Moving Through the Pain

By Nicole Walker

Movement.

The ability to wrap your arms around someone you love, to run to someone you haven’t seen in a period of time, to smile and laugh at the best days of your life, to see the most beautiful of scenes and to be independent. These actions may seem ordinary, but to someone who suffers from Multiple Sclerosis, commonly known as MS, they are extraordinary and every smile, footstep and hug is made with the knowledge that it could be the last.

Moving is not a guarantee and last year my family was reminded of that when my mom began complaining about not being able to see out of one of her eyes. After being seen by a physician, there was a possibility that she could have MS. After further testing, that possibility quickly changed to a reality.

Although the vision loss was temporary, the disease that is and will continue to attack her is permanent and proceeding. Currently my mom is 45 years old and relies fully on a walker to get her around and is medicated everyday, but she finds the strength to smile at every chance she gets.

Our bodies are in constant motion--moving information from the brain to the body. But, MS stops people from moving by attacking the myelin that protects normal nerve tissue. This damage keeps people from living smoothly, both inside and out.

When she was diagnosed, I was 18 years old, selfish and rarely ever home. I distanced myself even further from my mom and the realistic nature of her condition after I learned the extent of it. I became independent and for what I couldn’t handle, I relied on my older sister for.

My sister and I rarely discussed our home life with people around us, nor did we alone with one another. In our minds, if it was unspoken it wasn’t real. Being in denial made it simple to distract myself with my last month of my senior year in high school.

When graduation came around, reality set in. After the ceremony the parents of the new graduates come down to the field for pictures, hugs and memories in the making. I got up from my chair after the diplomas were handed out, looked around and felt so alone while hundreds of people surrounded me.

I stood, alone until my sister and some of our extended family made it out onto the field to congratulate me. I was grateful and happy they did, but behind that smile captured in a series of photos, I wanted to cry. My mom couldn’t come down to the field because she couldn’t walk. My step-dad, who has been the main father figure in my life, couldn’t come down either because he had to take my mom to the car.

I never got my graduation picture with my parents, and although some people don’t see the importance of it, it represented what could potentially turn into my life without my mom—alone. This realization made me question my life, my career path and my choice to move six hours away to attend Chico State in the fall.

Everything felt to be falling apart and emotionally my mom wasn’t strong enough to be there, or so I thought. I was afraid to share my feelings about her disease with her, the person I had shared every fear, dream and heartbreak with for as long as I remember. I had to be strong for her and the only way I knew how was to move on and go about life as if I had planned.

I made the six -hour move up California to Chico State. Once again, my mom nor step-dad could be there because doctors didn’t think it was smart for my mom to ride in a car that long.

Although my aunt, uncle, sister and grandma filled in the gap and helped me move, I still had that familiar feeling of being alone. Although the feeling was familiar, I never and still haven’t adapted to it.

I struggled my whole freshman year in college while my mom suffered her whole first year with MS. With distance between us, we grew apart and I found myself in positions where I needed my mom more than anything.

I stayed in on parent weekends and always resented those who got baked goods from their moms. As the year went on, I distanced myself a great deal from my mom and home life while focusing on school, switching my major from biology to journalism and getting involved in every aspect of campus.

Summer came, and I left Chico. Not to go home like the rest of my friends, but instead I spent my entire summer in Florida with my aunt, uncle and cousin. Some would call it running away, but it was a chance for me to catch my breath, find out who I was and wanted to be. I realized how much I had changed from the careless, free spirited young woman I was to the person I had become. I became afraid of living my life, while my mom was fighting an ongoing battle for hers.

Currently I am 19 years old and into my second year at Chico State. I work, have an internship and write for the school newspaper in addition to taking classes. I keep myself busy and I still feel as if I am attempting to distract myself.

As time has gone by, I have developed a close relationship with my mom. Although I have not fully accepted the full realities of her disease, I have begun to return the favor of her strength as a mother who has made me who I am today. Although we have distance apart and my step-dad is her sole caregiver, I want my strength for her to shine through.

I want her to know that no matter how far I go, she and I will remain mother and daughter and I will always view her as a strong woman even without the physical strength that MS will take away from her.

My mom complains about the pain, the numbing of limbs, loss of balance, blurred vision and memory loss. She has difficulty understanding and conversing with people. However, she is still the beautiful, strong willed, feisty, determined woman who birthed me and has been through more than many could ever imagine.

