California Feminist Blogs

OK, we can all admit that things in the world are pretty intense currently, correct? Countries are rising up against their governments, earthquakes are enormous, nuclear plants are threatening to melt down, the world’s economy is in turmoil, and state and federal legislatures in the United States are advancing bills that hurt women. With all that is going on, it seems like a government like ours in the U.S. would prioritize disseminating accurate information, based on sound logic and the best available science. Accurate reporting would mitigate the mania, after all. Right?

Unfortunately, that trend is not apparent. Rather, I see the opposite. The conservative members of our government have decided to cut Title X and Planned Parenthood funding in order to save the budget. At least that is what the media is reporting. But between tax cuts for the wealthiest few, subsidies for industrial farmers, and wars and armed conflict in at least three countries, there must be better ways to balance the books. Even more perplexing is that the family planning folks in Montana just released a statistic that says that for every $1 of state money spent on their services, $4 are saved. Assuming that statistic is similar for federal funding, that means that cutting family planning funding actually removes money from the budget.

So, if the media and the general American public are willing to believe this explanation, which is clearly incorrect, should we be worried about the other information we are receiving? Recently, James O’Keefe, a conservative activist and self-proclaimed citizen journalist, has been turning out a product he is labeling guerilla theater. The twenty-six-year-old has released videos discrediting ACORN, Planned Parenthood and, most recently, NPR. In an interview on NPR’s “On the Media” recently, O’Keefe insisted that his products contain accurate information that withstands the vigorous tests of journalism.

However, when comparing O’Keefe’s raw footage of the events with the edited versions he released, there are serious inconsistencies. The Blaze, a news, information and media site produced by Glenn Beck, performed a close analysis of the videos and found that O’Keefe manipulated the quotes made by NPR executive Ron Schiller in a way that was “unethical” by journalistic standards. Considering that Glenn Beck himself is very conservative, The Blaze’s analysis is something to note. Generally, O’Keefe’s tactics are dishonest and worrisome.

While O’Keefe’s journalism falls on the extreme end of the spectrum, the information that media of all kinds is disseminating often does not withstand close scrutiny. If this is type of reporting that we can expect from here on out, how can we trust both our government and our media? It is time to let those in power and those in journalism know that we will not stand for inaccurate information any longer. We expect better, we deserve better, and false information is costing us too much. The women and men who depend on Planned Parenthood for their reproductive health care should not have to shoulder the burden of a ballooning national debt without some serious questions being asked first.

Jess Wilkerson

I began this post as a follow-up to the Dia de la Mujer art show at The Front in San Ysidro, but after attending another art show at Evolution Vegan/Vegetarian Fast Food Restaurant, decided to combine the two would-be posts and feature a handful of kickass local female artists. I couldn't possibly convey how amazing the following women are in one post, which is why I tried to link a lot.

Dr. D. Emily Hicks tipped me off to the Dia de la Mujer show in which she had a couple pieces. There, she introduced me to Heather Faulkner, manager of local rap/rock band, Epic Truth, and I and designer Ashley Doll of Heart Attack! Couture browsed through the works of over 30 female artists.




Here are a few of my favorites from the show. Enjoy!

Maria Sanchez is a mostly self-taught artist born in San Salvador, El Salvador and raised in Redwood City, CA. Taken from her bio,

I have found that I paint in "Spanish". It was my first language in the spoken world and continues to be the language of my soul when I sit down to paint.
My paintings are images taken from my life's present and past memories. They are simple and sometimes familiar expressions of color and form, yet they all tell a story. Some are silly, some are spiritual others are natural and they all have healing color. I am especially drawn to the vivid colors in nature, the deep blue of the sky, green grass, orange pumpkins, the red flesh of watermelon.

The next couple paintings are from Sanchez's personal collection:



The following is a video of Maria painting:



She also has some artist cards available online:


Here's one of her published works with a statement from the artist,

McDougall Littell Publishing is publishing this little painting alongside a short story by latina author Judith Ortiz Cofer called "Who are you today, Maria?". It will appear in their Language Arts, 8th Grade Literature 2007 edition.

