Regarding the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (S. 1843), which the House passed last year and upon which the Senate is set to vote today, I had to ask yesterday what reasonable person could possibly oppose it.  The New York Times was kind enough to give me an answer today:

 Wait for it...

Wait for it...

Senate Republicans, of course!  The esteemed Senator from Kentucky, Mitch McConnell is on record with the Times as saying "We think that this bill is primarily designed to create a massive amount of new litigation in our country."  He is not on record as complaining about uppity women trying to screw the white menz out of their rightful place in the hierarchy and take away their jobs and emasculate them with pixie sticks, but that's probably not far off.

Meanwhile, the right-on Senator from Maine, Olympia Snowe, a co-sponsor of the bill, resorted to very strong language against the Republicans who wish to deny the bill the floor: "unfortunate," she said.  McConnell had better be careful, from Ms. Snowe that's tantamount to pulling out the pixie stick.

Majority Leader Reid has delayed the Senate's convening today until 5:00 PM so that all of the presidential campaigners can be on hand for this critical vote.  Maverick McCain is not expected to attend.  He's too busy with his It's Hip to Be Poor Tour of the Downtrodden to be bothered with actually doing anything to, you know, help them or crazy stuff like that.

If you believe, as I do, that the ability to do the same job as well as or better than one's counterparts merits a salary at the very least commensurate with theirs, then get on the horn and call your Congress Critter (by phone at 866-338-1015 or email) - 'specially if he's a weasel who runs at the sight of pixie sticks.  Wankers.

UPDATED, From WaPo, the Senators aren't the only ones askeered of letting the great unwashed have their day(s) in court, our wonderful Weasel-in-Chief has threatened to veto the bill should it somehow make it out of the Senate.  To put this in perspective, it's not just a women's issue.  The original court decision has already had an impact on other kinds of discrimination suits:

the bill is a needed remedy for a ruling that is already having far-reaching and unexpected effects, limiting access to the courts by female athletes seeking to compete in a male-dominated sport, disabled people seeking to enforce fair housing laws and workers pressing claims of age discrimination, as well as women who are paid less than their male co-workers, according to a survey of federal court cases.

So now it's not just the uppity women who need to be quashed, but also the disabled and the old.  Of course, the disabled have always been a thorn in our national sides, demanding ridiculous things like wheelchair access or braille in elevators.  And don't get me started on people over 25 - completely useless, senile quacks, all of 'em.

"The impact of this decision was enormous," said Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, a national association of civil rights, women's and consumer organizations, which conducted the survey. "It's not just American workers who are affected, but those seeking redress to remedy all kinds of discriminatory actions."

Say it with me, class:  Wankers.

UPDATE 2: Shame on you, Johnny Isakson (R-GA) for suggesting this bill will unfairly "allow people to file discrimination suits against employers for deeds decades old." (AP)  The bill will do no such thing - unless that discrimination is still ongoing, decades later, and at least one instance occured within the last six months.  Your obfuscation borders on a lie, sir, and shoves a knife in the back of every working person who ever voted for you. 

Saxby Chambliss, the other R-GA - not to be confused, however temptingly, with Zaxby's the Chicken Place (Zaxby's at least peddles something tasty, unlike the Senator who got himself elected by calling Max Cleland a coward) - also voted against.

Weasels.

UPDATE 3:  It's over for today.  42 Senators voted to block the debate.  57 voted in favor of debate, falling short of the magic number 60.

 

For more on this, see Happy Equal Pay Day.

Today is the 12th annual celebration of Equal Pay Day, a day not when women actually achieve equal earning power with similarly qualified men, but on day on which we are reminded we haven't achieved that yet, because today is the day we catch up with their earnings from last year.   The exact date varies because some years it takes us a little longer to catch up than others, but it's always on a Tuesday - that's the day in week 2 when women catch up to men's earnings in week 1.

But hey, at least we're allowed to collect a paycheck at all now, which is something, I guess.  The Supreme Court has done what it can fairly recently to see to it we don't get to pester our employers overmuch about it, though, having rendered a 5-4 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (May 2007) which "prohibits an employee from legally challenging a case of wage discrimination more than 180 days after the original discriminatory act occurred." (Feminist Majority Foundation)

180 days after the original discriminatory act.  That means that even if the discrimination is ongoing, a woman cannot file suit, which, of course, assumes we both become aware of the issue and can form a substantive claim of discrimination - notoriously difficult to prove in the first place, let alone within 6 months.  The ruling effectively shut down any wage discrimination suits by any woman, ever.