MS has impacted my family greatly, my step-dad has dedicated his life to taking care of my mom, my sister had to mature and take the roll in raising me. But, they have all shown great strength throughout this journey. I, on the other hand, have finally began to realize that I may have had my world turned upside down when my mom got diagnosed with MS, but her world was taken over and replaced with and life of full dependence on others and the unknown of what will come in the future.

On April 16, 2011, I will be leading my team, Walk it Out Chico State, in the fight against MS. We will walk in support of the National MS Society that addresses the challenges of each person affected by MS by funding cutting-edge research, driving change through advocacy, facilitating professional education, collaborating with MS organizations around the world, and providing programs and services designed to help people with MS and their families move their lives forward.

There are 400,000 Americans living with MS today. Money raised at Walk MS funds groundbreaking research and innovative programs and services to help people living with MS fight the battle. Currently, there is no cure for multiple sclerosis, and with a diagnosis occurring most frequently between the ages of 20 and 50, many individuals face a lifetime filled with unpredictability.

MS is not going anywhere without our support for the fight against this ongoing battle. I may be hours away from my mom, but I have grown to appreciate her and cherish every moment with her as time goes by. This walk is just one way to represent my gratitude toward such an inspiring woman who has never once gave up on me and I plan to never give up on her.

Because mom, I will walk forever for you.

For more information on how to get involved with Walk MS and joint Walk it Out Chico State please visit the following website, http://main.nationalmssociety.org/site/TR?px=9233383&pg=personal&fr_id=16486

Victim Blaming in NYTimes

By Daniella Galaviz

In a New York Times article, entitled “Vicious Assaults Shakes Texas Town” by James C. McKinley, McKinley goes as far as blaming an 11 year old girl for a sexual attack made against her.  The article begins by speaking about the boys future “the boys have to live with this the rest of their lives” but what about the victim? Five of the suspects were in high school, one was a 21 year old son of a school board member, a few have criminal records that range from selling drugs to robbery, and in one case, manslaughter. The ages range from middle schoolers to a 27- year old.  These “boys” knew what they were doing. This11 year old girl, however, is not old enough to consent.

Victim blaming is holding the victim of a crime or any type of abusive maltreatment to be responsible for the transgressions committed against them. In this case an 11 year old girl was brutally assaulted. The assault took place after a 19 year old man invited the victim to ride around in his car, he took her to a house where another man, 19, lived.  There the girl was disrobed and sexuality assaulted by several boys in the bedroom and bathroom. When a relative of one of the suspects arrived, the group fled and went to an abandoned mobile home, where the assault continued. There the assault was recording and later shown to other students (McKinley, 2011).

McKinley goes on to state that the 11 year old girl had been seen wearing provocative clothes, and make-up, not suited for her age but rather for a woman in her 20s. Even though this child, might wear provocative clothes it does not mean that others have the right to sexually assault them. The word provocative is defined as “Serving or tending to provoke, excite, or stimulate” according to Merriam-Webster. This young girl didn't intentionally or willingly try to “provoke” or “excite” these men. No women who has been sexually assaulted tries to provoke their attackers into committing such a crime.

In the article, “Did the New York Times Blame the 11 Year Old Victim of a Texas Gang Rape?” by Andrea Grimes, Grimes mentions how irrelevant stating that an 11 year old wearing make-up was. Grimes states that McKinley, a graduate of Cornell University, should have known better than to print this information in a national news article. By printing how some people perceived an 11-year-old child to dress in a sultry, sexy way doesn’t give readers information they need – which is the fact that this is a horrible thing that happened in our society. Writing about how people in the community thought about the boys' welfare rather than the girl's perpetuates rape culture not only within the small community itself in Texas, but all over the nation. It gives those who want one an excuse to dismiss the behavior of 18 men who have been suspected of gang-raping an 11-year-old girl.

When a woman, in this case a child, is raped or sexually molested society always questions the victim rather than facing the actual culprit and investigating why they did it or how they could have committed such a crime. Society instead blames the victim with common ideas like “if she hadn't been wearing clothes like that..” or “she was asking for it” or “she shouldn't have been walking around that late.” It is sickening that society even questions what a woman must have done to provoke sexual assault. Instead of blaming the victim, society should look at the real problem, the perpetrator.

