For the past eighteen years, the Titans of Mavericks surf competition in California has pitted talented surfers from across the world against massive swells that are considered some of the most challenging to surf on the planet. For every one of those eighteen years, the competitors have all been male. Female surfers have been taking on Mavericks for almost as long as the competition has been running, and in recent years it has been increasingly clear that there are qualified female surfers who are ready to join the Titans competition.

In 2015, Sabrina Brennan, a member of the local harbor commission, noticed that the Titans of Mavericks’ five year permit was up for review and that the California Coastal Commission was also reviewing it. Brennan went to work presenting the case that the competition was excluding women; as a result, the commission agreed to adopt a women’s inclusion provision as a requirement for future permits, as well as give Titans a year to create a plan to include more women in the competition.

Despite Titans’ co-founder Jeff Clark arguing that women were already included (as judges and water rescue staff) and that women’s exclusion in the main event was “a performance thing…women just aren’t there yet,” female surfers organized and founded a lobbying group called the Committee for Equity in Women’s Surfing. They partnered with Brennan to draft a demand for a women’s heat at Titans, and the commission unanimously voted to enact it in November 2016.

The women’s heat was structured very differently than the men’s, with only $30,000 in prize money compared to $120,000 for men, and only six surfers competing rather than 24. Nevertheless, the heat was ready to go and female surfers stood on the cusp of competing at a level they had been shut out of for almost two decades–that is, until the organizers of Titans of Mavericks declared bankruptcy in February and the competition was shelved. Female surfers can still surf the waves at Mavericks this year, but they won’t benefit from the publicity, cash prizes, and bragging rights that would have come with a formal competition.

The Titans victory may have been short-lived, but it has set an important precedent for women in surfing and other extreme sports across the world. Women’s sports are underfunded across the board–just think about how the U.S. women’s soccer team has had to sue U.S. soccer for wages equivalent to their male counterparts, despite the fact that they generated nearly $20 million more in revenue than the male team. More than 750 million viewers tuned in to the Women’s World Cup in 2015, yet these athletes still have to go to court to be paid what they’re worth.

Consider how difficult it is to compete as a woman in nontraditional or extreme sports, where even male competitors struggle to establish themselves as serious athletes. Women’s prize are consistently a fraction of men’s, and women rarely receive enough sponsorship to allow them to compete as a full-time career. With glaring inequality in organized women’s sports at multiple levels, from the high school level all the way to professional teams, lobbying individual cities and tournaments may be the future of gender parity in sport.

The Committee for Equity in Women’s Surfing should be used as a template for female athletes both in extreme and traditional sports: if the organizers tell you “no,” go over their heads.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Surf Equity: Titans of Mavericks and Beyond appeared first on Law Street.

Sportswear brand Nike has announced that it will launch a high performance hijab, to help female Muslim athletes perform at their best. Muslim women who wear a hijab will now have an actual item of sportswear that represents them and doesn’t make them choose between function and their beliefs. The new product goes under the name Nike Pro Hijab and is designed to better deal with problems that traditional hijabs could pose when used in a sports setting, such as being too heavy, too sweaty, or easily coming loose.

Nike said in a statement that the hijab has been officially in the making for a year, but really for much longer than that if you consider Nike’s mantra that, “if you have a body, you’re an athlete.” The statement added that Nike started discussing the matter seriously in 2012, when runner Sarah Attar became the first female track athlete to compete for Saudi Arabia in the London Olympics and did so in her hijab. She finished the 800 meter race almost 45 seconds after the other runners, and the audience gave her a standing ovation. A few days earlier her teammate Wojdan Shaherkani, who competed in Judo, became the very first Saudi woman to compete in the Olympics.

As a hijab wearing athlete, I’m stoked for @nike‘s pro hijab line. Moreso I love that its approved/featured by ACUTAL hijab wearing athletes pic.twitter.com/qzIRtQcQ9Y

— Rowaida Abdelaziz (@Rowaida_Abdel) March 7, 2017

Nike said that it started to work on the hijab when Muslim female weightlifter Amna Al Haddad visited Nike’s sports research lab in Oregon to discuss problems she had with her own hijabs. She said that she only had one that worked to exercise in, and that she had to wash it by hand every night. After that, the Nike team collaborated with athletes to develop a more breathable and lightweight garment.

Many women see Nike’s announcement as a victory for Muslim female athletes all over the world.

This is the most amazing thing!! Imagine how comfy it’s gonna be – better than those other scarf things hijabis have to wear now. https://t.co/QqPfR1FlUF

— Aisha Baker Parnell (@bakedtheblog) March 7, 2017

But on the other hand, some people on social media pointed out that smaller and less influential sports brands have been making athletic hijabs for several years.

Most patronising. I’ve been wearing a scarf and exercising fine for years, just as small businesses have BEEN making scarves for activewear. https://t.co/BFpjn8jdCR

— Aaisha Dadi Patel (@aaishadadipatel) March 7, 2017

Some people also levied complaints, saying that Nike “sides with the oppression of women,” or that Nike is taking advantage of religious concerns to make money. But in general, the new product seems to have garnered plenty of applause. The discussion about hijabs in sports has been controversial and FIFA, the international football association, banned hijabs for soccer players until as recently as 2014. The international basketball federation, FIBA, still has a ban in place.

That a world-renowned sports brand such as Nike started producing an activewear hijab is seen as a big step in the right direction. “For a brand like Nike to come out and say that these people exist and are inclusive of hijabis is a big deal,” said Manal Rostom, an Egyptian athlete, to Al Arabiya English.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Nike Launches High Performance Hijab For Muslim Athletes appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Presidents Day! Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Hey, Donald Trump: What Exactly Happened in Sweden?

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump cited Sweden when discussing terrorism and immigration. “You look at what’s happening in Germany, you look at what’s happening last night in Sweden. Sweden, who would believe this?” he said. But there was no remarkable incident in Sweden the night before. The former Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt commented on Twitter, asking, “What has he been smoking?”

Sweden? Terror attack? What has he been smoking? Questions abound. https://t.co/XWgw8Fz7tj

— Carl Bildt (@carlbildt) February 19, 2017

The Swedish embassy said it asked the White House for an explanation, as no one in Sweden knew what the American president was talking about. And many on Twitter mocked POTUS’s comments, speculating that it could be IKEA-related:

Uncovered: the plans for the terrorist attack in #Sweden last night. RT because the fake news MSM wont report it! #swedenincident pic.twitter.com/EMh1FmsFac

— Liora Yukla (@LiogaYukla) February 19, 2017

On Sunday, Trump “explained” via Twitter that his statement was in reference to a Fox News segment that claimed that immigration has led to a dramatic increase in crime in Sweden. But today, Swedish police officers who were interviewed in the segment called Ami Horowitz, the man who interviewed them, a “madman” and said that they answered completely different questions than what Fox aired.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 20, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday, former Vice President Joe Biden and his wife Dr. Jill Biden launched their new charitable foundation, the Biden Foundation. This will be a continuation of the couple’s work on equal rights, which they focused on during their years in office. The new organization will prioritize fighting cancer, ending violence against women and children, supporting military families, and achieving equal rights for all.

The fight against cancer became particularly important to the Biden family after Joe’s oldest son Beau passed away from the disease in May 2015. The foundation will continue to support the Cancer Moonshot Initiative–the White House anti-cancer effort that Biden headed–which aims to find the cure. Jill Biden is a college professor and will keep working on her longtime goal to increase people’s access to affordable, high-quality education. In a video promoting the new foundation, the former vice president said, “As long as we have a breath in us, we’re going to be working on it.”

Joe and Jill Biden announce The Biden Foundation in new vid, plan to focus on cancer research, violence against women, foreign policy issues pic.twitter.com/z6296Cp8wi

— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 1, 2017

The foundation’s executive director will be Louisa Terrell, who used to work for Facebook, Yahoo, and for Joe Biden when he was a senator. The board will also consist of several former Biden aides and advisers. It will accept donations from private foundations, donor-advised funds, and corporate foundations, but not from foreign citizens, entities, or any other foreign sources. In a statement the Bidens said:

We look forward to this new chapter where we will continue our work to ensure that everyone—no matter their income level, race, gender, age, or sexuality—is treated with dignity and gets a fair shot at achieving the American Dream.