Ofelia Alvarado is a self-taught artist and Mexican-born Chula Vista resident. Taken from her bio,

Murals have given her the opportunity to take art to a broad audience and has became the most important part of her artistic work. Her murals can be seen in some local schools, churches, private homes as well as public places. Ofelia's work is known for her vibrant colors, predominant details, and capricious element arrangements.

Ofelia has also painted many public murals, including this one for McMillin elementary school (40' by 8'):
Ofelia is also proficient in woodburning/pyrography and installations, and teaches art classes!



The next artist is Regina Herod. She works in encaustic painting, which involves using heated beeswax to which colored pigments are added. The finished product resembles colored tile and the following are at least 42" by 36".






The next group of women were not in the Dia de la Mujer show, but are brilliant local artists that I've recently had the pleasure of becoming acquainted with.

Lisa Harrison is a self-taught portraiture artist that works with acrylics and other various mixed media. She is inspired by dynamic individuals that she finds fascinating for both positive and negative reasons and, as a drummer, also draws inspiration from music. She has recently participated in and curated for several group shows of the lowbrow variety, has had work shown in galleries and small businesses, and is available for commissions. I previously linked to her Facebook page, but you can find more of her work on her Myspace page. Email her at ldivine36@gmail.com for more information.






Natalie Garcia is a Chula Vista native. A chance meeting with MARS-1 at Burning Man a little over a year ago motivated her to start painting while another local artist, Derek Cox (aka Fungus) encouraged her to start working with oil. She focuses a lot on the female figure, something she got from her late grandmother, Jacqueline Morrison, who was also an artist. Looking at the photos below, most wouldn't believe she's just starting out; I can't wait to see what her work will look like over time.

Disclaimer: Sara Taylor is not a constitutional lawyer or scholar. She is a third-year law student who did reasonably well in her First Amendment class. If you seek a non-biased expert assessment of constitutional claims and arguments surrounding this issue, this blog is incapable of providing one to you.

New York City just passed a law requiring crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) and their ilk to post disclaimers regarding what services they do and do not provide. Makes sense, right? You can go to the check-cashing place and it posts its insane interest rates. You can go to a bar and see that, as a minor, you will not be served. You can watch a political campaign ad and see who paid for the spot. In these cases, you can’t necessarily see the potential bias or agenda the state is seeking to protect you from, but you can at least guess at it. Similarly, in the CPC case, you can see that it doesn’t offer certain things. If you are interested in those things, you won’t get them. There’s no judgment about why you won’t get them, the city is just worried that you might think you’ll get it, because that’s the advertiser’s goal. But, believe it or not, the constitutionality of requiring CPCs to post disclaimers is sort of under review.

The prevailing argument against disclaimers is that requiring a CPC to post one would violate its right to free speech. At first, I was really curious how that argument would go. I don’t have to be curious anymore, since a federal judge just struck down Baltimore’s disclaimer requirement (the first in the nation) on First Amendment grounds; however, that decision seems pretty dubious and fairly case-specific.

Even if the judge’s reasoning is upheld on appeal, New York City’s law is different in many respects, and so would likely command a different analysis. For example, the Baltimore ordinance required accurate, informative postings from centers that do not refer for abortions or birth control. This may have been the crux of the “viewpoint discrimination” argument successfully posed by the Baltimore Archdiocese. The New York City law, however, applies to any center that looks like a medical facility but where services are not overseen by a licensed medical provider. This approach may take the bite out of any argument that this is content-based and give more weight to the argument that this is about protecting people from being coerced and deceived.

I don’t see a disclaimer as an imposition on free speech, just an inconvenience for those trying to coerce and deceive. In 1933, Justice Brandeis argued that: “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.” The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently echoed this sentiment time and again to ensure and maintain honesty and integrity in the marketplace of ideas.