So, you want to know how to celebrate today?  Give your old Senator a ringy-dingy (by phone at 866-338-1015 or email) and let him or her know you want them to support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act (S. 1843), to be voted upon tomorrow.  The Act would reinstate the previous interpretation that each discriminatory paycheck constitutes a new act of discrimination and thereby restarts the 180-day clock for filing a complaint with the EEOC.

I appreciate that, for various reasons, some people are opposed equitable remuneration.  I don't get it, but I acknowledge it.  This isn't that, though; it simply affords the right to be heard.  What reasonable person could oppose that?

For more on this, see I Had to Ask.

The local NBC station reports that a Georgia woman is requesting that the state court of appeals reconsider her sexual assault case.  The article also indicates her intention to appeal to the state Supreme Court.  It appears she was a student at Mercer University in 2003.  She claims to have been raped there while at a fraternity house.  The original judge in the case:

determined lacerations do not prove rape, and that she had to list her past sexual partners, since only virgins can bring a case for sexual battery in civil court.

I am not aware of any legal virginity requirement* as a prerequisite to pursuing rape charges, particularly when the victim can present corroborating evidence commonly accepted by most courts run by judges of less than 10% Neanderthal heritage - namely, lacerations.

So, it's bad enough this throwback to the 1300s relies on faulty synaptic wiring to reach a conclusion my doormat would know was incorrect, he orders the woman to pay the defendant's legal fees - since, you know, she's not a virgin and therefore cannot be raped.  But the real kicker is this - the defendant in this case is Daniel Day, who happens to be the son of Georgia State Representative Burke Day, whose name you just might recognize from the Days Inn hotel chain.

The defendant's attorney maintains his client's innocence, of course, and suggests the victim was only faking it to extort cash out of the family.  'Cause it's such a fun way to spend your time, taking the stand and testifying in your rape case against the guy who (edited 04/03/08 at 4:30 to add the word allegedly, which I've just realized was forgotten when I first posted) assaulted you, and having to lay out your entire life and sexual history for complete strangers to "ooh," and "aah" and envy you over.  It's like conga-ing barefoot with Pol Pot across a field of broken glass interspersed with rotting meat.  Ooh fun.  Sign me up!

The judge's name is not mentioned in this article, but the victim's is.  Some people just use up entirely too much air for no good purpose.

---

*  I recognize that civil law differs from criminal, and that for a very long time women, and their virginity, were treated, and considered under law, as men's property.  The civil case, in those days, would have arisen from the father's loss of money (in terms of having to provide a larger dowry to form a less favorable marraige, or in terms of thereby being saddled with the care of his damaged goods for the rest of her life).  I am not, however, aware of any such law currently on Georgia's books.  If I am mistaken in this, please let me know so I can begin writing the appropriate letters.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) made a tactical error when he suggested during an interview on Friday that Senator Clinton should bow out of the presidential race now.  In a later statement Senator Obama allowed that Clinton “can” stay in the race as long as she likes.  Neither Leahy’s statements, nor the follow up by Obama, have done Obama any favors with women of a certain age.

 

The statements have resonated with many women in a fashion counter-productive both to the theme of unity and to actually winning the general election.  Many women are using the word we're not supposed to use, "sexism."  Over on the blogs people are asking why the comments were sexist, “because a man said them?” asked more than one commenter.  In a word, yes.

 

It’s a matter of perspective, you see.  Some statements, when coming from men rather than women, reek of the legacy of patriarchy.  Women are as attuned to this as minorities are to the stench of racism.  The allowance that the little lady “can” stay in the race of she wants only compounded the error.  It’s patronizing.  It suggests Clinton somehow needs permission from party leaders to do what any other candidate in a close race would not only be entitled, but expected to do without requiring permission from anyone  – namely, head for the finish line and see who actually wins.

 

If the situation were reversed, with Clinton in Obama’s shoes and Obama in Clinton’s, then calls for Obama’s concession would be both equally premature and equally perceived as patronizing among those who expect no different from the old-boy establishment.