In the promotional video, Biden also said he has high hopes for the millennial generation, calling it the most open, most tolerant, and most generous generation in American History. He said that we now have the power to change the culture, “Just as we did when we spoke up and said that the only criteria for who you marry should be who you love.”

From fighting cancer to changing the culture on domestic violence — we’re just getting started. Join us: https://t.co/QHaFokMnrZ

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) February 1, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Joe and Jill Biden Launch Foundation for Equal Rights and Cancer Research appeared first on Law Street.

People all over the country are seeking new ways to express that they don’t like Donald Trump’s sexist or racist views. And we’re getting some inspiration from the UK–after the Brexit vote in June, a Twitter user with the handle @cheeahs came up with the idea that wearing a simple safety pin could be a way of showing solidarity with minorities in Britain. She wrote that she wanted “anyone against the sort of nationalistic, racist violence we’ve been seeing” to be able to identify themselves as a “safe ally.”

The idea being that anyone against the sort of nationalistic, racist violence we’ve been seeing could identify themselves as a “safe” ally.

— miss pommery 1926 (@cheeahs) June 26, 2016

Both the Brexit vote and the American election have been characterized by rising tensions and division between groups of people, with an emphasis on immigrants or people of color. Now Americans are donning the safety pin too.

I wear my #SafetyPin to show I am a safe place.I will protect those who are treated unfairly bc of gender, race, disability, & indiv beliefs pic.twitter.com/gn2LmcTbi5

— Sarah Lill (@SarahLill9) November 11, 2016

This is beautiful. Let’s all be safe places for people who are anxious and afraid right now. #safetypin pic.twitter.com/BBeqyIIp4k

— Jamie Tworkowski (@jamietworkowski) November 11, 2016

The pin symbolizes that the person wearing it is in solidarity with minority groups—LGBTQ, ethnic minorities, different religions, women—basically anyone who feels threatened and scared after Trump’s election.

Sir Patrick Stewart did it.

#Safetypin pic.twitter.com/MGFcjx68BP

— Patrick Stewart (@SirPatStew) November 11, 2016

It is important to remember that the safety pin doesn’t symbolize being “anti-Trump voters.” It’s simply a symbol of compassion and love for all people, and shows that the wearer is dissociating from hatred and discrimination. Even Trump supporters can wear them if they oppose the violence and racism that some people express.

The #safetypin is NOT a political statement! It’s a humanitarian statement that shows you stand against bigotry and hate. #safetypinusa

— Lara Arikan (@lararikan) November 11, 2016

@lararikan what about me? A trump voter. CA is a harsh place if you are a trump voter. Could easily get beaten up here.

— Current (@currentofficer) November 11, 2016

Now get out and get yourself a safety pin!

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why are People Wearing Safety Pins on their Shirts? appeared first on Law Street.

Four female Frontier Airlines pilots from Denver–Shannon Kiedrowski, Brandy Beck, Erin Zielinski and Randi Freyer–just filed a complaint against the airline company, alleging that they were discriminated against while they were pregnant and breastfeeding.

The women filed the suit with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. They claim that when they reached the point in their pregnancies where they were no longer able to work as pilots, their only option was to take unpaid leave, as the airline didn’t offer them paid leave or the chance to perform other ground-based work. For the four women, this amounted to eight to ten weeks of unpaid leave each.

Additionally, the women allege that after they had their children, accommodations were not made by the company so that they could breastfeed or pump milk. They were not given adequate breaks, nor were they given appropriately designated areas where they would have been able to pump. Not being able to pump breastmilk while nursing can lead to discomfort and pain as well as medical issues, and three of the four women ended up with infections as a result.

While this may seem like an extreme example, maternity leave (and parental leave) and accommodations in the United States are still seemingly stuck in the past. According to an advocacy group called MomsRising that pushes for paid family leave around the United States, only 13 percent of working people have access to paid family leave. In fact, only one other nation doesn’t guarantee paid maternity leave–Papua New Guinea. And while it wasn’t maternity leave specifically that was at issue for the Frontier Airline pilots, problems with paid family leave and accommodations during and after pregnancy are something that a large majority of American women and families have to contend with. After all, Zelinski explained her motivation for filing the complaint, stating:

I love my job as a pilot so much, except for this issue. We don’t want future moms to have to go through this. We want a better policy for everyone going forward. There are more and more female pilots being hired, including at Frontier. We don’t want anyone to have to choose between flying and breastfeeding.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Female Frontier Airlines Pilots File Complaint Over Treatment While Pregnant and Nursing appeared first on Law Street.

An amendment to the House’s annual defense authorization bill could require women to register for the draft in upcoming years. If passed, the amendment would require both men and women to register for Selective Service when they reach the age of 18. The amendment to this bill comes in the wake of a change in military policy to get rid of any gender-based restrictions on front-line combat.

This amendment was proposed by Senator Duncan Hunter, a Republican from California, in an attempt to start a discussion about the lifted gender restrictions on military service. Interestingly enough, he does not support women being in the front lines of duty or being drafted in the military. The only reason he raised this amendment was to get a conversation started in Congress about this policy because Hunter does not believe that the executive branch should be making decisions about American defense policy.

In order to convince members of Congress not to vote for the amendment, Hunter gave a speech that involved a lot of rhetoric about the dangers of war. This speech included phrases like “a draft is there to put bodies on the front lines to take the hill” and “the draft is there to get more people to rip the enemies’ throats out and kill them.” Hunter’s intent with this speech was to use graphic imagery as a way to dissuade people from voting for the amendment.

Unfortunately for Hunter, his plan didn’t go as well as expected. Several representatives spoke up in favor of the amendment after it was suggested. Representative Jackie Speier, a Democrat from California, had a lot to say:

I actually think if we want equality in this country, if we want women to be treated precisely like men are treated and that they should not be discriminated against, we should be willing to support a universal conscription.

She believes that “there’s great merit in recognizing that each of us have an obligation to be willing to serve our country in a time of war.”

Even Senator John McCain spoke up in favor of including women in the draft, saying that:

As far as [he’s] concerned, if we’re going to put women into combat roles then that’s certainly logical, but [he’d] like to consult with the committee.

It’s obviously important to look at the whole picture when deciding on a policy change that could affect a lot of people across the country. To be fair, the draft hasn’t been used in over four decades since it was used to compile an army during the Vietnam War. People high up in the military claim that the likelihood of the draft being used any time soon, if at all, is pretty slim. The good news is that even the consideration of the amendment is a step forward in terms of gender equality. Women now have more rights than ever in the military, an accomplishment that should be celebrated.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Women May Be Required to Register for the Draft appeared first on Law Street.

The New Hampshire House just rejected a law that would have made it illegal for women to go topless or expose their breasts or nipples in public. Partly a response to the “Free the Nipple” movement that has begun to reverberate around the U.S., breaking the law could have gotten a topless female offender a misdemeanor. While luckily the bill was shot down, the entire debate is absolutely ridiculous.

The “Free the Nipple” movement is a social media campaign dedicated to taking the stigma away from female toplessness, both in public as well as on social media. Here’s a trailer for the 2014 movie based on the movement:

In New Hampshire, two women were arrested on the beach in Gilford last year for going topless, but no charges against them stuck because at the time it was legal for both men and women to be topless in the state. But the “Free the Nipple” movement, combined with the arrests, led lawmakers in New Hampshire to propose the bill making it illegal for a woman to “purposely expos[e] the areola or nipple of her breast or breasts in a public place.” If a woman broke the law twice, she could end up on the sex offender registry. There were exceptions written into the law for breastfeeding mothers.

The co-sponsors of the bill argued that women appearing topless was a threat to society as we know it, which seems like quite a hefty burden to place on shirts. State Representative Brian Gallagher, a Republican who co-sponsored the bill stated:

It’s a shame that some folks are more concerned with exposing their breasts in public places than they are concerned about how families and children may be impacted by being forced to experience this evolving societal behavior. This is about a movement to change the values of New Hampshire society.

Gallagher and another co-sponsor Representative Peter Spanos also cited “Little League games” and “libraries” as places that women are just dying to show up to topless. In a spat between some of the legislators on Facebook, Representative Josh Moore stated that a woman should expect to have her breasts grabbed if she appears in public topless, saying:

If it’s a woman’s natural inclination to pull her nipple out in public and you support that than you should have no problem with a mans inclantion [sic] to stare at it and grab it. After all… It’s ALL relative and natural, right?

