Click here to act.

Related posts:

1. TAKE ACTION: Stop Violence Against Women Support legislation to end violence against women and girls across...
2. TAKE ACTION: “Tell your senators to vote YES to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell!” The Senate is set to vote soon on "Don't Ask,...
3. TAKE ACTION: Stop Harmful Anti-Youth Legislation Harmful gang legislation is pending in Congress that places excessive...

If this sounds unnatural, it’s the reality for many young girls of color who experience early signs of puberty at alarming rates. The latest research adds to a growing body of evidence suggesting that an array of social and environmental factors may be causing girls’ bodies to develop prematurely. Breast Cancer and the Environment Research Centers–looked at 1,239 girls screened in Manhattan, Cincinnati and San Francisco. It reveals stark racial disparities.

The girls who developed breasts early, as young as age seven, were disproportionately Black and Latina. Black 8-year-olds were more than twice as likely as white girls to develop breasts. As the NYT reports:

At 7 years, 10.4 percent of white, 23.4 percent of black and 14.9 percent of Hispanic girls had enough breast development to be considered at the onset of puberty.

At age 8, the figures were 18.3 percent in whites, 42.9 percent in blacks and 30.9 percent in Hispanics. The percentages for blacks and whites were even higher than those found by a 1997 study that was one of the first to suggest that puberty was occurring earlier in girls.

As Susan Shane explained in a 2008 Colorlines essay, early puberty tends to produce complicated dilemmas. Girls often find themselves physically maturing at a faster pace than they learn how to deal with sexual contact, and may face certain cancer risks later in life.

The findings dovetail with earlier research by the Columbia Mailman School of Public Health, which has tracked elevated exposures to environmental toxins in mothers in low-income New York neighborhoods. The data reflect a disturbing prevalence of chemicals known to be endocrine disruptors, including common plastic ingredients known as pthalates.

The Obama administration has begun taking environmental health risks more seriously, beginning with a groundbreaking report from the Presidential Cancer Panel which highlighted the threats of environmental carcinogens.

Meanwhile, the White House is campaigning to reduce childhood obesity, another health problem tied to early-onset puberty, which may expand poor kids’ access to healthy foods and recreation.

As the budget battle shakes out, it’s too early to tell how comprehensively the administration will address the link between health and environment. The research is clear, however: the risk to youth isn’t just about “lifestyle,” but justice, especially for the young girls of color who carry an unequal burden as they step suddenly into adulthood.

Related posts:

1. Taxing Health Care Benefits: An All-Around Bad Idea There’s noise now in Washington that policy makers are considering...
2. Is That Your Child? Mothers Talk About Rearing Biracial Children By  Marion Kilson and Florence Ladd The successful candidacy of...
3. Single Women Fend for Themselves in Recession Single women of color, despite their vital economic contributions as...

A test case on same-sex fairness

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Shirley Tan is a 43-year old Pacifica homemaker and mother of twin seventh-grade boys. Tan also wears an ankle bracelet assigned by immigration agents after a dawn raid on her home two months ago.

Barring a legal miracle, she faces likely deportation to the Philippines on Friday. That result would devastate her family and friends. But her case also touches off two flashpoint issues – immigration law and same-sex marriage – that are combining in a way that shows the unfairness of this country’s laws.

If she is deported, Tan will be separated from her partner Jay Mercado, who is a naturalized citizen. For straight couples, there wouldn’t be a similar problem because a citizen can sponsor a spouse for residency. But under the federal Defense of Marriage Act, this right doesn’t exist for an estimated 37,000 same-sex couples where one partner is a noncitizen.

Tan’s case also points up how ill-equipped and unfair immigration laws can be. She and her partner sought to legalize their status for years, pursuing their case through hearings and appeals with several lawyers.

But Mercado says the couple never learned of an adverse ruling in 2002, blaming the delay on a previous lawyer. Since then, the couple traveled, signed up for a real estate license and even passed a Homeland Security screening on a tourist visit to the White House. There was never a blip until the 6:30 a.m. door knock from immigration agents on Jan. 28.

There is a legal Hail Mary, a longshot chance via a rarely used power that members of Congress can use to single out individuals for a reprieve from deportation. Tan’s congresswoman, Democrat Jackie Speier, is considering her case.

But a fuller answer is needed: an overhaul of immigration law that would recognize special circumstances and also passage of the Uniting American Families Act. That measure would end the discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans and let them sponsor partners for immigration.