 

A further survey of comments on various news articles regarding the subject turn up such gems as “waste your vote on a lil’ woman,”  “a candidate whose idea of foreign policy is donning an apron and baking a batch of brownies,” and “The enemy was within...clothed in familiar suits (and pant suits).”  There have been, in fact, multiple mentions of “pant suits” over the course of the race, as if the suits that men wear do not somehow involve pants.

 

And then there are Clinton's knees and her neck, both showing signs that she's not a girl of twenty competing for the cover of Sports Illustrated.  There are comments regarding her failure to "keep her house in order," her "whining," her crying, all typical disparagements against females - uppity ones in particular.  There was "pimping" and the implication that Clinton's entire career rested upon the laurels of a scorned woman - as if she had no other qualifications, brought no mind or substance or anything of value to the table.  There was Limbaugh's grossly offensive, if somewhat oblique, comparison of a Clinton/Obama ticket to a sexual position.   There was "beat the bitch" and that rightwing political group whose name was designed to form an acronym of "the c-word."   Hillary is "castrating;" she is "emasculating."  Say what you will about the particular point on the spectrum, Leahy's comments play into a pattern of sexism that has been both blatant and subtle, from both right-wing and left: universal, and abiding, and infuriating.

 

Combine this with the equally patronizing “you’re likable enough, Hillary,” signs which suggest Clinton should “iron my shirts,” and the media’s insistence on charged language, and women who grew up living the less-than-equal treatment that same media now tells us is a bygone era cannot help but notice a pattern of inveterate sexism when it comes to depictions of and dealings with the Senator from New York.

 

If Clinton’s supporters made egregious comments mentioning fields and cotton, they would be castigated as racists, and rightly so.  Yet women are being told, once again, to ignore the current of sexism running throughout this primary season.  We’re being told, once again, that it’s really all in our heads.  We’re being told, for the umpteenth million time in our lives, not to worry our pretty little heads over such complicated matters as what we have a right to perceive as insulting.

 

Being a woman in this country often provides a vastly different experience from being a man, just as being white generally means a vastly different experience than being black.  Neither situation is fair, neither is justified, but both are just as real and as common as cornflakes. 

 

Much as entrenched racism has code words and phrases, so, too, does sexism, and women of a certain age know sexism when we hear it, much as men do.  The difference is that our hearing has been finely tuned through decades of living on the wrong side of the equation. 

 

So, rather than demoralizing Clinton’s women’s base with a “statement of the obvious,” the comments reminded many of the years we have struggled to be taken seriously in the public sphere, and of the sexism that still pervades modern day life, let alone politics.  Somehow I doubt that’s the result Leahy  - or Obama - intended.

Like most people, I have this internal barometer that slides up or down as I read news stories.  This particular item set that indicator a-fluttering, bouncing up and down like a cake-high 5 year old at an all-out birthday bash:

Whenever one of the arms of this particular administration begin reaching for things, my hackles rise.  Call it Pavlovian, but historic repetition of complete and utter disregard for what "the people" think or need in favor of what the political apex momentarily hankers for has taught me that when this government begins to ask about a program which benefits working families more than it benefits corporations or the wealthy, then that program is not long for this world.

Brian Reid, the author of the WaPo article, also wondered what this meant, and found an AP story (quoted from the WaPo text):

"This is meant to be a very objective review," Victoria Lipnic, assistant secretary for the Labor Department's Employment Standards Administration, said in an interview with The Associated Press.

"We're genuinely in search of information and having looked at the issues now for a number of years ... it became apparent we really needed some fresh thinking on this. I am hoping that is what all of this will yield," she said.

Hmm, "fresh thinking," eh?  Like Mr. Reid, I would love to see some "fresh thinking" which included paid leave under FMLA (which is currently unpaid), extended the leave, expanded protections (both in people covered and in specific job-protection).  I'd also like to see some creative solutions to the problems inherent in being both a medical caregiver and a wage-earner, such as mandating that companies which offer telecommuting options to employees should also offer that option, on a trial basis (say, 30 days to begin, with the option to reevaluate and continue in 30 day increments) to employees in good standing applying for FMLA-covered leave.