Bad grammar and spelling aside, Moore’s assertion that a woman not wanting to get slapped with a misdemeanor for taking her shirt off is tantamount to her deserving to be groped is inappropriate at best, and condoning assault at worst.

The law didn’t pass the house, and rightfully so, given that it would blatantly create different standards for men and women. And, as my favorite argument (courtesy of the New Hampshire ACLU) pointed out: “in a state with an average temperature of only 46 degrees, the risk of rampant nudity seems rather low.”

So, New Hampshire women, you won’t be slapped with a misdemeanor if you’re topless…despite the best yet totally misguided efforts of some of the legislators in your state.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Hampshire House Rejects Silly Bill Criminalizing Female Toplessness appeared first on Law Street.

When we take a moment to think about women in combat, oftentimes a picture of the 1997 Demi Moore film, “G.I. Jane” comes to mind with a scene that looks a little something like this:

However, women have not been allowed to work in all combat units despite G.I. Jane’s portrayal implying it was possible…that is, until December 3, 2015.

“There will be no exceptions,” stated Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter in his announcement, during which he informed United States officials and citizens that women would be able to hold positions and jobs within all combat units of the military. Secretary Carter went on to address that women would have these opportunities so long as “they qualify and meet the standards,” marking a significant and positively well-earned turn in the tide for the rights of women within the military.

The breaking and encouraging news comes on the heels of the first two women, Kristen Griest and Shaye Haver, who graduated the grueling Ranger training on August 21, 2015 and were not allowed to join a combat unit following their training and the acquisition of their new titles like their male counterparts. Now, for the likes of women like Ms. Griest and Ms. Haver, they will finally have the well-deserved opportunity to put their training into practical use.

The secretary excitingly highlighted the ability of the military to utilize a level of skill, insight, and point of view that had yet to infiltrate combat units thus far–the sensible woman’s touch, if you will. Secretary Carter was supported by all of the top leaders in the Army, Navy, and Air Force in his decision, but met negotiating terms by the Marines in which he refused to indulge special requests or exceptions, stating that his decision would apply to all branches of the military equally.

General Joseph Dunford, a commandant in the Marines, provided the Secretary with a detailed recommendation and data pertaining to mixed-gender units versus all-male units, showing that women were more likely to get injured in the training process and did not perform better than the men. However, Secretary Carter was not swayed, due to his own “evidence-based” research, and found that mitigating factors during the implementation process would account for any of the issues outlined by the Marines. General Dunford was not present for the announcement, but the secretary assured that the general would take full part in the implementation process.

Image courtesy Of [Utah National Guard via Flickr]

So how exactly will this change be implemented?

That seems to be the question that everyone is pressing Secretary Carter to answer. The secretary has not provided a concrete answer. However, he has provided a timeline: January 1, 2016 is the due date for plans to be submitted on how to open up the combat jobs to women and April 1, 2016 is the date by which those plans have to start being integrated into military procedure. We will have to wait for the start of the New Year to see how plans and integration unfold.

Now up for debate–will women be subject to the draft as a consequence of participating in combat units and what is the constitutionality of the decision if they are not?  Women, ages 18-26, are the only group entirely exempt from the military draft under the Military Selective Service Act–even non-U.S. citizens, such as male refugees between the ages of 18-26, are subject to the draft in a time of war when troops are short-handed. The Military Service Act’s constitutionality was challenged under the Fifth Amendment in Rostker v. Goldberg. The Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality finding that Congress acted within its constitutional authority to raise and regulate armies and navies when it proposed and authorized the registration of men and not women. Justice William Rehnquist, in authoring the opinion, noted that Congress’ decision to exempt women from registering for the draft stood as women were not in combat at the time. Justice Thurgood Marshall dissented in Rostker, stating that the exemption “categorically excludes women from a fundamental civic obligation.” Since the combat restrictions no longer exist, the issue may be revisited in legal dispute as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause within the Fifth Amendment.

So we wait. We wait for the plans and implementation to unfold and to see if a constitutional challenge is brought against the Military Service Act in light of Secretary Carter’s decision to open combat unit jobs to women.

But while we wait, we can share in Rep. Martha McSally’s (R-Ariz.) sentiments on the underlying change in combat units:

It’s about damn time…Women have been fighting and dying for our country since its earliest wars. They have shown they can compete with the best of the best, and succeed. We are a country that looks at people as individuals, not groups. We select the best man for the job, even if it’s a woman.”

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Women in Combat: Making Moves Toward Gender Equality appeared first on Law Street.

Women have, for centuries, been fighting a battle to obtain equal rights and autonomy within the patriarchal society in which we live. From voting rights, equal pay, gender equality, and financial independence to stigmatized domestic violence ideologies and highly controversial contraceptive and reproductive rights, women continue to strive toward a gender equilibrium.

While their history is bountiful, reproductive rights–specifically those focused on abortion–have morphed from a religious, hot-button voting issue and politically polarizing topic of interest into a women’s rights and equality war zone, which has mixed reviews even from within. For years, various states have been testing the limitations of abortion laws by trying to implement restrictions to access, mandatory and burdensome requirements, and regulations upon women and healthcare providers. Most have not passed muster, however, in early November 2015, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a major and consequential abortion rights case for the first time since 2007. Read on to learn more about the history of abortion rights, the important facts of Whole Women’s Health v. Cole, and what it could mean for future generations of women.

A “Brief” History of Abortion Rights

Laws pertaining to contraception came to the Supreme Court in 1965 with Griswold v. Connecticut, where the court found that a state statute forbidding the use of contraceptives, punishable by fine and imprisonment, was unconstitutional. Justice William O. Douglas crafted the “penumbra” argument, stating that, “…the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from government intrusion,” finding that “the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms” is not a place that is subject to government control and infringement. Marital privacy was to remain private. The curtain would remained closed on the intimacies of married life.

Image Courtesy Of [Kate Ausburn via Flickr]

In 1973, the Supreme Court decided the landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade. Justice Harry Blackmun, a conservative father to three daughters who served as resident counsel in the Mayo Clinic (1950-1959), authored the weighty opinion. The importance of the right to privacy and a woman’s autonomy over her pregnancy led him and the Court to find the restrictive Texas statute unconstitutional and abortion a private legal matter encompassing a woman’s right to choose. The Court quoted the Texas District Court below, agreeing that the “fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment.” However, the opinion explained vested interests in abortion proceedings and outlined different levels of state interests in regulating abortion procedures in the second and third trimester.

While 1992 brought United States citizens “Aladdin,” Windows 3.1, and the birth of Miley Cyrus, it also bestowed upon us the sequel to Roe v. Wade in the form of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey—a complex multi-part decision that ultimately addressed what regulations were and were not acceptable by the states regarding abortion procedures under a undue burden/substantial obstacle analysis. The Court reaffirmed its Roe holding by adhering to the three major principles in Roe: 

1. That a woman has the right to abort prior to viability “without undue interference from the State:”
2. That the State has the right to restrict abortions after fetal viability so long as its laws contain exceptions for any pregnancy that endangers the life or health of a woman; and
3. That the State has a “legitimate interest” in the pregnancy to protect the life of the woman and fetus.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey challenged five provisions of the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act of 1982. One required women, prior to getting an abortion, to obtain informed consent. Informed consent is a process in which a woman is provided with the risks of abortion, fetal development, gestational age of the fetus, whether the fetus can feel pain during the procedure, and that personhood begins at conception, etc. The act also require women to wait a mandatory 24 hours following signed consent to proceed with the procedure, obtain parental consent for minors with the allowance of a judicial bypass, and obtain signed spousal consent. Additionally, the act defined a “medical emergency” within the context of abortion procedures and set out specific reporting requirements by the facilities performing abortion services. The Court, in a plurality decision, upheld the central holding in Roe, but did however, overturn Roe’s trimester analysis framework and only found one provision–requiring spousal consent–burdensome and an unconstitutional regulation on a woman’s right to choose. The rest of the provisions were upheld.