If the CPC wants to argue that it has the right to be deceptive, it might have a hard time asserting such a right is constitutional. OK, yes, I’m sure the CPC would not argue that it has the right to be deceptive, but that is what any argument would be in reality. Putting aside the medical costumes, props, and crafty scripts, the CPCs advertise neutral abortion counseling and promise referrals. A CPC provides neither of those things; therefore, its speech is directly aimed at deception. Under the Supreme Court’s four-prong Central Hudson test for commercial speech (extended to professional services advertising in In re RMJ), the speech at issue must propose a commercial transaction that is not misleading for the First Amendment to be implicated at all. A state may prohibit false, misleading, or deceptive commercial speech; the First Amendment is not a defense. Even the judge in the Baltimore case said: “Every woman who goes into a clinic should know that she’s going to a clinic that does not refer abortions.” And where a court finds an advertisement is not misleading, the state still has authority to regulate if it has a substantial interest.

But this isn’t just a matter of “allowing” a CPC to speak; it’s also about “forcing” it to say something it doesn’t want to say. Putting aside the hypocrisy in such an argument (note the numerous things many abortion providers are forced to say), the Court has recognized that “compelled disclosure has the potential for substantially infringing the exercise of First Amendment rights. But . . . that there are governmental interests sufficiently important to outweigh the possibility of infringement[.]” Buckley v. Valeo , 424 U.S. 1, 66 (1976) (discussing the strict test established by the 1958 freedom of association case, NAACP v. Alabama).

So, for both commercial speech and compelled speech, a substantial interest can win. The Court found granting the public the ability to evaluate potential biases when making an important voting decision is such an interest. Id.; see also Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S. Ct. 876, 916 (2010). I think the Court would be hard pressed to distinguish the public right to evaluate biases when making an important medical decision. Courts have found disclosure requirements affecting less significant consumer decisions, such as declaring bankruptcy or choosing a lawyer, can amount to a reasonable burden. Put simply, preventing fraud is a substantial interest.

There are, of course, many layers to these arguments which are not presented here, but which may present in future litigation regarding this issue. I still feel pretty hopeful and confident that, should Hansel and Gretel ever come across that shiny candy cottage when making some tough choices, there will be a friendly sign alerting them to the oven inside.

Sara Taylor

Sick at home. Enjoy,

The Red Crayola - "Born in Flames," US (1980)




Girls at Our Best! - "Politics" and "Warm Girls," UK (1980)






Sado-Nation - "On the Wall" and "Fight Back," USA (1980)




The Electric Deads - Mind Bomb EP, Denmark (1983)

Last month, the world was captivated by Egypt, and rightly so (and to an extant it still is). In less then two weeks a leaderless youth-driven revolution brought the 30-year dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak to its knees. I will not recount all the facts as they are widely known (hopefully), but will direct you to this fantastic article for a recap.

The situation in Egypt is changing everyday. Right now, there seems to be a focus on how the country should transition from an oppressive dictatorship to a democratic and/or constitutional state. For this reason, many people seem to be asking where the lawyers are and how they can assist in Egypt’s transition.

Whatever involvement lawyers will have in this process, I think it is important that RJ lawyers are a part of it. Although “transitioning from an autocratic political system to a democratic one” may not be a typical RJ legal issue (at least in Western notions of RJ), RJ lawyers can (and should) still advocate on issues like this one. If RJ lawyers, or lawyers with an RJ lens are part of this process, they can hopefully work to ensure that in any new political system the reproductive and sexual rights of women (and of all people) in Egypt are maintained and strengthened. The women of Egypt are bravely working to ensure their voices are an integral part of Egypt’s political transition despite being excluded from the constitutional committee and being met with violent resistance.

I’m writing this not only because I think lawyers can play a part in implementing a robust electoral system by which Egyptians choose their own leaders and enjoy full civil, political, and human rights, but also to highlight the need for RJ lawyers to work in areas beyond those we have deemed “RJ-only areas of law.”

I believe RJ lawyers should focus more on non-traditional RJ areas of law including international trade policy, macro economic policy, economic development, etc., and should learn more from lawyers already working in these areas (like lawyers doing international sexual and reproductive health and rights work). This is important because trade and economic policies have huge impacts on the lives and the health of women (and all peoples) globally, yet RJ-lawyers in training (from my experience) are not taught about what an RJ-oriented/influenced macroeconomic policy would look like, or to think about what RJ-centric international trade policies would look like. Nor are we taught what “an RJ influenced transition from dictatorship to democracy” could or should look like.