However, the Pavlovian response rises again, and I cannot help but wonder if the fears of a couple of years ago, that the Bush administration would attempt to gut FMLA in its continuing war against working families, were prescient and that, politically wounded as the cur is, he lashes out now to grab his petty revenge against a nation which repudiated him.  After all, the hard right, which still supports the guy, usually "encourages" women to stay at home, rendering largely FMLA moot for their own families (when taken with the fundamentalist view that women should stay at home and be caregivers, while men should work and be heads of the house, and never the twain shall meet) and, as anything that benefits women who work outside the home over women who do not must come from Satan and cannot, therefore, be used, targeting the law would do real, painful damage to those uppity folks who had the nerve to oppose the Supreme Will of the self-styled demigod that is George Bush.

Or maybe not.  I really don't know.  The "chilling little note" reads as follows:

The deadline for comments is 5:00PM EST, February 2, 2007.  If you've some experience with FMLA, please send a note to the Labor Department at whdcomments@dol.gov.  Fresh thinking doesn't have to equal a net negative, and I'll be happy to provide my input if it means protecting and/or expanding protections for working families.

As part of a nationwide effort to highlight the OTC availability of Plan B, Planned Parenthood centers will be offering free emergency contraception tomorrow, December 6, 2006.  Stop by any participating Planned Parenthood Health Center to receive one free dose to keep at home.  Call 1-800-230-PLAN if you are unsure of locations near you.

Quantities are limited and will be dispensed on a first-come, first-served basis.  Many Centers will offer rain checks for later redemption should their supplies run out.

In another, totally unsurprising, development in the Center for Reproductive Right's (CRR) Plan-B case against the government, the Bush administration is fighting the November subpoena authorizing the plaintiff to obtain more than three years of administration documents relating to the initial rejection, and ultimate approval (with restrictions) of the drug.


Lest we forget, the FDA, through former acting commissioner Lester M. Crawford, refused to cooperate with the initial GAO investigation, Scott McClellan's calendar shows an entry on April 21, 2003 for a "conference call w/Jay Lefkwitz re: Plan B submis," and FDA scientist Florence Houn testified to statements by Janet Woodcock, FDA Deputy Commissioner for Operations, that it was necessary to reject the Plan B application to appease the Bush administration.

Bush's pets at the Justice Department seem to be basing part of their objection on a November 21 stay (which appear to have gone unreported, at least on Google news) which relieved the FDA from having to turn over any additional documents.  CRR lawyers maintain that the stay applied only to the FDA agency itself, leaving executive administration documents subject to the open subpoena, while the Justice Department insists "the stay, until lifted, made it 'inappropriate' for Center lawyers to pursue the subpoena."  (Forbes).  Government lawyers assert that the stay in favor of the FDA translates into the requirement for a higher standard of evidence for any subpoena of any government document.

I'm only vaguely surprised they're not claiming "national security" or "executive privilege."  Wait for it; I'm sure we'll see it eventually.

This is not a blind fishing expedition. It is a legitimate inquiry based on reasonable corroborating evidence into Bush interference in public health, to its detriment, for no other reason than political gain.  That the FDA is enjoined, at this time, from having to turn over further documents is irrelevant to the specific matter at hand: the White House is not a division of the FDA and, as such, is not subject to that protection.

Let me repeat that: the White House is not a division of the FDA.  That Mr. Bush thinks he is, is one of the very foundations of this suit against his administration.  How's that for corroboration?

---

See Also:
Federal Judge Allows Subpoena for White House Plan-B Related Documents

You may or may not be aware of the case of Sergio Hernandez.

He's from Cobb County, Georgia (home of the infamous "evolution is just a theory" stickers for science textbooks).  He's either 21 or 22 years old.  He impregnated a 15 year old.  After the family obtained a restraining order at the girl's request (because she feared him), he broke in, kidnapped her and the baby at gunpoint from her mother's home, and fled to North Carolina, where he was apprehended.

The man is in custody.  This, in my view as a parent, is a good thing.  If my 15 year old child were taken from my home at gunpoint and other members of my family threatened with death if they attempted to intervene, I don't believe I'd be disposed to welcome the "alleged" felon into my family.  I believe I'd be inclined to think he belonged in jail for a spell (where I tend to think most kidnappers should idle for at least a while), regardless of whether my underage child had ever consented to a sexual relationship before filing for and receiving a restraining order.