Legal discourse pertaining to abortion did not end there.  In 2000, Stenberg v. Carhart surfaced to challenge a Nebraska statute prohibiting and criminalizing “partial birth abortions,” also known as “dilation and extraction” in the medical community. The court’s scientifically detailed opinion ultimately held that the Nebraska statute was unconstitutional and therefore could not be enforced as it did not carve out an exception for the “preservation of the health of the mother.” Additionally, the statute, with its ambiguous wording and terminology, unduly burdened the mother’s ability to choose an abortion, noting that in certain situations and in the presence of specific circumstances, partial birth abortions were “safer” than alternative procedures and methods.

In 2003, Congress and President George W. Bush signed into law the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act which expressively banned the “dilation and extraction” abortion method cited in Stenberg. Advocates that challenged the federal statute in lower courts had the statute struck down, but the challenge to the federal statute did not reach the Supreme Court until 2007 in Gonzales v. Carhart.

The court in Gonzales v. Carhart addressed the issue of whether the federal statute imposed a substantial obstacle for late-term pre-viability abortions and found it to be constitutional. The act directly outlined the procedure prohibited–the delivery of a viable/living fetus to an anatomical landmark which required an additional “overt act,” an act separate from the delivery usually involving piercing or crushing the fetal skull, to be taken in order to kill the partially delivered fetus, hence countering any argument that the statute was “vague.” Further, the court addressed the possibility of other legal abortion options and stated that, “if intact [dilation and extraction] is truly necessary in some circumstances, a prior injection to kill the fetus allows a doctor to perform the procedure, given that the Act’s prohibition only applies to the delivery of ‘a living fetus.'” Here, Congress sought, and the court agreed, to create a hard line between abortion and infanticide.

Since Gonzales, states have taken to further testing the limitations of abortion regulation, introducing “fetal pain” laws. Fetal pain laws proceed to assert that a fetus can feel pain at 20 weeks of gestation and therefore abortion should be prohibited after 20 weeks of pregnancy, but no challenges pertaining to these laws have reached the Supreme Court yet. In fact, Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole will be the first major abortion case to be reviewed by the Supreme Court since 2007.

Sifting Through Whole Women’s Health v. Cole

In 2013, the state of Texas passed into law House Bill 2 (H.B. 2), in an effort to “raise the standard and quality of care for women seeking abortions.” The statute, which contained four primary provisions pertaining to abortion regulation, is currently being challenged for two of its provisions. The first is a requirement of physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital located within a radius of 30 miles from where the abortion is being performed. The second provision being challenged requires abortion clinics to comply with the same set of standards applicable to ambulatory surgical centers (ASCs) along with compliance to standards set for abortion clinics.

The challenger? Whole Woman’s Health, a privately-owned women’s healthcare facility that offers comprehensive gynecology services, including abortion, and provides a holistic approach for the care of their patients. The organization was founded in 2003 by Amy Hagstrom Miller who saw a need in the communities of women to address pregnancy and reproductive choice not only as a medical matter, but also as something that requires a woman to evaluate her identity, goals, and future plans–an emotional and weighty process.  Whole Woman’s Health has seven offices within the United States and assists over 30,000 women per year for a variety of reproductive healthcare reasons.

Image Courtesy Of [Ann Harkness via Flickr]

At the time of trial, seven ASCs, located in five major Texas cities, were licensed to perform abortion services and would be able to comply with H.B. 2. Although Texas had over 40 abortion clinics prior to the law taking effect, it was stipulated that, at most, eight abortion-providing centers would be able to comply with the ASCs provision of H.B. 2, subjecting women exercising their right to choose to increased travel and transportation costs. During trial, the State offered expert testimony to suggest that the regulation would be “medically beneficial,” but did not prove necessity, and as such, the District Court found that the ASC requirement, in its entirety, was overly burdensome. Furthermore, the District Court also found that the physician privilege requirement “was not medically justifiable and that the burdens it imposed were not outweighed by any potential health benefits.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found that res judicata barred any facial challenge and as-applied challenge (under a different analysis) on the admitting privilege and ASC compliance provisions of H.B. 2 and that the District Court erred in rejecting the State’s res judicata defense during the motion to dismiss stage of proceedings. Essentially, due to a previous lawsuit that was still pending a decision when Whole Women’s Health challenged H.B. 2 but was shortly thereafter decided, the Plaintiffs could not challenge the bill again as any injury arose out of the same claim and the parties had a legal relationship with one another.

The Court did, however, provide an analysis on the merits as well concluding that:

1. The Plaintiffs failed to prove that H.B. 2 was enacted with an “improper purpose,” mainly to close a majority of abortion clinics in Texas;
2. That the District Court incorrectly analyzed legislative factfinding of information that led to the passage of the Texas law under the “rational basis review,” which solely calls for the court to presume the law in question is valid and inquire whether that law is “rationally related to a legitimate state interest;”
3. The District Court’s analysis and the Plaintiff’s evidence did not satisfy the “large fraction test,” requiring a showing that the law imposes a substantial obstacle on a large fraction of women in Texas;
4. That the abortion services offered at the McAllen Whole Woman’s Health location, a clinic not complying with ASC standards, and lack of a “qualified” clinic for 235 miles created a substantial obstacle for a woman to obtain an abortion and therefore was granted injunctive relief until a licensed facility opened closer to the Rio Grand Valley;
5. That the Plaintiffs offered a considerable amount of evidence showing that the physicians at the McAllen location were denied privileges at the local hospital for reasons “other than their competence,” and were therefore granted injunctive relief enjoining the State of Texas from enforcing the privilege requirement; and
6. That the El Paso clinic was not granted injunctive relief based on an undue burden of women to travel over 550 miles to the nearest Texas abortion clinic in San Antonio because they could travel across state lines to Santa Teresa, New Mexico, which shares a metropolitan area with El Paso to obtain the procedure.

The Fifth Circuit largely upheld the challenged provisions of H.B. 2.

So…What Could That Mean for the Rest of Us?

H.B. 2 showed the level of impact that such abortion regulation could have on the availability of abortion services, bringing down the 40+ available abortion clinics in Texas to a mere 8-10 as outlined in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision. Such legislation could create a large and costly barrier, not only to the 5.4 million women in Texas, the second largest female populated state in the country, but to all women in the United States.

In four states–Mississippi, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming–only one abortion clinic remains and it is unclear whether or not those clinics would be able to survive with the Texas-based legislation.

If such regulation passed muster in the Supreme Court, there could be an increase in self-attempted abortion and risky abortion procedures, which was noted, by the Plaintiffs in Whole Women’s Health, as a growing trend after H.B. 2 was passed in Texas. Additionally, costs would increase in travel, transportation, lodging, and in the procedure itself, potentially costing women their actual right to choose. Qualified abortion clinics would be overwhelmed, appointments would be scarce and harder to coordinate with travel and work schedules, and ultimately, those most impacted would be individuals in poverty and those with transitioning immigration status. Such legislation would force an unhealthy psychological effect on woman already making a difficult decision and consequently impose a great burden on a major woman’s right without proof that the abortion clinics functioning today are doing so at a sub-par or dangerous level.

So, one question remains–what’s next for abortion regulations in the United States?

RESOURCES

Primary

FindLaw: Whole Women’s Health v. Cole

JUSTIA: Griswold v. Connecticut

JUSTIA: Roe v. Wade

JUSTIA: Stenberg v. Carhart

JUSTIA: Gonzales v. Carhart

Legal Information Institute: 18 U.S. Code § 1531

State of Texas Legislature: House Bill 2

Additional

The New York Times: Supreme Court to Hear Texas Abortion Law Case

Planned Parenthood: Federal and State Bans and Restrictions on Abortion

Linda Greenhouse: Becoming Justice Blackmun

Guttmacher Institute: State Policies in Brief – Counseling and Waiting Periods for Abortion

USA Today: Idaho First State to have Fetal Pain Law Rejected

National Public Radio (NPR): High Court’s Pass on ‘Fetal Pain’ Abortion Case Unlikely to Cool Debate

Whole Woman’s Health

Bloomberg: The Vanishing U.S. Abortion Clinic

Ajla Glavasevic

Ajla Glavasevic is a first-generation Bosnian full of spunk, sass, and humor. She graduated from SUNY Buffalo with a Bachelor of Science in Finance and received her J.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Law. Ajla is currently a licensed attorney in Pennsylvania and when she isn’t lawyering and writing, the former Team USA Women’s Bobsled athlete (2014-2015 National Team) likes to stay active and travel. Contact Ajla at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Whole Woman’s Health v. Cole: What’s Next for Abortion Rights? appeared first on Law Street.