I hope lawyers, including RJ lawyers, can do whatever work is needed to bring about a speedy transition of power in Egypt or otherwise inform their practice with these perspectives. I also hope law students everywhere, and from all areas of study/focus (including RJ focused students) host and plan panels, teach-ins, and roundtables to discuss legal issues in Egypt and how lawyers can be of use. This I believe would be a useful way for law students to support the people of Egypt and others poised to launch similar challenges to dictatorships around the world.

Lara Shkordoff

Doctors Without Borders is sending highly trained medical teams to the hardest-hit and hardest-to-reach areas of Japan. Click here to donate.

The Red Cross operates 92 hospitals in Japan and has already deployed 700 medical relief volunteers. Click here to donate.

GlobalGiving will disburse donations to organizations providing relief to victims of the natural disasters in Japan. Click here to donate or text JAPAN to 50555 to give $10.

Save the Children Federation is providing emergency healthcare and provision of non-food items and shelter to victims of the disasters. Click here to donate.

The Salvation Army has been in Japan since 1895 and is currently providing assistance to those in need. Click here to donate.

If you don't have the funds, search engine Bing is donating a dollar for every "retweet" of their #SupprtJapan post. All you need to do is click here, sign up for a Twitter account if necessary and click Retweet.

And last but not least, a really cool organization, Hope Letters, is offering people the chance to send inspiring messages to Japanese students and relief workers.

Hope Letters is a voluntary online initiative to collect words and letters of hope aimed at a community (i.e., school children, emergency workers, or the public at large) and deliver them in their local language in a practical method. Hope Letters aims to rely on volunteers to translate messages into the language of the recipient and then use local organizations to deliver the electronic or paper messages, because Internet and computer access may not be available.

This list is the best of what I've found so far, but please let me know if there are links to trustworthy sources for donations to relief efforts that you'd like to see here!

UPDATE: Attention San Diego locals! I wanted to share with ya'll a benefit event that will be held Saturday, March 26th at the W Hotel. Click for details.

Happy International Women's Day! Check out the International Women's Day website, the Women's History Month website and the International Museum of Women.

Who are some of the women you're paying tribute to this year?

Olympe de Gouges, French playwright and political activist, wrote Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female Citizen (1791), was beheaded (1748-1793)

Sojourner Truth, African-American abolitionist and suffragist (1797-1883)

Emily Dickinson, American poet and queer literature icon (1830-1886)

Marie Curie, Polish-born French physicist and chemist (1867-1934)

Zahra Khanom Tadj es-Saltaneh, Persian princess and activist (1883-1936)

Nella Larsen, American novelist of the Harlem Renaissance and queer literature icon (1891-1964)

Marie Thérèse Forget Casgrain, Canadian feminist, reformer, politician and senator in Quebec, involved in The Quiet Revolution in the 1960s (1896-1981)

Frida Kahlo, Mexican artist and political activist (1907-1954)

Sylvia Plath, American novelist, poet, and short story writer (1932-1963)

Monique Wittig, French author and feminist theorist (1935-2003)

Elaine Brown, American prison activist and first female chairperson for the Black Panthers (1943- )

Daw Aung Sun Suu Kyi, Burmese non-violent social activist (1945- )

Sally Ride, First woman in space, American (1951- )

Kathy Acker, American experimental sex-positive writer and activist (1947-1997)

Kate Bornstein, Jewish-American author, playwright, and gender theorist (1948- )

Andrea Smith, Cherokee intellectual, feminist, and anti-violence activist

On February 23rd, President Obama instructed the Justice Department to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law defining marriage as a heterosexual legal union, in court. Obama found the law unconstitutional, adding to the LGBT rights gains he's facilitated so far (signing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" repeal, declaring June "LGBT Month," and participating in the "It Gets Better" campaign).