Jim Wooten at AJC's Thinking Right, however, writes in today's column:

Is he serious?  I don't know; he sounds serious.  If so, he might as well "promote marriage" between female victims of sexual assault and their oh so magnanimous rapists.  This girl is a child - 14 when the relationship began with the 20 or 21 year old (presumably, at the time). I wonder if Mr. Wooten has ever heard the term "statutory rape," which is defined according to the official Georgia Code:

Aside from the issues of multiple violations of a duly issued restraining order, kidnapping of two minors at gunpoint, and interstate flight (which, were the girl a wealthy Buckhead deb instead of, well, not, would probably be sufficient to put him away for some time), if Hernandez was 21 when he impregnated this girl, he owes the state a minimum of 10 years.

Marriage, really?  Should Nicole Simpson simply have sucked it up and remarried OJ?  Should Elizabeth Smart just have submitted to a forced plural marriage?

Consenting to sex, once or even many times, does not mean a female abdicates her right to make any and all other decisions for herself, including whether or not she wants to run away with a man whom she clearly fears.  And, particularly in the case of minors unable to  legally consent (that would be people under the age of 16 in Georgia, remember), it is the state's responsibility to protect both the minor's and the parents' interests from sexual predators who would prey upon them, assault them, threaten to kill their families, and forcibly remove them from their homes.

Or perhaps Mr. Wooten was making a joke.  If so, he's just as funny as Michael Richards.

In his infinite wisdom, Georgia state Rep. Bobby Franklin prefiled House Bill 1 (HB1) for the upcoming General Assembly legislative session.  Such an innocuous title, HB1, but that's because they have not yet come up with a title that appropriately masks the intent to use women as breeding stock in appropriately pious terms.

HB1, you see, proposes a ban on all abortions, at any time, for any reason.   It includes no exceptions, not for rape, not for incest, not for health, not even to save a woman's own life. 

In addition to asserting that the State of Georgia knows life begins at conception (which, last I checked, was still up for debate in terms of sentience), Franklin suggests several findings of fact:

(6) Studies have shown that women who have had an abortion require psychological treatment of such symptoms as nervous disorders, sleep disturbances, and deep regrets, with 25 percent of one test group of women who have had abortions visiting a psychiatrist while only 3 percent of a control group did so;

(7) Another random study showed that at least 19 percent of women who have had an abortion suffered from diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, with 50 percent suffering from many, but not all, symptoms of that disorder, and 20 to 40 percent of the women studied showed moderate to high levels of stress and avoidance behavior relative to their abortion experience;

(8) Approximately 60 percent of women who have had an abortion and who reported post-abortion trauma also reported suicidal tendencies with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, of whom half attempted suicide two or more times;

As relates to the mental health aspect, correlation does not prove causation between 2 variables.  This is both  a widely accepted scientific standard and a fundamental tenet of the practice of accurate science.  It is as likely that women with existing mental health problems are more likely to seek and abortion as it is that abortion causes mental illness.  It is equally as likely that some third, unmeasured variable contributes (either equally or in some measurable part) to both mental illness and the likelihood of abortion.  On cannot reasonably infer cause from this presentation - just because A frequently accompanies B, does not mean A actually equals B.

(11)  Most couples find abortion to be an event which shatters their relationship, causing chronic marital troubles and divorce

So can marital infidelity, or having the in-laws move in for a few months, or a move, or the prolonged illness and subsequent death of a loved one, or being out of work for a period of time, or deciding you just can't take the snoring any more - I don't see the GGA moving to outlaw any of those in favor of protecting Georgia's marriages.  And I bet plenty could use a law forbidding the in-laws from moving in.

(12) Abortion exploits women, treating them and their children as mere property, and abortion is contrary to feminist values, and the great suffragette Susan B. Anthony referred to abortion as 'child murder';

Correction: if the decision of whether or not to abort is left to me and my doctor, the state is treating me like a sentient, adult human in full possession of my faculties and able to make my own medical decisions for my own health and well-being.  If, on the other hand, the state insists that I cannot terminate any pregnancy under any circumstances, ever, it is treating me as nothing more than a baby-factory, worth only so much as the children I can spit out.  Which sounds more like property to you?