The North Carolina House of Representatives voted to override Governor Pat McCrory’s veto of Senate Bill 2 on Thursday, a move that will allow officials to abstain from performing marriages that conflict with their beliefs. Magistrates may now refuse to perform marriages and deed registrars can refuse to issue certificates for couples if they have a “sincerely held religious objection.”

Both the senate and the house voted to override the governor’s veto in the last two weeks, making the bill North Carolina law. Under the new law, once a magistrate claims a religious objection he or she cannot perform marriages for a six-month period, after which the district court judge may allow them to resume their duties.

McCrory vetoed the bill following a district court ruling earlier this year that struck down North Carolina’s Amendment 1, a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. After the court’s ruling, McCrory vowed to uphold the decision despite his personal opinions of the issue. In a statement shortly before his recent veto, he said,

Whether it is the president, governor, mayor, a law enforcement officer, or magistrate, no public official who voluntarily swears to support and defend the Constitution and to discharge all duties of their office should be exempt from upholding that oath; therefore, I will veto Senate Bill 2.

Some citizens and members of the state senate disagree with McCrory’s stance. Senate Leader Phil Berger commented that “if someone takes a job, they don’t park their First Amendment rights at the door. They are entitled to exercise those rights.”

The law stirred up controversy over the intersection of personal religious beliefs and the rights of LGBT citizens. Supporters of marriage equality point to the law as another way to set up roadblocks for same-sex couples. In the time leading up to an important Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality, North Carolinians who support gay marriage accuse the state legislature of preemptively seeking loopholes.

Despite some media coverage, the law is not as radical as opponents may claim, especially because it states that all couples who are issued a marriage license will be given a magistrate to marry them. This means that same-sex couples will still be granted licenses, but individual magistrates may now claim an exemption from the process. This law is not as expansive as some other religious liberty laws, such as Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which saw a significant backlash after its passage. North Carolina’s law places the burden on individual magistrates to claim an objection then wait the six-month period before performing marriages, rather than allowing for blanket exceptions.

Although this law likely will not hinder same-sex marriages in North Carolina, the message and precedent behind it are still important. Allowing public officials  to exempt themselves from laws that bind other citizens is a complicated issue. But as McCrory and Berger’s opinions reveal, there is a significant divide among people over the supremacy of religious beliefs. It makes sense, as Governor McCrory stated, to require public officials to fulfill their sworn duties regardless of their personal opinions. Even in the strongest religious liberty protections, a “compelling government interest” can supersede religion. Although it is seen as one of the strongest and most unalienable rights, religious liberty–both in the courts and in the legislature–has never had supreme authority. The question then remains: where does personal freedom end and civic duty begin? That debate is far from decided.

Maurin Mwombela

Maurin Mwombela is a member of the University of Pennsylvania class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer 2015. He now blogs for Law Street, focusing on politics. Contact Maurin at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Will Same-Sex Couples Be Affected by North Carolina’s Newest Law? appeared first on Law Street.

India has long been an important nation on the international stage; its massive population and rapidly growing economy have the potential to propel it forward even further. While there have been ebbs and flows–the recent recession strongly impacted the sub-continent–things may be looking up. There’s a new Prime Minister and India is on the rise yet again. Read on to learn about India’s growth, the relationships it has with other nations, and the challenges that the country will face in coming years.

A Look Into the Past

Like China and Mesopotamia, India is often considered one of the birthplaces of civilization. The first civilization in India was founded over five thousand years ago. Since then, India saw the rise and fall of countless empires, invading forces, and ideas. Buddhism and Hinduism were also founded in India; and Islam, when it reached the area in the eighth century, came to exert a powerful influence, as well.

The story of modern India however, picks up at the beginning of the eighteenth century, when the declining Mughal Empire was conquered piecemeal by the British East India Company. The British outcompeted their French rivals and bit by bit took over the sub-continent. Yet British rule was not to last either, with a large-scale mutiny in the middle of the nineteenth century hinting at the rise of Indian nationalism.

This came to fruition after years of protest that featured leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi when India finally achieved independence in 1947. This independence, however, did not come about smoothly. The same year India became independent, it also broke into two separate nations, Hindu India and Muslim Pakistan. As many as 12.5 million people migrated to one country or the other depending on their religion. Up to one million people died in the ensuing chaos.

Rise of Modern India

After the end of colonial rule, India initially adopted a planned economic approach. The idea was to increase consumer savings, which would then lead to greater investment in the economy and growth. The plan was to create a prosperous India that was financed by its own economy and not beholden to outside forces.

While the plan had some success, however, growth remained limited in India at an average of four percent annually in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s. The plan was also plagued by unbridled population growth and inequality. The proverbial corner was turned beginning in the late 80s and early 90s when the economy was finally opened up. Growth shot up to over 6.5 percent annually, while the service sector in particular began to take off.

Move to a Market Economy

The key to the turn-around for India economically was when it moved from a series of five-year plans, as part of a planned economy adopted from its then-ally, the Soviet Union, to a market economy, which is similar to those of Western nations. Originally India adopted a socialist model as the means to improve its economy. This meant most industry, licensing, and investment infrastructure was controlled by the government. The whole idea behind this logic was to build strong home-grown industries in India, and in the process prevent the inequality notorious in capitalist societies from spreading there.

The planned economy proved ineffective. This was mainly due to low growth rates and the failure to generate high savings rates. In fact the state, far from succeeding in building up savings, actually began running up higher and higher deficits as its programs proved ineffective. Thus, spurred by this ineffectiveness and a rise of the price of oil as a result of the first gulf war which nearly caused the country to default, India made a change. The government did a complete 180, reducing state control and planning, liberalizing trade and investment, and reducing the deficit.

Following the success from the 1990s and with continued reforms, the Indian economy continued to hum along in the first decade of the 2000s, averaging greater than six percent growth annually. Rapid growth stalled, however, as it did in much of the rest of the world, following the Great Recession.

The reason that India was hit so hard was because of a failure to further liberalize policy concerning labor, energy, land reform, and infrastructure improvement. Namely the issue was in many ways the same that had been affecting India during its planned economy, despite the reforms the country had enacted in the past two decades. First labor laws were still very restrictive so it made it hard for people to move around in search of jobs.  Secondly, the infrastructure was not adequately developed in India so that its manufacturers could easily export their products. Third, the country was still plagued by shortages in essential goods, such as energy. This was all compounded by the government’s vain effort to prop up the country’s currency, the Rupee.  Not only has this led to a higher deficit, but also inflation, which eats away at people’s savings and makes them poorer. This led to growth rates closer to four or five percent during the recession.

After the Recession

Nevertheless, India’s economy has rebounded in the last two years and in 2014 outpaced China for the first time. This was due to several improvements. First, both the manufacturing and financial sectors improved dramatically. In addition, new Prime Minister Modi and other political leaders have worked diligently to reduce debt. Lastly, the drop in the price of oil has dramatically helped India, as most of its import deficits were due to the importation of oil to fuel its growing need.

While India has seemingly regained its status as a rapidly growing emerging market, this also comes with caveats. First, the growth figures that show it outpacing China had to be recalculated due to some errors, so many economists are treating them with skepticism. Secondly, according to a New York Times study from 2011-2012, 30 percent of Indians still live in extreme poverty, which translates approximately to 363 million people. That is more people than live in the United States. Thus, although India may recoup its status as a major, up-and-coming economy, there is still room for improvement. The following video gives an outlook on the impact reforms could have on India’s economy.

India’s Friends and Enemies

Pakistan

When discussing international concerns for India, the discussion always starts with Pakistan. The two nations were founded at the same time when British rule in India ended; however, the division of the two countries was plagued by extreme violence and a persistently strong feeling of animosity. The situation has in no way improved by the three wars and ongoing proxy war being waged over Kashmir. The conflict in Kashmir stems back to the separation of India and Pakistan.

