Feature Archives

January 14th, 2004: At a conference of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Lawrence Summers proposed that innate genetic differences between the sexes may be one explanation for why fewer women succeed in math and science careers. Since that date hundreds, if not thousands, of women who have written to newspapers and to Summers directly to set him straight about the challenges that face women in still-non-traditional fields. It would be bad enough if Summers were any ordinary academic, but he is the current President of Harvard University and a former Chief Economist of the World Bank.

In a January 19th apology statement, he said, "Despite reports to the contrary, I did not say, and I do not believe, that girls are intellectually less able than boys, or that women lack the ability to succeed at the highest levels of science. I was wrong to have spoken in a way that has resulted in an unintended signal of discouragement to talented girls and women... As a university president, I consider nothing more important than helping to create an environment, at Harvard and beyond, in which every one of us can pursue our intellectual passions and realize our aspirations to the fullest possible extent....as academics who believe in the power of research, we should invest our energies in thinking as clearly and objectively as possible, drawing on potential insights from different disciplines, to identify and understand all the various factors that might possibly bear on the situation."

Working Papers by Lawrence Summers | NOW Statement | Feminist Daily News Story | GPAC Statement | Democracy Now Story | Association for Women in Science | San Francisco Chapter | Palo Alto Chapter | Committee on Women in Science and Engineering | Association for Women in Science and Engineering (Britain)

1/22/2005: Several thousand people gathered for a Roe v. Wade Anniversary Demonstration that included a rally on Market Street and a march to the location of an anti-choice rally. After the march, participants lined the Embarcadero as the "pro-lifers" paraded towards the Fisherman's Wharf tourist district. The route of the parade was stopped twice by pro-choice protesters. Police kept the women's rights advocates out of the street as much as possible, divided them up on sidewalks, and escorted the anti-choice march through Fort Mason, down Marina, to the park area where a post-march celebration of hatred of women's right to choose when to have a child was to be held. The pro-choice march was eventually allowed through Fort Mason and headed to the Marina Green.
Breaking news from today's march and action in San Francisco, as heard on Enemy Combatant Radio or reported to Indybay editors.
Photos: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 Reports: 1 | 2 Audio: 1 Video: 1 | 2

These protests were part of a series of events this weekend that commemorated the 32nd anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Decision, which legalized abortion in the United States. Indybay coverage of the 31st anniversary celebration of Roe v. Wade.

More photos and reports to come - check back for updates to this story. You can also publish your report

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on December 28th, 2004 that a female employee fired for refusing to wear makeup cannot sue her employer for sex discrimination. Darlene Jespersen had been employed by Harrah’s Resorts as a bartender in Reno for over two decades. In 2000 Harrah's put into place a “Personal Best” policy that required female employees to wear their hair "teased, curled or styled," and wear "foundation/concealer and/or face powder, as well as blush and mascara," nail polish, and lipstick. Male bartenders at Harrah's were only required to wear their hair above the collar and keep their nails clean and neatly trimmed.

Jespersen was fired when she objected that the new standards "forced her to be feminine" and made her feel "dolled up" like a sex object. Jespersen said that when she had worn makeup in the past, she had felt that it interfered with her ability to win the respect of customers that would be necessary or her to deal with them when they were unruly. The 2-1 decision rejected Jespersen’s suit, saying that she had not shown that feminine standards were significantly more burdensome than those imposed on men. The Court held that sex stereotyping rulings – such as the landmark Supreme Court case decision Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse – did not specifically address the issue of sex-differentiated grooming standards.

In the dissenting opinion, Judge Sidney Thomas stated, "Harrah's fired Jespersen because of her failure to confirm to sex stereotypes, which is discrimination based on sex and is therefore impermissible under Title VII (of the US Civil Rights Act)." The decision was largely ignored by the mainstream media and mainstream feminist organizations, perhaps due to the fact that it was announced between the Christmas and New Year holidays.