Keeping all families together is a goal worth achieving.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/04/01/EDB216Q4D8.DTL

This article appeared on page A – 14 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Related posts:

1. Washington Post calls for passage of UAFA The subhead says it all: “Gay couples should be allowed...
2. With Pretzel Logic, Restaurant Owners Attack San Francisco Health Care Law Talk about twisted logic. A group of San Francisco restaurant...
3. Obama Calls for Credit Card Protections President Barack Obama said yesterday the nation needs tougher laws...

Much of the history of the Civil Rights Movement has focused heavily on the stories of great men like Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Thurgood Marshall, and many others. These men are the embodiment of the movement. But the movement’s successes would not have been achieved without the support, dedication, defiance, intelligence and hard work of many women. Historically, black women especially had to contend not only with racial discrimination, but also with sexism from both white and black men within the movement itself and from the larger society. In spite of these challenges, black women at all levels of society continued to juggle women’ s work and race work. Here we showcase just a few women pioneers who have been instrumental to helping LDF fulfill its mission to defend, educate and empower African Americans and others seeking justice and equality in America.

Elaine R. Jones

As the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund’s first woman leader, Elaine Jones is a trailblazer known for her work as one of the first African-American women to defend death row inmates. The daughter of a Pullman porter and a teacher, Jones became the first black woman to enroll in and subsequently graduate from the University Of Virginia School Of Law in 1970. She turned down an offer to join a top Wall Street law firm and pursued her lifelong goal by joining LDF, where she spent all but two years of her career.

In 1977, Jones created the position of legislative advocate in LDF’s Washington, DC office, building a reputation as an expert negotiator and a passionate voice for the victims of injustice. She served as LDF President and General-Counsel from 1993 to 2004 Under her direction, LDF broadened its mission to include such emerging issues as environmental justice and health care reform, while continuing to work for educational equity, fair employment, voting rights, fair housing and an end to bias in the criminal justice system.

Marian Wright Edelman

America’s best-known and most highly-respected children’s advocate Marian Wright Edelman began her career with LDF. In 1963, after graduating from Yale Law School, Edelman worked for LDF first in New York, and then in Mississippi, where she became the first African-American woman to practice law in that state. After moving to Washington, DC, Edelman was instrumental in organizing the Poor People’s Campaign, leading her to focus on issues relating to child development and children in poverty. In 1973, Edelman founded the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), which has become a leading voice for policies and programs to lift children out of poverty; protect them from abuse and neglect; and ensure their access to health care, a quality education and a moral and spiritual foundation. The author of several books, Edelman keeps CDF financed entirely with private funds. Among her many honors are a MacArthur Foundation Prize Fellowship; the Presidential Medal of Freedom; more than 65 honorary degrees; and the Robert F. Kennedy Lifetime Achievement for her writings, which include eight books.

Constance Baker Motley

One cannot consider civil rights in America without paying homage to Constance Baker Motley, who brought her legal brilliance to the most important civil rights cases for 20 years, and became the first African-American woman to serve as a federal judge and in the New York Senate, among other historic milestones. While attending Columbia Law School, Motley volunteered at LDF. After graduating in 1946, she accepted full-time work for LDF, fighting housing cases to break down barriers that barred blacks from white neighborhoods, for the salary of $50 a week. LDF assigned her the James Meredith case in 1961, and the nation saw her escort the young student as he braved a jeering crowd to integrate the University of Mississippi. She called the day Meredith graduated in 1963 “the most thrilling” in her life. She won cases that struck down segregation in Southern restaurants and lunch counters. She lent her expertise to the briefs in Brown V. Board of Education, the landmark school desegregation case fought by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF), led by Thurgood Marshall and Jack Greenberg. A key player in the struggle to desegregate the South, Motley hung out with the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. while he was in jail; sang freedom songs in bombed churches; and spent a night under armed guard with Medgar Evers before he was murdered. Throughout her career and until her death in 2005, Motley was renowned for the quiet but powerful way in which she prepared and presented the lawsuits that led to greater equality for black people.

Lani Guinier

Lani Guinier became the first black woman tenured professor when she joined the faculty of Harvard Law School in 1998. The Yale Law School graduate had chosen her life path when as a child, she saw pioneering civil rights attorney Constance Baker Motley on television escorting James Meredith through a hostile white crowd to desegregate the University of Mississippi in 1962. After graduating law school, she followed Motley’s example and joined LDF as Assistant Counsel. She left four years later to serve as special assistant to then Assistant Attorney General Drew S. Days in the Civil Rights Division in the Carter Administration. After Ronald Reagan was elected, Guinier returned to LDF, where she became head of the Voting Rights program, litigating cases throughout the South, helping to win major victories in voting rights cases in Alabama and other southern states. She became one of LDF’s top litigators, winning 31 out of the 32 cases she argued. Guinier was thrust into the spotlight when President Bill Clinton nominated her to the Justice Department’s top civil rights post in 1993, then withdrew the nomination. Guinier has authored several books and won numerous awards, and in 1996 she formed a nonprofit organization, Commonplace, to create a dialogue about issues regarding race between the media and academic sectors.

