By now you’ve probably gathered how important I think it is for a person of power to present themselves as far as their sartorial choices go; however, that doesn’t mean I don’t see the inherent double standard in society’s speculation over what women in power wear. From first ladies to political candidates, the public loves to ask a woman about what she wears and why she wears it. In fact, it was former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton herself who once shot down an interviewer’s inquiry about what designers she likes to wear with the now-famous retort, “Would you ever ask a man that question?” Personally my answer would be yes, but I’m fully aware that I’m in the minority here.

The recently-opened exhibit at the Design Museum in London titled “Women Fashion Power” says a lot about how society tends to care more about how female politicians dress than it does about males. While sometimes there’s a correlation between a politician’s confidence and his appearance — a la Obama’s tan suit — clothes shouldn’t affect voters’ opinions on how well a person can lead, especially women.

While men may appear to have fewer options outside of the accepted black suit as formal and professional attire, tailoring is always key. If his jacket is too big, then the suit will end up wearing him as opposed to the other way around. People don’t want to vote for a walking suit, they want to vote for a powerful and trustworthy man — or woman.

“We want you to see firsthand that a solid education and the willingness to work hard is really at the core of what it’s going to take to achieve your goals: education and hard work.” —The First Lady to #FashionEdu Thank you to all the leaders in the fashion industry who encouraged the students at today’s Fashion Education Workshop to #ReachHigher in their education.

A photo posted by First Lady Michelle Obama (@michelleobama) on Oct 10, 2014 at 6:07pm PDT

Yet from Wendy Davis’ famous sneaker-and-skirt-suit ensemble to Hilary Clinton’s rainbow of pantsuits, voters love to refer to a woman of power by her clothing choices. First Ladies like Michelle Obama and Jacqueline Kennedy are constantly scrutinized, or lauded, for what they wear to every single appearance they make. The press couldn’t stop talking about the fact that Mrs. Obama finally wore American couturier Oscar de la Renta to her fashion education panel just days before the designer’s passing. The first lady has expressed her disinterest in fashion in the past, so why is she trying to fit into the fashion crowd now? Is this the only way for her to solidify her position of power? The exhibit in London even starts with fashions of ancient Egyptian leaders like queen Hatshepsut, but surely ancient male leaders dressed just as ornately. Yet we only ever talk about King Tut’s naked corpse.

Clothes definitely play an important role in any public figure’s reputation. But why does the public care so much more about what a “woman of power” wears than they do about the president’s and other male politicians’ clothes? All I know is that when I go to the ballot box next Tuesday, any women I happen to vote for will be because I trust in their ability to lead based on their policies and past actions. The fact that they dress cute is merely an added bonus.

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Fashion Such an Important Issue for Women in Power? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to hypocrite junction, which is the nickname I’ve given to the corner of the internet that’s still discussing Texas Gubernatorial candidate Wendy Davis speaking out about her abortion. For those of you who missed this whole story, here’s the skinny: Texas State Senator Wendy Davis made headlines last year when she filibustered against a restrictive abortion bill for 11 hours. Now, she’s running for governor of Texas, the first woman to run for that office since 1994. Currently she’s trailing the Republican candidate, Greg Abbott, but she’s still making headlines left and right. She’s tough and she’s smart, and regardless of how the polls turn out in November, she deserves a hell of a lot of respect.

In the midst of the current campaign, Davis’ book came out. That’s by no means an uncommon practice — it’s a pretty normal undertaking by candidates on the campaign trail. Davis’ book contained a story about how she has had two abortions — both for medical reasons.

Most people responded to her admission well, either recognizing the struggle that she must have gone through, or applauding the courage she had to tell her story.

And then there are the people who accused her of making it up for political purposes. I think we may need a new phrase beyond “double standards” at this point. First, she was attacked for standing up for the women who Texas’ insanely restrictive abortion law would have punished. When she first entered the national spotlight, she was called “abortion barbie.” Some of her critics went so far as to create “abortion barbie” posters of her. Click here to see them, but fair warning — they’re about as tasteful and subtle as you’d expect. Then, when her back story came to light, which includes a stint in a trailer and as a low-income single mother, people criticized her parenting skills. Bristol Palin, daughter of Sarah Palin, was one of the loudest critics. Now that Davis has come out with the story of her abortions, she’s being accused of making them up. Do you have a headache yet? Because I definitely do.

