Recently in Law Category

I like the sound of this: the legislature, with Obama firmly behind it, is going to act to overturn Ledbetter v. Goodyear, which is one of the most egregiously stupid and nit-picky employment discrimination cases to come out of the Supreme Court in years (essentially defining the statute of limitations as a way to prevent ANY kind of lawsuit if you don't notice you're being discriminated against when you're first hired, and ignoring the "pattern or practice" of discrimination cases from earier decisions).

Thank god. Ledbetter is so much againt the spirit of what employment discrimination lawsuits are supposed to accomplish, and Lily Ledbetter didn't deserve to be treated so callously, and the precedent it set was horrible.

Take that, Supreme Court! here's the Link.

Newsweek recently ran an article called "The Religious Case for Gay Marriage" (no, seriously.)

Many interesting points/arguments are made and there is a ton of feedback/outrage which they also posted. However, there was one thing mentioned in the article that absolutely shocked me and it has nothing to do with gay marriage.

From the article...

"...and by the 1970s most states had gotten rid of their "head and master" laws, which gave husbands the right to decide where a family would live and whether a wife would be able to take a job."

I honestly had no idea these laws existed, especially as recently as 1970s. I thought women gained property rights in the 1920s (although I do realize it was a lot harder for women to actually gain property or any assets being that the job market for women was virtually nonexistent)  I am interested to know how often these laws were enforced, especially in more recent times.  Does anyone know where I can find some more information on this?

The Wikipedia entry for "head and master laws" is pretty thin although they did direct me to a couple good articles by Stephanie Coontz.

A friend of mine told me that it was probably some obscure law that was never enforced and I would like to know if this was true or not.

Any help would be much appreciated!

Sometimes the facts of women's history speak for themselves. Did you know that it was once (and still is in a few places in the United States of America) a crime to appear in a gender that seemed not to conform with the gender into which it was assumed that you were born? By, crime, we mean literally against the law punishable by imprisonment and/or fines. Some of these laws were only overturned in the 1970s and 1980s in the USA. Today, New York State Article 190 of the Penal Law lists two forms of fraud punishable by varying degrees of imprisonment: (1) 190.25 Criminal impersonation in the second degree; and (2) 190.26 Criminal impersonation in the first degree. (See link.)

These criminal impersonation laws was once used to arrest drag kings and drag queens (be they on the street in nonconforming vestments or in  nightclubs during the course of raids). Article 190 is mostly used now for ID fraud and the prosecution of grifting. According to the present code, it is illegal to impersonate an actual person, but legal to impersonate a fictional person and wide discretion is used in the application of the law. But, the criminalization of gender went further in the past. SONDA's excellent historical timeline notes that the first-ever gay rights march specifically on the state capital in Albany on March 14, 1971, advocated for an end to " non-discrimination measures, repeal of the consensual sodomy statute, and repeal of the law against cross-dressing and impersonation by one sex of the other ." (Emphasis added.)

In his 1982 biography The Mayor of Castro Street (New York: St. Martin's Press), Randy Shilts confirms the criminalization of drag (see page 52). The ACLU's fine advisory document regarding transgenders and the law notes that most places in the USA no longer criminalize "gender impersonation"; but some cities, towns, and states still do. Recent attempts to ban saggy pants brought renewed attention to the language of anti-crossdressing statutes as Pam notes here .

Clicking here reveals the exacting work of the historians and advocates at TransgenderLaw.org provide an excellent overview of anti-gender "impersonation" laws with reference to where they existed and exist and literature that details them (see item 1 in particular and scroll down). Sometimes the facts of women's history speak for themselves.

I am a longtime reader of feministing. I think a big part of being a powerful woman in this world is to be proactive in managing your finances and taking an active role in planning for your future. Building wealth on your own -  whether you are male, female, gay or straight - and planning for the distribution of that wealth is vital. In that spirit, I am started a blog where I will discuss estate planning for unmarried people: single men and women, same sex couples, the single elderly, etc...I am an attorney and currently pursuing a master's in tax law with a focus on estate planning. My blog is brand spanking new - I am new to the blogging thing so it's not fancy, but hopefully it will grow over time and give single people a place to start from when considering their options.

Watching the clip from Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, I was moved by his insight and honesty on the issue of Proposition 8 in California.  He spoke eloquently about the human heart, love and opportunity.    His insight is one into the Human Condition, not on a simple(?) matter of politics and lawmaking in California. 

With all due respect to Olbermann though, I must point out his introduction to this issue.  He noted out he is not gay, nor does he have a great deal of friends in the gay community.   I understand his point; it is not a personal issue for him .     All this accomplishes however, in a macro context is reaffirming his heteronormative viewpoint and the validity he is privileged on such a stance.    That being said, I believe his views are rooted in a paradigm of honesty and a desire for equality for all, so he may be accused for this minor sin.