Constance Rice

Civil rights crusader Constance Rice is acclaimed for her success in addressing the issues of inequity and exclusion. She attended New York University School of Law on the prestigious Root Tilden Public Interest Scholarship. After graduating in 1984 and serving as law clerk to the Honorable Damon J. Keith, judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and at Morrison & Foerster as a litigation associate, Rice joined LDF in 1991. In 1996, she became co-director of LDF’s Los Angeles office. As a litigator, Rice is known for her work with class action civil rights cases redressing police misconduct, race and sex discrimination and unfair public policy in transportation, probation and public housing. At LDF, she filed a landmark case on behalf of low-income bus riders that resulted in a mandate that more than 2 billion dollars be spent to improve the bus system in Los Angeles. In 1999, Rice launched a coalition lawsuit that won $750 million to build new schools in Los Angeles, money that had been slated for more affluent, less crowded suburban school districts. Beyond her litigation work, in the 1990s, Rice served as counsel to the Watts gang truce and led a statewide campaign to save equal opportunity programs. Now co-founder of The Advancement Project, a public policy and legal action group that supports organizations working to end community problems and address racial and other barrier to equality and opportunity, Rice has received numerous awards for her work in expanding opportunity and advancing multi-racial democracy.

Sherrilyn Ifill

Recognized nationally as an advocate of civil rights, voting rights, and judicial diversity and decision-making, Sherrilyn Ifill is a Professor of Law at The University of Maryland School of Law who began her career as Assistant Counsel at LDF. She litigated voting rights cases, including Houston Lawyers’ Association v. Texas, in which the Supreme Court held that judicial elections are subject to the provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Ifill is renowned as an expert for her writings and work related to race, the need for judicial diversity and impartiality in judicial decision-making. Her writings on the history of racial violence and reconciliation efforts are widely praised, and her book, On the Courthouse Lawn: Confronting the Legacy of Lynching in the 21st Century, is widely respected. In the spirit of LDF, Ifill has continued to litigate and consult on cases involving low-income and minority communities throughout her tenure at The University of Maryland School of Law.

Cissy Marshall

Cecilia “Cissy” Marshall is the widow of Thurgood Marshall, the former director counsel and founder of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund.  Over the years, Marshall has served as a member of LDF’s board and has helped the organization maintain ties to its founder, lending her name to and chairing many of LDF’s events. She was working as a secretary for LDF when the couple married on December 17, 1955. When Marshall Marshall, who is Filipino-Hawaiian, expressed her concern that an interracial marriage might attract negative attention to the LDF and to Thurgood, her husband-to-be replied, “So what?” The couple had two sons, Thurgood Marshall, Jr. and John Marshall, and they remained married until Thurgood’s death in 1993.

Vanita Gupta

Vanita Gupta was a young, talented attorney for LDF’s criminal justice practice division. She worked as the lead lawyer in the Tulia, Texas case in which more than a tenth of the town’s black population was arrested and wrongly convicted in a drug sting based the uncorroborated testimony of undercover officer. When the case came across her desk, Gupta organized a number of large law firms that worked with LDF on the case. Ultimately prosecutors conceded that they had made a catastrophic mistake, and led a Texas judge to recommend that every conviction be overturned because the detective was not a credible witness. The Tulia case garnered nation-wide attention and became a symbol of racial injustice in the country’s criminal justice system. After LDF, Vanita joined the American Civil Liberties Union, where she worked on a landmark case, which greatly improved conditions for immigrant children and their families in the T. Don Hutto Detention Center in Taylor, Texas.

Lia Epperson

Lia Epperson is an assistant professor at Santa Clara University School of Law, where her courses focus on constitutional law, civil rights, and education. She worked as the director of LDF’s education law and policy group. While at LDF, she litigated in federal and state courts, advocated for federal administrative and legislative reforms, and co-authored multiple amicus briefs to the United States Supreme Court in the areas of education and affirmative action. In addition, she represented LDF in several national civil rights leadership coalitions, including serving as chair of the Education Task Force for the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights, a coalition of nearly 200 national organizations. Epperson’s research centers on constitutional interpretations of educational equity and the role of public schools and universities in making manifest the Constitution’s promise of equal opportunity. She has served as an editor of the Stanford Law Review as well as  the Stanford Law and Policy Review. Epperson is also the wife of Benjamin Todd Jealous, who is the current president and chief executive officer of the NAACP, LDF’s sister organization.