Oh, that might be why.

Politicians have lied before, sure. I highly doubt that Wendy Davis is lying in this case, but I’m not privy to either her life story or her medical history, so I can’t say that with 100 percent certainty. But come on people, do you really think that she’s stupid enough to make up that lie in the first place? And more importantly, how shitty of a person do you have to be to accuse a woman of lying about what very well might have been two of the most difficult, traumatizing, and upsetting decisions of her life.

That’s exactly where the problem is — those who are criticizing her don’t realize how normal Davis’ story truly is. Her critics are attempting to use facts here, so in order to save my sanity I’m going to take a second to debunk one of the most egregious among them. One of the claims is that Davis probably didn’t have an abortion for medical reasons, because those are relatively rare. Texas Right to Life’s Emily Horne claimed, “it is extremely rare — if not non-existent — for a woman to have an abortion because the pregnancy posed a risk to her life. As for fetal anomalies, it simply isn’t necessary to abort a child because he or she is sick or has a medical condition.”

Well one of the two abortions Davis has discussed involved an ectopic pregnancy, which occurs when a fertilized egg stays in the fallopian tube. It’s estimated to happen in one of 50 pregnancies, the baby most likely won’t survive, and given that the condition is life threatening to the mother, often emergency care is needed. In some cases the pregnancy may need to be terminated. As the National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine’s site puts it:

Ectopic pregnancy is life-threatening. The pregnancy cannot continue to birth (term). The developing cells must be removed to save the mother’s life.

Women have abortions to end ectopic pregnancies, and they also have abortions because of the quality of life that their unborn child may be subjected to, as was the case of Davis’ other pregnancy. The baby was going to suffer severe medical issues, and Davis chose to terminate the pregnancy rather than have her child suffer. The truth is that one in three American women will have an abortion at some point in her life. The exact statistics for why are often debated, but according to a comprehensive study released by the Guttmacher Institute in 2005, four percent of women seeking abortions do so out of concern for their own health, and another three percent choose to terminate a pregnancy out of concerns about the fetus’ health.

This was not an attempt to justify Davis’ choices — they don’t need to be justified by me because they were hers and hers alone. Rather this is my attempt to point out the argumentative flaws of those who are attempting to cast doubt on Davis’ story right now because not only are their arguments disrespectful, they’re also pretty weak.

Quite frankly it doesn’t matter why Davis had an abortion, or why any other woman makes that choice. What does matter is that they have the resources to make that choice, or any other, for themselves — exactly what Davis stood for eleven hours to protect. I applaud her for sharing her story, and her work to make others who have had equally difficult choices understand where she is coming from.

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 Standing with Wendy Davis: A Story That Deserves Respect, Not Doubt appeared first on Law Street.

Good morning, lovelies. Did you all survive Thanksgiving? How many of you are still battling tryptophan-induced comas?

I know I am!

But all the Thanksgiving gluttony in the world couldn’t hold me back from you all. Nope. And I’ve got some worrying news to open your re-entrance into the world of normal portion sizes and stuffing withdrawal.

2016 is going to be a bitch.

Why? Well, because of a little “nuclear” reactor that was detonated just in time for my turkey to come out of the oven.

It did not look like this.

One week before Thanksgiving, Senator Harry Reid rallied together enough votes in the Senate to eliminate the minority party’s ability to filibuster executive branch nominees and any judgeship below the Supreme Court. What does that mean? Sen. Reid and the majority of his fellow Senators told the GOP to shut the fuck up and stop throwing tantrums already. Who can get anything done with these filibuster-happy, crazy people running around, making medically inadvisable speeches for gazillions of hours?

But actually. Filibustering hinders productivity. FACT.