(15) The practice of abortion has caused the citizens of this state an inestimable amount economically including, but not limited to, the costs and tax burden of having to care for individuals and their families for the conditions cited above, as well as a significant reduction of the tax base and of the availability of workers, entrepreneurs, teachers, employees, and employers that would have significantly contributed to the prosperity of this state. (emphasis mine)

Ah, truth in advertising at least; buried in the fine print, but still.  Abortion is bad because it means women produce fewer workers who can pay more taxes and consume more goods to support political fat-cats and corporate CEOs in their quest for more wealth.  Women who have abortions are bad because they refuse to contribute to the tax base as often as biologically possible.

In other words, women are only as good as the last taxpayer they birthed.  Otherwise, they should probably just shut up, submit to their husbands and try to stay out of therapy.

This is a terrible law on a number of levels.  South Dakota sort of surprised conventional wisdomers by defeating a similar law in the recent elections.  If Georgians seriously want to be viewed as equal citizens, and not backwards, uneducated, secret Ned Beatty-lovers, we'll need to do the same.  Passing such a bill, codifying forced pregnancy, makes us no better than the Chinese, who require abortions.  Both treat women as inconvenient, ancillary chattel to be worked around - like some sort of absurd lamp in the middle of a room, turning it on when absolutely necessary, but otherwise cursing its exasperating unwieldiness.

We have long known that the Bush administration not only allows religion to interfere with public policy, but in some instances - as with the FDA/Plan B case - even demands it.  In another move designed to further limits the rights of citizens, particularly women, Bush appointed Dr. Eric Keroack to the position of deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at the Department of Health & Human Services, reporting to Secretary Michael Leavitt.

Though the title doesn't really indicate it, Keroack's position will oversee $283 million in federal family planning grants.

The kicker, of course - Dr. Keroack assumes the new position immediately after that of medical director of A Woman's Concern, a small chain of anti-contraception, anti-choice outposts operating in Massachusetts as pregnancy crisis centers.  And this is the kicker because an integral part of Keroack's new job involves distributing federal funds to programs "designed to provide access to contraceptive supplies and information to all who want and need them with priority given to low-income persons" (WaPo).

Mark Conrad, president of A Woman's Concern, said Keroack would be able to make the transition to leading a federal program in which provision of birth control is an integral part. "I don't think it's going to be an issue for him," he said.

Really?  It is so comforting to hear another leopard insisting this one can change his spots with ease, but I'm not buying it.  It is not reasonable to believe that a person, any person, can go from affirming that "birth control is degrading to women" to funding birth control programs fully and fairly within the space of two weeks.  If Keroack believed this to be true, I have concerns regarding his ability to carry out his new duties without prejudice.  If he never subscribed to this belief, yet worked for such an organization anyway, I have concerns over his ethics.  Either way, he is as completely unsuited to this sort of national position as Roy Moore is unsuited to the Supreme Court. 

This is not because of his beliefs, per se, as he is of course entitled to whatever personal beliefs he may choose, but because his history demonstrates a willingness, a determination, in fact, to exercise those beliefs in a way that is contrary to the best interests of the people he would serve in this new capacity.

More than being just another giant flip of the bird to the American people, putting a person with this history in charge of funding family planning for everyone - not just people who voluntarily subscribe to his ideas - is the equivalent of putting a Holocaust denier in charge of funding Holocaust memorials.

Anyone want to make Mel Gibson's daddy Director of the US Holocaust Museum?

WaPo reports a federal ruling that the Center for Reproductive Rights can subpoena "more than three years of Plan B-related communications between the White House's domestic-policy office and select Food and Drug Administration officials. The documents include e-mails, letters and records of conversations."

In 2004, the FDA overruled its Advisory Panel's 23-4 positive recommendation, rejecting an application to make the emergency contraceptive available over the counter.  Steven Gaulson, at the time the acting director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, admitted he overrode the opinions of both his staff and advisory committees. (USA Today)

The Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) filed a complaint challenging the ruling in January 2005.  The suit alleged that the FDA broke its own regulations in the approval process for and ultimate rejection of the application.  As they have gathered more evidence, the CRR added that "officials planned to drag out the approval process for the contraceptive for political reasons."  (Reuters/Medscape)

In May 2005, WaPo ran a page 2 story on panel member W. David Hager, an OB/GYN and apparent preacher, who stated he was asked to write a "minority report that would outline why over-the-counter sales should be rejected."  Hager, a proponent of abstinence-only education opposed to emergency contraception on religious grounds, obliged.  At one point, he told at least one journalist in an email that the request for the report came from someone at the FDA, though he had revised his story by the time the WaPo article ran.