At the time of independence, there were 562 princely kingdoms that were independent from either country and could choose which one they wanted to join. Both countries therefore were eager to recruit these principalities–Kashmir was one of the most coveted. Pakistan seemed to have the upper hand, as 70 percent of the population was Muslim; however, at the time, the ruler was Hindu so India claimed the area on that argument and still occupies it to this day. Aside from the direct conflicts there, Pakistan has also waged a guerrilla campaign to free the territory from India and incorporate it into the Muslim state of Pakistan.

On top of all that, both countries possess nuclear weapons and flaunt their capabilities, an example of which was the corresponding nuclear tests during the 90s. The video below provides a summary of the two nations’ conflict.

Nonetheless, hopes for thawed relations came when Prime Minister Modi was elected last year–one of his campaign promises was to improve relations between the two countries; however, lately Modi’s speeches have been full of aggressive rhetoric and the Pakistani military continues to support anti-India terror groups so change has yet to come. An example of this is when he suggested Pakistan was, “waging a proxy war” in Kashmir. He has also canceled several meetings with Pakistani officials, including one potential rendezvous at the United Nations.

China

India’s other major neighbor in Asia is China. Like Pakistan, India also fought a brief war with China in 1962 and has since maintained a relatively tense border with the country in the Himalayas. Tthe relationship with China has steadily improved in other areas as the countries have signed a number of trade agreements. The relationship was tested in 2013 with a Chinese incursion into Indian territory; however, no apparent serious harm came of it.

The lack of consternation may be rooted in how the countries view each other. In India, China is seen as a chief rival and also a source of emulation economically. For China, which is stronger militarily and economically, India is not regarded as much of a rival.

United States

Like its relationship with both Pakistan and China, India’s relationship with the U.S. is complicated. The countries originally shared strong ties, with the U.S. aiding India during the conflict with China. Relations were strained following America’s decision to side with Pakistan in its 1971 war with India. Things were further exacerbated by an arms treaty signed between India and the USSR and India’s testing of nuclear weapons in the 70s.

Relations seemed to be improving in the 1990s as India opened up its economy and moved to a free market approach. But once again ties between the nations weakened in 1998 when India again tested nuclear weapons, which drew condemnation and sanctions from the U.S. The sanctions were quickly repealed though and the two nations became close once more over a commitment to combat terrorism. The two sides have continued to grow closer since then, signing everything from trade to weapons agreements. In 2013 an Indian delegate was arrested for committing visa fraud, causing major waves. The two sides have seemed to yet again overcome this hiccup though, following the president’s recent trip to India where he reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to friendship.

The relationship with the U.S. also seems likely to continue to improve, despite numerous setbacks, many of which were over nuclear policy that now seem settled. While the U.S. may want to utilize India against a rising China, the two sides also value each other as trade partners. The relationship is further enhanced by the U.S.’s further distancing itself from Pakistan.

Domestic Concerns for India

While India navigates the dangerous game of international politics, it has internal issues to consider, as well. First and foremost is the status of women. While seemingly no country in the world can boast of total equality between men and woman, the situation is especially bad in India. While some women may enjoy access to lucrative lifestyles, there is a virtually systemic oppression of women in education, marriage, and the economy. A grisly example was the gang-rape of a woman by six men in Delhi in 2013 that resulted in the woman’s death. While four of the men were eventually sentenced to death, their crime highlighted a culture where women are often blamed for rape and where the courts are slow to act.

Women, of course, are not the only group to be institutionally marginalized in India. The caste system has existed for a long time. In this system people are born into and can expect to rise no further than a particular caste or class, which is often associated with some type of profession. While some efforts have succeeded at down-playing caste origins in jobs, castes still play a large role in social interactions and romantic relationships.

The persistence of discrimination, both against women and people of lower classes, speaks to the issue of inequality in the country. According to a report from the United Nations – Economic and Social Commission for Asia and Pacific (UNESCAP), income inequality actually increased in India from the 1990s to late 2000s.

India’s population is the second largest in the world at more than 1.2 billion people. With birth rates still outpacing death rates, that number is only going to continue to increase until it is expected to plateau in 2050. The population of India is also expected to surpass that of China for the world’s largest along the way, in 2025. All these extra people mean more food, housing, and jobs for a country that is already hard pressed to generate them at current levels. The accompanying video highlights the issues with poverty in India.

Domestically, though changes have been made incrementally, the sweeping changes necessary to fix many of India’s societal ills seem unlikely. As the infamous Delhi rape trial showed, while courts can be forced into action when thrust into the spotlight, they have been very slow to protect women. This also speaks to a problem of institutionalized marginalization for a large chunk of society, which has lasted for many years and thus is unlikely to simply go away now. Couple these issues with continued population explosion and the poverty that haunts India is likely to continue. Particularly with inequality rising and wealth being consolidated into the hands of the elites, much as it is in western nations.

Conclusion

After initially struggling following independence, India has enjoyed strong recent growth. While that growth was threatened by the great recession, India was able to pull through and even outpace China, if the numbers are to be believed. Going forward, Asia’s other potential superpower has many issues to deal with. Internationally, serious issues still exist concerning the relationship between India and Pakistan. India’s relationship with Asia’s affirmed rising super power is also in question as India moves closer to fellow democracy in the United States, while China seemingly drifts closer to fellow autocrat Russia.

Domestically it is more of the same, with concern over the economy dominating. Yet other issues also exist, namely an entrenched class system and the low status of women. Thus, while India has come very far, there is still a long way to go. Therefore while it is still possible for India to act on its superpower potential and one day rival China as Asia’s premier power, reforms and improvements are likely required along the way.

Resources

Primary 

Indian Embassy: U.S.-India Relations

Additional

Forbes: India Growth Now Beats China

Diplomat: India and Pakistan: A Debilitating Relationship

National Interest: China and India: The End of Cold Peace?

Council on Foreign Relations: Timeline U.S.-India Relations

Centre for Economic Policy Research: India’s Growth in the 2000s: Four Facts

Economist: How India Got Its Funk

BBC News: India Growth Figures Baffle Economists

The New York Times: Setting a High Bar for Poverty in India

Asia Society: India-Pakistan Relations: A 50-Year History

Saarthak: Women’s Situation in India

World Post: India Gang Rape Case: Four Men Sentenced to Death

Economist: Why Caste Still Matters in India

Financial Express: Income Inequality: Poor-Rich Gap Growing in India, Asia-Pacific

International Business Times: Partition of India and Pakistan: The Rape of Women on an Epic, Historic Scale

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post India: A Superpower on the Rise? appeared first on Law Street.

This summer, fellow Law Streeter Brittany Alzfan wrote about the National Gay Blood Drive, which was the second event of its kind and served as an attempt to draw awareness to the fact that gay men are prevented from donating blood by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA recently acted to change those restrictions, but activists worry that the change doesn’t really do much to alleviate the discrimination against gay men who want to donate blood.

The new policy allows gay men to donate blood, but only if they haven’t had sex with another man in the last 12 months. So essentially, only celibate gay men are allowed to donate–for the vast majority of adults, this changes nothing. It does the exact same thing as the lifetime ban–prevents gay men from donating–but without saying so in the same words. The FDA is basically pretending to change its policy and hoping no one notices that it’s still essentially the same discriminatory policy.

There really are numerous problems with the FDA’s policy. First of all, it reflects outdated science. Donated blood is tested for HIV regardless of who donates it. That’s smart, pragmatic science, given that HIV can be transmitted through any sort of sexual activity, regardless of the participants’ genders or sexual identities. It can also be transmitted through needle-sharing, or other manners that have absolutely nothing to do with sex. As Scott Schoettes of Lambda Legal explains:

Within 45 days of exposure, currently required blood donation testing detects all known serious blood-borne pathogens, including HIV.  Therefore, a deferral of more than two months—for anyone—is not necessary and does not noticeably enhance the safety of the blood supply.

Given that HIV tests are pretty quick and reliable–some tests can detect HIV as early as nine days after infection–this 12 month timeline seems arbitrary at best.

Moreover, the ban is insulting. When donating blood, participants are required to be honest about their medical and personal issues. Questions asked at donation locations include inquiries about travel history, whether or not the donors have gotten tattoos, and about HIV, AIDS, Malaria, and a whole host of other diseases. These are questions for everyone–regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or sexuality. So why does the FDA believe that absolutely everyone who goes in to give blood can be trusted except for gay men? There’s only one word for that: demeaning.