More about this court case | Statement from GenderPAC, the national advocacy organization working to end discrimination and violence caused by gender stereotypes. | 2001 Mother Jones Article | Barbwire History of the Case | 2/5/04: Case is about civil rights and sex bias by Darlene Jespersen | Skin Deep: A Safety Assessment of Personal Care Products

January 22nd, 2005 will be the the 32nd anniversary of the Roe v Wade, the court decision that legalized abortion in the United States. "Walk for Life West Coast", a city-wide anti-choice event, is also scheduled for that date. Last year, women nationwide celebrated the first "I'm not sorry I had an abortion day". Some pro-choice activists feel that it's time to do it again as one of the ways of countering the Walk for Life's messaging. Elizabeth Creely says, "it's clear that women (and men) who have had abortions need to continue to defend our right to reproduce on our own terms." Walk for Life's website states: "Walk to challenge the belief that abortion is a good choice for Women. Walk to show that women--and all people--deserve better than abortion. Walk to proclaim that Life is the best and only choice!" People in the Bay Area believe that Walk for Life's message is incorrect - that women should have the right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy- and that the Walk for Life should be countered in the streets of San Francisco on January 22nd. The SF Board of Supervisors has declared that January 22nd will be Stand Up for Choice Day

Walk for Life: On Saturday, January 22, there will be speakers at 11am at Justin Herman Plaza, with the walk beginning at 12pm, and an "Information Faire" at the end of Walk at Marina Green.

Pro-Choice Plans for the Weekend of January 22nd:

• Voices from the Alley was performed on Friday, January 21st, beginning at 7pm in Osage Alley in San Francisco. There was a staged reading of “Voices From the Alley”, a Living Newspaper that tells the stories of women who survived illegal abortions. Afterwards there was a candlelit procession in honor of women who died from illegal abortions, walking to the Women’s Building. Enemy Combatant Radio with an organizer
• The San Francisco Area Pro-Choice Coalition is calling for a demonstration: January 22nd, 10 AM Rally at Powell and Market, in San Francisco (Powell Street BART Station), with an 11am march to the Embarcadero. (Flyer in English and Spanish) Contingents: Bike Rally | Militant Anti-Fascist Bloc
• The counter-demonstration continues at the Aquatic Park near Ft. Mason at 1 p.m.: A Day of Action for Womens Lives
• The play Jane: Abortion and the Underground will have a one-night only appearance at the Brava Theater on January 22nd. The 8pm performance will be followed by a panel discussion about the current threats to legal abortion in the United States and the future of the reproductive rights movement.
• Another group is calling for a Day of Action to "Stand Up for Reproductive Justice! Stop the Anti-Choice Right wing!, beginning with the 10am Rally at Powell and Market, continuing with lining the right-wing march route, and then a counter demonstration to gather at 1pm at Aquatic Park (near Fort Mason). Check their website for information about meetings.

11/23/2004: The National Organization for Women reports that the new federal budget bill included a stealth provision to limit women's access to full health care. On Friday afternoon, After heated debate in Congress Saturday night, anti-abortion legislators bullied into law broad new limitations on women's reproductive health care. The "Federal Refusal Clause," which was slipped into the Omnibus Spending Bill, makes all health care providers eligible for federal monies — regardless of their unwillingness to provide a full-range of health care services for women. House and Senate Republicans added this language to the over 1,000 page spending bill late in the afternoon on Friday — too late for many legislators to be able to understand its implications before voting. The National Organization for Women sees this move as an attack and an attempt by the Republican leadership "to thank its right-wing base by surrendering hard-fought and often life-saving medical care options for women and girls."

According to NOW, the provision permits health care entities that refuse to provide abortion services, counseling or referrals (even in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the woman's life) to collect federal, state and local tax dollars. It overrules state and local regulations requiring full coverage for such services. Current federal law, previously aimed at protecting Roman Catholic doctors who do not want to undergo abortion training or perform abortions, now provides a farther-reaching 'conscience clause.' The new language expands the exemption to all health care providers, including hospitals, doctors, clinics, HMOs, and insurers that profess a corporate or individual objection to providing abortion or reproductive health services. A NOW representative said that "The wrath of the anti-abortion movement is going to send women back farther than the back alleys — we're heading toward the black market." The Feminist Majority quotes Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa saying that "he plans on forcing a vote next year to show support for Roe v Wade. 'I think it is time the women of American understand what is happening here,' Harkin said.