Biologist Susan Wood, assistant FDA commissioner for women's health and director of the agency's Office of Women's Health, resigned in protest in September 2005, citing political disruption of agency function and interference in agency decisions. (WaPo)

WaPo followed up in October 2005 with a page 5 story that Lester M. Crawford, acting commissioner of the FDA for the period in question, refused to cooperate with an inquiry by the Government Accountability Office investigating the decision and any ties to the White House.

In May 2006, the Austin Chronicle reported:

Women's reproductive rights advocates have long suspected the White House may have had a hand in prompting McClellan's baseless refusal, and last week CRR attorney Bonnie Jones told federal Magistrate Viktor Pohorelsky that she may have found that missing link, in the form of an entry in McClellan's appointment calendar, reports New York's Newsday. According to the daily, McClellan's calendar for April 21, 2003 contains a notation that he had a "conference call w/Jay Lefkwitz re: Plan B submis" – an apparent reference to the petition filed just days before seeking FDA approval for over-the-counter Plan B sales. At the time, Lefkowitz served as President George W. Bush's deputy assistant for domestic policy; the calendar notation was notable, at least in part, because consultations with the White House are not part of the standard FDA drug approval process, the daily reports.

Kaiser Network reported August 4, 2006 that:

 FDA Deputy Commissioner for Operations Janet Woodcock in January 2004 said it was necessary for the agency to reject Barr Laboratories application for nonprescription sales of its emergency contraceptive Plan B in order "to appease the [Bush] administration's constituents," agency scientist Florence Houn testified in a deposition  (emphasis mine)

After much back and forth, Barr Laboratories submitted a revised application, proposing Plan B be made available without prescription to women 18 and older (as opposed to 16, which had been on the previous filing) in August of 2006, and the FDA did approve that application.  Many, myself among them, suspect the approval was finally granted as a last-ditch effort to obfuscate White House interference only because the lawsuit would not go away.

Thankfully, the suit continues even after the quasi-approval granted by the FDA, and the judge is requiring that the White House turn over its records.  Enforcing the order, as we've learned repeatedly from this administration, may well drag on for months, however.

The Supreme Court began hearing arguments yesterday on a challenge to Congress's ban on so-called "partial birth abortion."  Congress found that the procedure was "never medically necessary" in the second trimester and passed a law that does not include an exception foe the health of the pregnant woman.

The last time such a case came before the court, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voted with the 5-4 majority to strike down the law.  Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a strongly worded dissent.  With the additions of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, conventional wisdom has the nation looking to Kennedy to switch sides.  Kennedy is on record as stating yesterday that the procedure appeared to be "purely elective" and "not medically necessary," however, so that appears a very slim hope indeed.

Alito made no comment during arguments yesterday.  Conventional wisdom assumes he will support the ban.  His silence, however, bears more hope of a reasoned objection to the law than Kennedy's acknowledged abhorrence of the procedure.  The Justices may detest the procedure all they wish, but that personal feeling should not interfere with their duty to protect all citizens.  If a woman's life or health is in danger, her doctor should be free to save it.  In the post-Terry Schiavo world, Congress as a body was not, last I checked, anyone's personal physician.  This law, as it was passed, needs to be struck down.  Not because the Court approves of the procedure - their personal feelings with regard to a medical procedure are irrelevant, but because lacking a health exception, the law may infringe on a woman's most fundamental constitutional right: the right to live.  A non-viable fetus does not have that right under our constitution. 

Government lawyers argued that the procedure (a dilation and extraction) was far from common, aberrant even, as thought the fact that this law would likely only affect a handful of women somehow made the abrogation of those particular women's rights acceptable.  That the law may possibly only affect 1 in 100,000, or 1 in 1,000,000 (or whatever number they suggest - none was quoted) does not mitigate its inequity; it merely localizes it.  This is precisely the reason we have a Supreme Court - to protect the handful from the injustice of the barrelful. 

Alito remained silent through the entire day's arguments.  I wonder what he's thinking.

---

Update: Dan at Between the Links makes an Article I argument in favor of striking the law that I find interesting, suggesting that truly conservative justices (that is, conservative in the legal sense, not the social one) will find the law unconstitutional.