In 2004, the 'Debbie Smith' act -- authored by Vice President-Elect Joe Biden -- passed in Congress with bipartisan support.  Smith, a Virginia rape victim, consented to an invasive DNA evidence collection exam, but her rape kit sat collecting dust for six years.  Her attacker was later identified on the basis of that test.  The act helped standardize the evidence collection of rape kits and made available funds to help forensic labs process DNA evidence.

Four years and tens of millions of dollars later, a significant backlog in the DNA testing of rape kits remains -- as reported in today's New York Times .

According to the paper, an audit released last month by the Los Angeles city comptroller said at least 7,000 rape kits remain untouched by the police department’s crime lab.  More than 200 rape kits had been sitting so long, the audit found, that the 10-year statute of limitations for bringing prosecutions had expired .  And that's just for Los Angeles .  The U.S. Department of Justice has estimated that there are at least 221,000 rape kits currently on the shelves in evidence lockers, untested and gathering dust.  It's estimated that 40 percent of unsolved rape cases could be solved by comparing these kits against the existing DNA databases of convicted felons and rapists.

In September of this year, Biden introduced the Debbie Smith Reauthorization Act .  The original law was set to expire at the end of 2009 and the reauthorization extends it through 2014.  But simply extending the law isn't enough, argues the Times, who recommends tweaking the Debbie Smith law to require state to use at least 30 percent of grant money to test backlogged rape kits and lifting restrictions on paying private labs for DNA testing.

Rape is a violent crime.  Let's treat it as such.   

I went to my career services office today to go over a cover letter I will be sending out to a women's rights agency. The agency promotes equality and justice along lines of gender, sexuality, race, and class. In my cover letter I referred to myself as wanting to work in feminist advocacy, because *gasp, feminism is about equality.

As the editor went over my cover letter, she crossed out the word feminist. She then told me that a better way to phrase my career goals would be to say I wanted to be an "equal rights" advocate, or that I wanted to work in "equal rights" law.

Why is feminist still a dirty word?!

By Colleen K. Connell, Executive Director of the ACLU of Illinois

Score a victory for reproductive justice in the Illinois Appellate Court on Friday! Ruling that an unimplanted, fertilized egg is not a "human being" for purposes of a wrongful death action, the Illinois Appellate Court today reversed a 2005 decision by a Cook County Judge.

The decision is a victory for scientific sanity and access to reproductive health care. Had the lower court's decision been allowed to stand, the ability of women to make personal decisions about birth control, abortion, genetic testing and pregnancy would have been put in jeopardy.

The case involved an Illinois couple suing their fertility clinic for tens of thousands of dollars because the clinic inadvertently had destroyed unimplanted eggs stored at the facility. The lower court had accepted the argument that a human being is created when an egg is fertilized, regardless of whether the fertilized egg is implanted in a woman's body or left in a Petri dish. Left undisturbed, the lower court's decision could have limited the ability of women in Illinois to access contraceptive services and genetic testing. Moreover, the decision would curb the ability of couples in Illinois to use reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization, in starting a family.

Issues of concern to pregnant and birthing women have often been missing from discussion in law school courses and among reproductive rights activists. Thanks in large part to public education efforts by writers, filmmakers, and community activists, there is an unprecedented amount of attention and momentum surrounding the rights of pregnant and birthing women. To advance these efforts further, NAPW has developed two writing contests. NAPW and numerous Co-Sponsors and Supporters (to be announced) hope that these contests will leverage the enthusiasm and creativity of a new generation of feminist legal scholars and spark critical thinking about the need to address childbirth and birthing rights as constitutional and human rights issues.

The first contest asks for a critical analysis of the absence of birthing rights issues from gender discrimination and feminist jurisprudence textbooks and curricula (in fact, none of the top three casebooks used in law school courses dedicated to gender and the law address the issue of childbirth or midwifery). The second contest asks students to develop legal theories that can be used to challenge policies banning pregnant women from having a vaginal birth after a prior caesarean section (VBAC). This topic will encourage students to address a growing problem that has received very little attention from the feminist legal community both in academia and within the leading women's rights legal advocacy organizations.

Submission Guidelines

Other questions about the contest?

Send Inquiries to: writingcontest@advocatesforpregnantwomen.org

Also, check out NAPW's website for further updates.

Want to help spread the word? Email or download and post a flyer about the contests.

Seems to me I've seen more than a few lawyers hanging around these parts, and more than a few asipring law students. One of the great things about a community is the potential for advice, networking, and mutual support. Soooooooo I hope folks will jump in with thoughts on anything and everything femininst-law-related.

Lawyer-to-be please jump in with your questions. I'll try to answer to the best of my ability, and hope other will chime in a well.

I do hope the already-lawyers out there will help answer questions, and chime in with their own thoughts and reflections.