NOW reports that California Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer threatened to use procedural tactics to slow Senate debate in protest. Joining Boxer in defending women's health care against the Republican leadership were Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Wash. A compromise was eventually reached with Senate Majority Bill Frist, R-Tenn., after he promised to schedule a vote on the abortion provision when Congress meets next spring. It seems unlikely, however, that this provision will be overturned, since it takes many more votes to repeal an existing law than to prevent original passage.

NARAL Pro-Choice America pointed out today that the Omnibus Spending Bill will worsen conditions that lead to women needing to get abortions: Title X, the nation's cornerstone family-planning program for low-income women, continues to be inadequately funded. This program reduces unintended pregnancies and makes abortion less necessary. Scientifically unproven "abstinence only" programs received a $30 million increase; three times that of Title X. These programs censor discussion of contraception's health benefits and leave teens ill-equipped to protect themselves against pregnancy and disease. Language that would have restored previously canceled funds to the United Nations Fund for Population Assistance (UNFPA) was stripped from the omnibus. UNFPA provides reproductive-health care, including family-planning services but NOT abortion, to the world's poorest women. For each of the last three years, President Bush has cancelled all funding for this vital program. Senate language that would have repealed the "global gag rule" was taken out of the omnibus legislation. This policy, which was signed by President Bush on his first business day in office, prohibits the US Agency for International Development (USAID) from granting family- planning funds to any overseas health clinic unless it agrees not to use its own, private, non-U.S. funds for abortion services, advocacy, or counseling. Read More

Indybay would have covered this story sooner if more information had been clear during the weekend- even now media reports seem to indicate that either: the bill has been passed; or the bill has been passed but the Federal Refusal Clause will be reconsidered in the spring; or that the bill has either been passed or has not been passed, but it will be reconsidered this week because of a section that says that any individual or company's tax return can be reviewed by an Appropriations committee. The one thing is certain is that the President has not yet signed the Omnibus Spending Bill, so it is not yet a law. It is likely that there will be additional surprises like the Federal Refusal Clause and the tax provision, since the entire omnibus was so large and was voted upon so quickly.
Democracy Now Report

A verdict has been reached in the death of Laci Peterson and the fetus that she was carrying. Her husband, Scott Peterson, has been found guilty of first degree murder of Laci and second-degree murder in the death of "their unborn son Conner" in December of 2002. (Case details from the Modesto Police) The first-degree conviction, which carries as a potential sentence either the death penalty or life without parole, meant that jurors believe Peterson planned the killing. The second-degree murder conviction did not require a finding of premeditation and carries a potential sentence of 15 years to life for each count. The bodies of Laci and the fetus were discovered in the San Francisco Bay near Berkeley. Women's and pro-choice advocates were appalled when the 7 1/2-month gestation fetus was given a name and referred to as their unborn son- this was part of the atmosphere that led to the passage and signing by President George W. Bush of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. Analysis from a Peace and Freedom Party Voter

The 2004 election in Berkeley included a proposition about decriminalizing prostitution in that city. Unofficial results as of November 12, 2004 indicate that the measure has not passed. Measure Q would: Show support from the people of Berkeley for repealing laws prohibiting or regulating private consensual adult sexual activity in California . The City Council would then be directed to lobby in favor of the repeal of these laws. The ordinance would require a semi-annual report from the Berkeley Police Department regarding all prostitution law enforcement activities. Enforcement of existing prostitution laws would, proponents hoped, remain a "lowest priority" for the Berkeley Police Department.

Some of the benefits that supporters of the measure believe would have come from its passage included: less violence against women; fewer convictions, leading to increased options such as education for sex workers; and possible promotion of similar measures in surrounding cities, such as Oakland and San Francisco. Measure Q was also called "Angel's Initiative," after Angel Lopez, a transgender prostitute who was murdered in San Francisco in 1993. More info on SWOP's website
Berkeley Daily Planet Opinion Against Prop. Q
Past Indybay Coverage of the Sex Workers Outreach Project