Jean Fairfax

Jean Fairfax is the former head of the division of Legal Information and Community Service at LDF. She was responsible for establishing and maintaining relationships between LDF and community organizations and attorneys across the country. She was also a civic leader, with careers in academia and philanthropy. As a dean at Kentucky State College and Tuskegee Institute, she organized youth programs in social justice, peace and community service in Europe, Israel, Mexico and the USA. Participating with her students in the 1940s in the work of the YWCA in the South, she demonstrated the important role of women in challenging institutional racism. Jean is revered for her work with the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) in post-World War II Austria and in its southern civil rights program. A professional civil rights worker for almost 30 years, Jean developed programs to advance civil rights, to educate low income and minority communities about their rights, and to implement civil rights laws and court orders at national and grass roots levels. Highlights of her career include involvement in the first desegregation of Mississippi’s schools and the integration of higher education systems across the South. She organized an interfaith group of churchwomen to expose failure of schools to provide meals to needy children, leading to reform of the National School Lunch Program. Since 1970, Jean has built a national reputation for increasing the participation of women and minorities in grant making institutions as donors, policymakers and recipients.

Stacey Patton is Senior Editor/Writer of TheDefendersOnline and The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

Related posts:

1. Writing the Next Chapter on Race The fairy tale of a post-racial America...
2. U.S. women should be grateful for Obama I am writing this on March 8 -- International Women's...
3. The Stark Facts About Violence Against Women Shocking statistics on dating violence....

Drug policy has benefited from the harm reduction movement’s innovative approach to improving personal safety.  The application of a harm reduction model to reproductive justice has the potential to transform the way we view reproductive justice issues and mobilize support for issues that are traditionally marginalized within the movement.  I want to consider what we can learn from the harm reduction movement in advocating for sex workers’ rights and comprehensive sex education.

Harm reduction is a public health philosophy that emphasizes individual safety, regardless of lifestyle choices, over prohibition.  This approach acknowledges that some individuals may continue to engage in risky behaviors and aims to address the needs created by those behaviors.  The harm reduction movement spearheaded efforts to improve safety and provide services to substance abusers, such as safer injection sites for heroin addicts—the theory being that if addicts were going to use, at least providing them with clean needles would benefit the addicts themselves as well as the overall public health.  Because harm reduction focuses on social and environmental aspects of risky behavior, its application to sex work is intuitive.  

Sex workers face violations of basic human rights on a daily basis, including violence at the hands of clients as well as police brutality.  Additionally, many sex workers must cope with homelessness, substance dependency, and extreme poverty and desperation.  Because street-based sex workers are predominantly indigent women of color, selective law enforcement practices disproportionately target poor, minority women.

Sex workers are isolated from health care services because of fear of arrest and prosecution, as well as the increasingly inaccessible cost of such care.  Street-based sex workers in particular face health risks that the average worker does not, such as violence (perpetrated by police and clients), exposure to sexually transmitted infections and HIV/AIDS, and exposure to the elements.  When sex workers do access health care services, it is generally because of an emergency; thus, lack of access to preventative services is a serious health concern for sex workers.

In the context of providing services and outreach to sex workers, then, an application of the harm reduction model must take into account how various and overlapping forms of oppression create unique challenges for sex workers:  namely, substance abuse problems and lack of resources to access health care.  Services should include the provision of safer sex kits to sex workers and training in condom-negotiation skills, as well as free and confidential STD testing and information about HIV/AIDS.  Holistic services should also embrace substance abuse counseling and clean needles for drug use and hormone injections for transgendered sex workers who utilize hormone therapy.  Programs that collaborate across disciplines would address sex workers’ needs the most effectively by tackling substance abuse, safe housing, domestic violence, and health care.

So, why is this an issue of reproductive justice? First, this approach recognizes that sex workers are often in the industry for reasons beyond their control, such as economic hardship or inability to enter or reenter the workforce due to lack of recognized work experience or a criminal record.  In this respect, this acknowledgement of the multiplicities of oppression reflects the values of the reproductive justice movement—harm reduction recognizes that the decision to enter or remain in the sex industry can be (but is not always) a result of economic, racial, and gender injustice.  Accordingly, rather than criminalize, patronize or demonize sex workers, harm reduction seeks to provide safer options for those who choose to continue in the sex industry.  And, because a harm reduction approach ascribes no moral judgment to the activities of others, the traditional hierarchy assumed by service provision is disrupted.  Significantly, this challenges the notion that those in positions of power “know best” while empowering sex workers to make the healthiest choice possible for themselves under their individual circumstances.  This approach also empowers sex workers to use contraceptives and educate themselves on sexual health issues.  Importantly, then, application of the harm reduction model does not demean the work that sex workers do because it both identifies the intersection of race, class, and gender-based oppression that often create the need to continue working in the sex industry and recognizes that some sex workers remain in the industry by choice.

