of eviction reveals a startling picture: black women are far more likely to be evicted than anyone else.
Missouri state employees will now be able to enroll their same-sex spouses in the state’s health-care program after a ruling by a judge this month.
Jackson County Circuit Judge J. Dale Youngs ruled on October 3 that Missouri must recognize same-sex marriages sanctioned by other states despite the Missouri Constitution only recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman.
Attorney General Chris Koster said that the state will not appeal the ruling.
“At a time when Missouri is competing to attract the nation’s premier businesses and most talented employees, we should not demand that certain individuals surrender their marriage licenses in order to live and work among us. Missouri’s future will be one of inclusion, not exclusion,” Koster said in a statement released after the ruling.
The Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan (MCHCP) announced after the ruling that it will now accept the enrollment of same-sex spouses with a valid marriage certificate.
The MCHCP provides nearly 100,000 state employees and retirees of most state agencies and other public entities.
There has been no indication as to how many same-sex spouses may enroll, but the MCHCP has already received inquiries from employees, reports the Kansas City Star.
The post Missouri Will Extend Health-Care Benefits to Same-Sex Spouses appeared first on RH Reality Check.