Finally, the FDA ban–even the new, almost equally bad ban–might be dangerous on a larger scale. By not allowing gay men to donate, the agency is turning away potentially life-saving donations. The Williams Institute at UCLA estimates that if the ban were lifted, donations would increase dramatically. As the institute put it:

If the current MSM [men who have had sex with men] ban were completely lifted, we estimate that an additional 360,600 men would likely donate 615,300 additional pints of blood each year.

Instead of a ban, activists argue that the United States should adopt a model like the one that Italy and Spain have. Those two countries screen each person as an individual based on his or her personal risk factors. Since instituting that policy change, there has been no evidence of blood supply contamination.

It does make sense that the FDA would want to keep any HIV-infected blood samples from getting into the donation supply; however, broad discrimination based on nonsensical science and old prejudices is most certainly not the way to do so.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The FDA’s New Blood Donation Policy Still Discriminates Against Gay Men appeared first on Law Street.

As a liberal, opinionated, and feminist woman, living in the conservative South can sometimes be interesting. Just the other day I was having coffee with a new acquaintance and the subject of feminism came up. She asked me: “How can you be a feminist if you’re married?”

Surprisingly–or maybe it’s not so surprising–she is not the only person who thinks calling yourself “feminist” comes with restrictions; that it means if you’re married to a man you couldn’t possibly be a feminist because feminists hate men.

Along with the upsurge of men and women claiming the title “feminist” there has also been an increase of women and men speaking out against what they think feminism stands for. Take for instance this Tumblr account dedicated to women who think they don’t need feminism. Add that to the female celebrities who denounce feminism without really knowing what it means, and the misogynists on sites like 4chan and 9gag who think embarrassing feminists will stop them, and we have a real problem.

Now, it is not necessarily their fault that they aren’t aware of what feminism truly is. We have been brought up in a society where feminism has a negative connotation. The first thing that pops into most people’s heads when they think of “the F word” is man-hating women setting fire to their bras. That picture is then projected onto all feminists, and they are made out to be women who hate men and who want to oppress them.

This skewed view of feminism is not only wrong, it is dangerous.

What people need to understand is that, while there are misandrist (man-hating) feminists, not all feminists are misandrists. There are extremists in every group, and the unfortunate part is they are often the most vocal, and therefore, the most noticed.

Feminism’s basic definition is the belief that men and women should have social, political, and economic equality. That’s it. Feminism is the reason women can wear pants, hold jobs, and vote. It’s the reason single mothers can win custody of their children, and why women can hold public office. Feminism is responsible for so much of women’s freedoms today.

But there is a whole lot more to do, which is why those women who claim to be against feminism scare me so much. They say they don’t need it because they are not victims, because they are independent, because they can do and be whatever they want. That may be true, but so many women continue to be victims: of rape, sexual harassment, and sexism in the workplace. Their independence continues to be oppressed by emotionally and physically abusive boyfriends, family members, and managers. Women can be whatever we want, but still represent only a small fraction of those in leadership positions. Women can do whatever we want, but the men in those leadership positions still make the decisions of what we can and cannot do with our bodies. Women can be whatever we want, but are still paid less than men on the same career track. Women can do whatever we want, but I’m still afraid to walk home by myself at night.

These are issues that are not magically going to go away, and while women have made social, political, and economic progress, we are far from achieving equality. Feminism’s ultimate goal is to give women the opportunity to be who and what they want, without being held back or judged because of their gender. Whether we want to be a CEO of a large company, a senator, a stay-at-home mom, a priest, a stripper, an entrepreneur, or anything else we could possibly think of, we should have the option. This is why feminism exists, and this is why all women need it, whether we think we do or not.

Feminism is not misandry, and it’s high time society understood that. I am a feminist. I am also happily married to a man, and I like wearing dresses and I like putting on make up. I want equal rights for women, so that all women can marry whoever they choose, or not get married, or dress in 7-inch heels or cowboy boots–so that all women can do whatever they want.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Can You Be a Feminist If You’re Married? appeared first on Law Street.

TIME magazine is running an online poll asking which words need to be banned. As TIME explains its own criteria for the “word to ban”:

If you hear that word one more time, you will definitely cringe. You may exhale pointedly. And you might even seek out the nearest pair of chopsticks and thrust them through your own eardrums like straws through plastic lids. What word is this? You tell us.

The words on the list range from industry buzzwords like “influencer” to attacks on pop culture with words like “bae,” “basic,” and “turnt,” to overly misused words like “literally.”

But there’s one that really sticks out to me–“feminist.” TIME thinks feminist is a word so noxious that it’s worth being banned. But it’s not just TIME, but its voters too, because “feminist” is winning with 50 percent of the votes. There is speculation, though, that “feminist” is dominating the poll so heartedly because of the efforts of notable equality-lovers over on 4chan.

There is a multitude of ways in which this upsets me, the point where I literally just can’t even. (One of the other phrases to make the list.)

Feminism has a controversial history, fine, that’s not a secret. Law Street’s feminist blog, by the inimitable Hannah Winsten, is called “The F Word” in a not so subtle nod to the controversy that surrounds the word. And sure, the word feminism has been bastardized and maligned, and yes, there are “feminists” who have taken it too far. It’s a word that has a history just as rich and controversial and storied as the fight for equal rights itself. Just because some people don’t get it, don’t use it correctly, or find it annoying does not strip it of its meaning. The reason that TIME put for including it on the list was:

You have nothing against feminism itself, but when did it become a thing that every celebrity had to state their position on whether this word applies to them, like some politician declaring a party? Let’s stick to the issues and quit throwing this label around like ticker tape at a Susan B. Anthony parade.

Hey TIME: just because you’re tired of how often the word is used doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t be used. And what’s this utter BS about “sticking to the issues” instead. The fact that in this day and age the word “feminist” still invokes so much ridicule and hate is an issue unto itself. If you need to be convinced of this, watch this video of feminists reading threatening tweets about themselves.

The fact that feminism is still so controversial a topic in 2014 that women regularly get rape and death threats tweeted at them is proof that we need the word. Pretending that it doesn’t exist or saying that we need a less controversial word isn’t suddenly going to make these kinds of assholes decide: “Oh, never mind, I guess I’ll stop threatening to rape women because they call what they’re fighting for a different word now. Carry on.”

And why does TIME have such a serious problem with celebrities being asked if they are feminists or not? I’d much rather hear that answer from the people whose faces adorn the news way more than they should than an answer to the “boxers vs. briefs” question for the seven millionth time.

No matter how others try to co-opt the meaning, feminism is a pretty simple concept to understand–according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, it means “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities.” While being a “feminist” means something a little different to each of us who identify that way, to see it on the same page as words like “obvi” and “yaaassss”–which aren’t even words–is insulting. No one has ever been asked if they’re a man-hater or a lesbian (no, those are not the same thing but yes some people think they are) for typing “yaaassss.” No one has ever, to my knowledge, gotten death threats for using the word “obvi.” There’s history there, and for TIME to pretend that there isn’t is offensive.

For the record, even if TIME bans the word, I’m going to keep identifying as a feminist. It’s part of my story, my history, and my worldview. I’m a feminist and damn proud of it. Too bad a magazine with the twelfth highest circulation in the country is too ashamed to say the same thing.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No TIME, We Shouldn’t Ban the Word Feminist appeared first on Law Street.

In case you hadn’t heard from the overwhelming amount of posts dedicated to them, the MTV Video Music Awards happened on Sunday. I, along with millions of other pop-culture followers, tuned in to watch the usual shenanigans of the music industry’s most famous and most notorious. As predicted, there was twerking, flashy costumes, lip-syncing, wardrobe malfunctions, laughter, tears, tripping, and Moonmen. Basically: all the things that forever have me questioning why I watch this nonsense in the first place.

But then, two things of note happened. The first, out of all the unlikely sources, came from the Artist Formerly Known as Hannah Montana.

Yes!

When her name was announced as the winner of Video of the Year (for “Wrecking Ball”, naturally), Miley Cyrus sent up a man named Jesse in her stead. Jesse took out some cards and began speaking. What followed was surprising and heart-wrenching:

“My name is Jesse and I’m accepting this award on behalf of the 1.6 million runaways and homeless youth who are starving, lost, and scared right now. I know this because I am one of these people.”