As you can imagine, however, there's been a bit of a backlash. Okay, a big backlash. A big, unwarranted backlash that calls for Obama's impeachment (WTF)! And on March 4th, good ol' John Boehner announced that he was taking steps to defend DOMA in place of the Department of Justice.

Thank you, House Republicans, for destroying the legitimacy of the Republican party and exposing it as the safehouse for klan members, wife-beaters, and gay-bashers that it truly is.

...but wait, there's more!

The state of South Dakota has gone soft and shelved the bill that would legalize the killing of abortion providers.

Dave Leach, an Iowa anti-abortion activist, praised the bill, saying it could end abortions in South Dakota by scaring away doctors or by establishing grounds for someone to kill those who stay.

“There may be something I’m overlooking, but from all appearances, this bill would certainly justify an individual taking the life of an abortionist in order to save human lives,” he said.

It's sad when things are "looking up" because your President affirmed the humanity of at least 9 million American citizens and a state government reiterated that murder is still illegal. But hey, I'll take it! *cue U.S.A. chant*

Reproductive justice is often defined as the right to have children, the right to not have children, and the right to parent the children we have in a safe and healthy environment. Flipping through channels a couple weeks ago, I found myself watching “Private Practice” (aired 2/10/11) and proceeded to see this definition play out in front of me. This episode addressed more than one storyline focused on reproductive justice issues, but one in particular triggered me. This was the story of a young female Veteran who shortly after learning she was pregnant lost her fiance and most of her vision when an roadside bomb exploded somewhere in Afghanistan. In the episode enough time has passed that the woman has given birth to her child and is hopeful something can be done to restore some of her vision. In the scene where potential medical intervention is being discussed among the patient, her primary physician, and a neurosurgeon, the baby almost suffocates while breast feeding.

What initially triggered me was the neurosurgeon’s reaction to this event:

1. The neurosurgeon calls the deceased fiance’s mother (referred to as “grandmother” here), a person who is of no relation to her patient, without informing her patient or seeking her consent.
2. The neurosurgeon discusses her patient’s medical condition with the child’s grandmother without informing her patient or seeking her consent.
3. The neurosurgeon advocates that the child should be taken away from her mother and placed in the care of her grandmother based on her so-called concern for the welfare of the child.

The neurosurgeon never speaks to her patient about how she has experienced being a new parent, the challenges she’s encountered (whether related to her vision impairment or not) or her loss of her fiance and vision in one moment of time. With all her expressed concern about the welfare of the child, the neurosurgeon never offers her patient information about or access to support services that might help her learn how to identify potential risks to her child and accommodate for her impaired vision. The neurosurgeon seems convinced the child would be better off with her grandmother solely because her grandmother has no vision impairment.

The woman’s primary care physician starts out as an advocate for his patient and her right to raise her child. He coaches the woman on what to say in front of the grandmother when her bandages come off after surgery to make her think her vision was restored. Why? Because the woman feared that the grandmother was going to try to take her child away. And she was right. When the neurosurgeon convinces the primary care physician that he has done something wrong and he tells the grandmother that the woman’s vision has not been restored, she threatens to go to court to get the child.

The episode ends with the primary care physician convincing the grandmother and the mother that the child needs them both and that they should work together. Some may consider this a good resolution, but it completely failed to honor the mother’s rights to raise her child free of interference from others. In the end both physicians failed to recognize their ethical duties to their patient. They had no right to contact the grandmother or to discuss their patient’s medical condition/treatment with her. As if that was not disgraceful enough, the episode treated a person with a disability as unfit to parent based on nothing other than the challenges presented by the disability.

Millions of people watched that episode of “Private Practice,” but I wonder how many of them questioned the physicians’ actions and behaviors or the lack of conversations in this story line about physicians’ duties to their patients. There were two other story lines in this episode and both focused a good deal of time on the physicians’ duties to their patients in the face of adversity, family relations and personal feelings. But when it came to the life of a mother with impaired vision, no one seemed to give any thought to the physicians’ duties to her or her rights as an individual, a patient or a parent.

Laura Buchs, 3L, University of Wisconsin