I already blogged about abstinence-only education, but I think it’s important to consider sex ed in light of harm reduction as well.  The philosophies which underlie harm reduction call for the elimination of funding for abstinence-only education in schools and implementation of comprehensive, sex-positive sex ed.  Abstinence-only education does not actually result in teens abstaining from sex, and instead denies them critical information about sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy prevention, and, yes—sexuality itself. 

Harm reduction acknowledges that people—and, in this case, young people—make choices that may put their health or well-being at risk, and seeks to provide information to most safely make those choices rather than administer judgment or condescension.  Like the earliest manifestations of the harm reduction movement—safer injection sites combined with resources and support for substance abusers who were trying to stop using drugs—comprehensive sex education presents young people with information and options.  And, like its predecessors in the movement, this information is health- and life-saving.  For teens who are having sex or are going to have sex, comprehensive sex education equips them with the tools and information they need to make that decision in a way that protects them from diseases and unwanted pregnancies as well as providing them with a healthy outlook on sexuality.

Reproductive justice posits that all people have a right to information required to attain sexual and reproductive self-determination.  Providing students with comprehensive sex education reflects the principles that motivate the harm reduction movement, and as such gives students the tools they need to make healthy decisions about their bodies, their relationships, and their futures.

-Amanda Allen

Related posts:

1. Teens Choose Justice Over Prom Plans High school student convinces school to move prom from Chicago...
2. Moyers Highlights Jobs with Justice Organizer, Employee Free Choice Segment highlights James Thindwa, head of the Chicago chapter of...
3. Taxing Health Care Benefits: An All-Around Bad Idea There’s noise now in Washington that policy makers are considering...

And on this day I am thinking about the status of women in these United States of America, and I thank my fellow voters for waking up last November and putting Barack Obama in the White House. The Obama administration will be much kinder and fairer to women than a McCain administration would have. In fact, that’s already been proven.

The first piece of legislation that President Obama signed into law was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which removed a ridiculous loophole that allowed employers to pay women less than their male counterparts for equal work and get away with it.

John McCain, on the other hand, voted against the Ledbetter Act. Apparently Senator McCain doesn’t believe that his own daughter should be paid as much as Sarah Palin’s son.

President Obama is pro-choice. He understands that the most effective way to reduce the number of abortions is through comprehensive sex education and access to birth control products and information.

John McCain, on the other hand, seems to believe that teenagers will abstain from sex if you tell them to, and that women aren’t smart enough to be trusted with control over their own bodies.

President Obama is working to rescind the Bush administration’s “conscience rule” that allows medical workers to refuse to provide products and services that they morally object to. He understands that medical workers are paid to do their jobs, not render judgment on the patients, customers, or doctors who order their products or services. If a medical worker doesn’t want to do his or her job, then that person should find a more suitable job.

I doubt that John McCain would agree.

President Obama chose a strong, intelligent woman to be his Secretary of State.

John McCain chose an extremist right-wing woman who doesn’t read to be his running mate.

It’s like night and day.

So, on this International Women’s Day 2009, I am more much optimistic about what the future will hold for the girls and women of this nation than I have been for the past eight years.

And I shudder to think of how it might have been.

Related posts:

1. Balancing Race and Gender: LDF Women Pioneers African-American women made the Civil Rights Movement possible...
2. TAKE ACTION: Stop Violence Against Women Support legislation to end violence against women and girls across...
3. The Stark Facts About Violence Against Women Shocking statistics on dating violence....

The International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA) is a major step in the effort to end violence against women and girls across the globe. It directs the U.S. government to create a comprehensive, 5-year strategy to reduce violence in 10-20 diverse countries identified as having severe levels of violence against women.

TAKE ACTION: Ask your Senator and Representative to co-sponsor this bill today!

Related posts:

1. The Stark Facts About Violence Against Women Shocking statistics on dating violence....
2. TAKE ACTION: Stop Harmful Anti-Youth Legislation Harmful gang legislation is pending in Congress that places excessive...
3. U.S. women should be grateful for Obama I am writing this on March 8 -- International Women's...