Visibly nervous, Jesse went on to explain, through constant cheers from the audience, how you could go to Miley’s Facebook page and donate money to help homeless youth in America. I was extremely impressed with this gesture from Miley, as she is now utilizing her substantial fan base to raise awareness and funds for an important cause.

Well done, Miley!

The VMAs were far from done, though. Before the night was through, another celebrity chose to use her VMA performance as a loudspeaker for one of my favorite subjects: feminism. Enter Beyonce.

Courtesy of beyoncegifs.tumblr.com

 Like every Beyonce performance ever, she had intense dance moves, sparkly costumes, and so-so vocals. But her music is not why we are here. No, THIS is why we are here:

Courtesy of beyoncegifs.tumblr.com

In a world where feminism is still (somehow) misunderstood, one of the most popular musicians of our generation declared herself a feminist. That’s not all. Before lighting up “FEMINIST” in big letters, we heard the words of Nigerian author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie:

“We teach girls to shrink themselves, to make themselves smaller. We say to girls, you can have ambition, but not too much. You should aim to be successful, but not too successful. Otherwise, you would threaten the man…Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political, economic equality of the sexes.”

If you haven’t already, listen to the rest of this woman’s wise words. The entire speech can be watched here. Go ahead, watch. I’ll wait.

Done? Good.

So Beyonce not only declared herself a feminist, she defined what feminism truly is and did it in front of millions of viewers. I gave her a standing ovation right in my living room. Yet, in spite of all the truth she used her performance to convey, she is still getting negative feedback:

If Beyoncé is a feminist then I think it’s a very cheap and easy sort of feminism she’s flogging. Not really my thing.

— Billy Lunn (@billysubway) August 25, 2014

If Beyoncé has taught us anything, it’s that strip clubs need 10′ tall “FEMINIST” signs

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) August 26, 2014

Beyoncé, you’re not a feminist. You sing the lyrics “If you liked it then you should have put a ring on it”. That’s the opposite of feminism — Ryan Travers (@ryantravers) August 25, 2014

I couldn’t hear Beyonce’s #feminist statement @ #VMAs over the thong & glittered ass dance ensemble behind her. #ILikeBigButtsAnICannotLie

— Su Castillo (@snarkyzebra) August 27, 2014

Thanks to @Beyonce I learned tonight that requiring female back-up dancers to dry hump everything in sight is #Feminism. Empowering! #VMA

— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) August 25, 2014

why can’t Beyoncé make her mind between feminism and female objectification though — Matt Gehring (@mattygehrbear) August 25, 2014

See anything wrong with these? You should. All of them perpetuate a view that someone can somehow demonstrate “incorrect” feminism or that they aren’t “feminist enough.” Really? When feminism’s definition was literally spelled out in front of you?

Just because someone dresses sexy, dances provocatively, or strips on a stripper pole does not mean they can’t be a feminist. Just because a woman is a stay-at-home mom, a Christian, or happily married, does not mean she can’t be a feminist. Feminism does not just encompass all women, it encompasses all people from all walks of life.

If you believe women should be given equal salaries to men in the same field: that’s a feminist ideal. If you believe a woman can be whatever she wants to be, like the President of the United States, or an exotic dancer, or a soccer mom: that’s a feminist ideal. If you think women are objectified in media and entertainment, so do feminists.

“Feminist: a person who believes in the social, political, economic equality of the sexes.”

How much clearer can you get? Beyonce performing sexually suggestive routines and songs does not mean she cannot call herself a feminist. Anyone who says otherwise is drawing attention away from the fact that she used her considerable influence to get across a feminist message. For that, we should applaud her. Luckily, most everywhere you look, praise for her VMA performance far outweighs the ridicule and misunderstanding. There is hope for humanity yet!

If nothing else, what should come out of both Beyonce’s and Miley’s demonstrations at this year’s VMAs are more celebrities supporting good causes. When they have such large followings, why wouldn’t they? So Beyonce, Miley: you two keep doing you.

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Beyonce’s Feminist Message Receives Praise…And Ridicule? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I was just doing my normal internet surfing, riding the news wave and trying to find something that hasn’t bombarded your TV or social media outlets yet. What I stumbled upon is so ridiculous and infuriating I just could not let it go.

So, the University of Wisconsin – Madison has come up with a new policy that states good grades should be distributed equally among different races. Known as the “Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence,” this policy calls for “proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including high status special programs, high-demand majors, and in the distribution of grades.”

I’m sorry, WHAT!?! Obviously colleges like the idea of diversity — they promote it every chance they get — but if you go back and actually read what the policy calls for then you’ll see that while they may be promoting diversity, they are also promoting racial oppression. “Historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups” — it is stated right there. In most cases white people have not been historically underrepresented. So what UW-Madison is saying is let’s give out free grades to students who are not white and who may not have worked as hard as other students. What about those students who are “historically underrepresented” who work their asses off to get those good grades? Why should they have to work so hard for their grades but their peers simply get handed the same grade because of their race or ethnicity?

By all means please promote diversity at a university, it is one of the best ways for people to learn from one another. But handing out grades based on race is a slap in the face to every student and professor at any university.

W. Lee Hansen, professor of economics at UW-Madison, was outraged by this policy and shared his opinion. “Suppose there were a surge of interest in a high demand field such as computer science. Under the ‘equity’ policy, it seems that some of those who want to study this field would be told that they’ll have to choose another major because computer science already has “enough” students from their ‘difference’ group.” Professor Hansen goes on to say, “Especially shocking is the language about “equity” in the distribution of grades. Professors, instead of just awarding the grade that each student earns, would apparently have to adjust them so that academically weaker, ‘historically underrepresented racial/ethnic’ students perform at the same level and receive the same grades as academically stronger students.”

How would any professor or student be okay with even the idea of this policy? How did UW-Madison get away with putting this policy into effect! Each student had to work hard to get into the university but now all of a sudden the school is saying that no matter what you did in the past if you are considered “historically underrepresented” you can simply show up to class and still get a good grade.

What’s the point of going to college if this is how it is going to be? These kids are going to end up with a four-year degree that they did not earn but simply purchased. If that’s the case why not just close down all institutions and require people to write a check for $80,000 – $125,000 to the government and have them hand out degrees.

Instead of promoting hard work, dedication, and real education, UW-Madison has basically said, “Come to UW-Madison where you pay tuition and we will give you the grades.” Is this really the kind of reputation that a university wants to have? Is this the kind of reputation that any student graduating from this institution wants to have? I know if I were ever in a situation where I was going to hire someone I would never want to hire the graduate from UW-Madison because he may not have understood the purpose of college and may not have learned anything except that things can apparently just be handed to you.

Life does not work that way. Life is not easy or fair and part of that statement includes the idea that school is not easy. You get the grade you worked for, not the grade that was assigned to you because of your race.

Too many of today’s youth are just expecting a hand out. They aren’t being taught the value of a dollar or a strong work ethic. Here comes the reference again, Idiocracy at its finest.

I also find it very interesting how hard generations before us fought for equality but here we are creating more separation than ever before. Is it not obvious to the world that subtle lines are being drawn in the sand? No one is created equal anymore. We might as well throw out the Declaration of Independence and forget about our past because nothing has really changed. People talk about how racism and sexism are still very alive in our world and how things need to change for the better. But how can anything change when universities are promoting policies that demonstrate separation over equality? Equality is not being promoted in this “Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence” policy at all.

You want to be equal? Take the same classes as your peers, work as hard as you can and get the grade you deserve. That makes you equal with your peers, not waiting around for a professor to give you an A for a class that you probably barely attended, never studied for and possibly slept through.

Shame on you University of Wisconsin – Madison for not only promoting racial and ethnic oppression but for also basically telling your students that they aren’t smart enough to get the grades on their own. Not to mention telling the world that handing out grades because of race or ethnicity is okay, thanks for basically showing the world that the fight for desegregation in all aspects meant nothing. I’m sure Medgar Evers, Betty Friedan, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King, Jr. are all turning in their graves.

 —

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Okandasan via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post University of Wisconsin Policy Calls for Grade Distribution by Race and Ethnicity appeared first on Law Street.