Also fact: filibustering is sometimes necessary. If the majority party is set on passing some super fucked up legislation, the opposing side has to have some way to stand up and call bullshit. But here’s the problem with these two indisputable facts. Since President Obama was first elected in 2008, the Republicans have been abusing the filibuster.

Literally abusing it. Like, if the filibuster were a person, the GOP would be collectively doing time for assault and battery right now. So, Sen. Reid took the initiative. He got his fellow Senators together, and they stood up to the obnoxious, filibuster-abusing Republicans. And now they can’t filibuster anymore. Yay!

Except that the filibuster ban goes both ways. So, if the Republicans regain control of the Senate in the upcoming 2016 elections, we are in for a SHIT TON of trouble. Now, when I say we, who am I referring to exactly?

Women, queers, people of color, poor people, immigrants, scientists, people who believe in the separation of Church and State, people who believe in reality. A lot of us, shall we say.

How come? Well that’s not hard to figure out. The Christian Right has made it abundantly clear that they’re out for blood. In a perfect world, they’d like to slash women’s access to safe abortions, slash access to healthcare for everyone but the obscenely wealthy, while turning a blind eye to racism, sexism, classism, global warming, and everything else that they’d like to pretend doesn’t exist. They’re also down for warmongering, merging Church and State, and basically turning the U.S. into an even bigger shit show than it already is.

We’re talking about a tyrannical theocracy.

As a lesbian, feminist writer who earns a portion of her living criticizing the government, I would really appreciate this not happening. I don’t want to live in a tyrannical theocracy. No thank you! But, with the demise of the ability to filibuster, come 2016, we could potentially go there.

Now, before we get too crazy, let’s look at the facts for a second. Sen. Reid’s “nuclear” decision didn’t ban all filibusters, everywhere, all the time. Only the ones that revolve around presidential nominees for executive or non-Supreme Court judicial positions. There’s still plenty of room to filibuster on both sides. For example, Ted Cruz’s filibuster of the Affordable Care Act would still be admissible. However, without the ability to filibuster presidential nominees, Congress’s majority party can potentially stack the courts with judges that align with their platform.

If 2016 brings a Republican majority, that means court-stacking à la Justice Antonin Scalia. This is the same guy who claimed that the separation of Church and State is a myth. That’s not a happy prospect. Justices like Hon. Scalia would strip women, queers, people of color, poor people, immigrants, and non-Christians of their rights in a hot second, given the opportunity. And most of the folks on that list don’t have a ton of legal rights to begin with. As my immigrant, Polish, Jewish grandmother would say, oy vey.

But, since we have checks and balances, this is not the end of the world, right? The courts don’t rule the land with an iron fist. The judicial branch is just one arm in a complex tree of government. We’ve still got the legislative branch and the executive branch to even everything out.

Well, sort of. If the legislative and judicial branches are in each other’s pockets, there won’t be much checking or balancing going on there. The same can be said of the executive branch, which will also be up for grabs come 2016. Imagine a Christian Right president, elected alongside a conservative congressional majority, who will both work together to nominate conservative judiciaries.

It’s one possible outcome of 2016 elections, and it’s one where the whole checks and balances thing kind of becomes moot. Not to mention, even in a less-extreme situation, a highly conservative court hinders the legislative and executive branches’ abilities to make lasting reforms.

So, what have we learned about 2016?

Basically, that Sen. Reid’s decision to go nuclear prior to Turkey Day this year could have some serious consequences if the next election swings Right. So let’s jump on that Lefty-loosey bandwagon, mmkay? Keep those neocons at bay!

Featured image courtesy of [Center for American Progress Action Fund via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will We Live in a Tyrannical Theocracy by 2016? appeared first on Law Street.

This June, Texas State Senator Wendy Davis took the nation by storm. Sporting her now-infamous pink running shoes, she began a filibuster to stop Senate Bill 5. Senate Bill 5 would have severely restricted the rights of abortion providers in Texas. Opponents of the bill argued that the bill’s passage would lead to the vast majority of abortion providers closing down. Davis spoke for about 12 hours against the bill, all while following Texas’s extremely strict filibuster rules. In the end her filibuster was successful, sort of. Senate Bill 5 did not pass that night, but then Governor Rick Perry called a special Senate session in which the legislation passed without a hitch.

The idea of the bill arguably makes some sense. The stated purpose was to help reduce health risks for women undergoing abortion procedures. Any attempt to help women receive safe healthcare is laudable. Unfortunately, that is not what the bill actually did. It mandated that any doctors providing abortions at any point during a woman’s pregnancy be required to have admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.  However, there is very little evidence to suggest that this actually mitigates any medical risks from abortions.

To begin, abortions are relatively safe medical procedures. As Dr. Douglas Laube, a board-certified and respected OBGYN in Wisconsin testified during a similar debate in his state, “the risk of death associated with childbirth is 14 times higher than that associated with abortion. The risk of death related to abortion overall is less than 0.7 deaths per 100,000 procedures. Less than 0.3% of women experiencing a complication from an abortion require hospitalization.” Hospitalization after an abortion procedure is exceedingly rare. Further, a doctor’s admitting privileges at a given hospital does not affect the patient’s care once she arrives. If a woman experiences a complication during an abortion, her doctor’s lack of admitting privileges does not preclude the medical care she will receive at the hospital.

The effects were almost immediate—abortion providers across the state began closing or suspending services because of these stringent new rules. Women who already had appointments scheduled are being turned away, leaving many with no further options. These abortion providers, led by Planned Parenthood, are fighting back.

The law was struck down as unconstitutional  earlier this fall, but last week the Fifth Federal Court of Appeals reinstated most of the provisions of the abortion law. Now the fight will move to the highest court in the land. These women’s rights groups and abortion providers have filed a request for an emergency injunction to hold up the lower court’s ruling until the issue can be firmly resolved.

Abortion is an issue that has been in the periphery of the Supreme Court for years. Precedents such as Roe and Doe have dictated the constitutionality of abortion regulations for years. However it seems to be common knowledge that a law challenging abortion, or on the flip side, abortion regulations will end up in front of the Supreme Court at some point. How the Court decides this Texas abortion regulations case may be able to provide some foreshadowing of how this conservative court will decide in the future.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [ann harkness via Flickr]

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 Texas Abortion Battle to Reach Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Texas Governor Rick Perry signed into law Thursday a bill that  greatly restricts abortion in the state. In his remarks before signing the bill, Perry said that the new law would prevent “reckless doctors performing abortions in horrific conditions” as a part of “our continued commitment to protecting life in the state of Texas.”

The new law makes abortions in Texas illegal after 20 weeks of pregnancy. It enforces surgical center regulations that will likely shut down the majority of abortion clinics as well as severely limit the locations where an abortion can be performed.

“That is reasonable. That is (the) common sense expectation for those caring for the health and safety of the people in the state of Texas,” Perry said in reference to the higher safety requirements.

[KMBZ]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Ed Schipul via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Sets Further Limits on Abortions appeared first on Law Street.

Sporting her pink sneakers, Sen. Wendy Davis spoke for over ten hours straight in her successful filibuster against a Texas abortion bill that would be one of the most restricting of its kind.

The bill would severely cut access to abortion clinics across Texas and make an abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy illegal. Before the filibuster was carried out in its entirety, Davis’ speech was disqualified for going off topic three times. As the Dems. stalled, the crowd of opponents rose and chanted “Shame! Shame! Shame!” in a successful attempt at delaying the process. The efforts of the protesters and Davis’ 11 hour filibuster successfully stopped the bill for now.

Gov. Rick Perry has called for a second special session in order to pass the abortion bill. The session began July 1 at 2:00pm and could last a month. Though the bill is expected to pass the Republican-dominated legislature, Davis is confident that it is not over yet, now that the whole nation is paying attention.

[Full Article: New York Times]

Featured image courtesy of [The Texas Tribune via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Texas Senator Wendy Davis Leads Successful Filibuster appeared first on Law Street.