Now, to be fair, the NYTimes publication did come out and tried to re-examine the article, breaking it down into sections and pinpointing certain pieces that proved that the original author didn't mean to victim blame. However, they still use the same type of language as in the first article, "These elements, creating an impression of concern for the perpetrators and an impression of a provocative victim, led many readers to interpret the subtext of the story to be: she had it coming." Now, they did try to explain themselves and said that they were simply giving an insight into the community that was questioning the lack of supervision that left this young child at risk. This still puts blame on the victim's family when there should be investigation into the perpetrators family, the way they were raised, and how they lured such a young girl into this situation. 

The article continues, trying to clean up it's language and tone, "Philip Corbett, standards editor for The Times, told me earlier today that the story focused on the reaction of community residents and that there was no intent to blame the victim. He added, “I do think in retrospect we could have done more to provide more context to make that clear.”" This is something that the NYTimes and our patriarchal society needs to work on in general. I think they were woken up to this incident and rightfully so. 

Ohio's Proposed Heartbeat Bill

By Sarah Mann

The issue of abortion rights has been at a new height over the past few weeks. Abortion rights activism has been one of the leading social issues of our generation and recently in Ohio there has been a new twist in the potential for state restriction of this federal right.

House bill 125 or the “heartbeat bill” was set forth by Ohio Republican Rep. Lynn Wachtmann in February to ban abortions once a heartbeat is detectable on an ultrasound.  As of right now there is no specific timeline regarding how many days along a woman must be in her pregnancybefore this restriction might take place, but it is known that as early as 18 days a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

Since 1973, the Roe v. Wade case decision brought legal abortion to all women in the United States, and this heartbeat bill is by far the most aggressive challenge since its passage.       

Prior to researching more about abortion laws and rights, I have to admit I was a bit confused as to how legislators in Ohio could essentially overturn this 1973 Supreme Court decision to legalize abortions.  Then I realized it was because they justified this bill as a restriction to an abortion. 

Although abortions are technically legal in all 50 states, many states have made them more difficult to obtain than others. Many states have demanded mandatory ultrasounds, parental consent if underage and even a 72 hour waiting period prior to an abortion, but no restriction as gone as far as Ohio.

During the case on March 2, two Ohio women, both supporters of the bill, took the stand and had ultrasounds preformed on their 9 week and 15 week old fetuses. Controversy over the depiction of these women who are suppose to, in effect, represent all women in Ohio, was conveyed by Kellie Copeland, spokesperson for NARAL Pro-Choice in Ohio.

"They were used as props, and women are not props. Women are citizens and we deserve the right to protect or have them to make their own decisions.  I don't think Lynn Wachtmann or anybody else should be able to make decisions for every woman which is exactly what they're trying to do."

Since Republicans control all aspects of Ohio state's government, it is likely that this bill will in fact pass.  The United States Supreme Courtonce again has a conservative edge with John Roberts as its Chief Justice.  If the Ohio law were to be appealed to the Supreme Court, it may be upheld.   

When looking into any critical social controversy I like to look to both sides and see why people see things so differently.  And when watching a video on www.heartbeatbill.com, a woman emphatically asks for support on the bill and discusses the need for defenders for unborn fetuses.

 What I have interpreted from many pro-life activists is that it’s pro-life v. pro-abortion, and I don’t believe this is really the case.

 I consider myself pro-choice, not because I agree with the procedure of abortion, but with the choice its gives us.  The bottom line, for me anyways, is that there simply has to be the option, the choice, the opportunity because if that’s taken away from us we all know the procedures certainly won’t stop, they will just get dangerous and unsafe.

I believe this is what all the pro-life activists aren’t addressing.  That is the real issue.  It’s not that I, as a pro-choice supporter, believe that terminating a pregnancy is good or ok, but I understand that taking away the option to abort a fetus will only lead back to the dangerous road of back alley abortions and unsafe conditions.

For an update, check out the Jezebel article!

Roe V. Wade Economics

By Kate Finegold

Roe v. Wade, a landmark Supreme Court case from 1973 that made abortions legal in the U.S., has most definitely brought about pivotal improvements in the lives of women. Some of which are more obvious than others. By declaring that abortion is included in a woman’s guarantee of privacy under the 14^th Amendment, the abortion procedure was brought into the public arena to be regulated and standardized, making it less risky for women and also not as taboo a subject. Now that women can go to a licensed doctor and have their operation in a sterile hospital room, instead of being forced to seek out a “back alley butcher”, the complications and deaths associated with abortions has dropped to just below 0.3%. Before Roe v. Wade, 50% of maternal deaths were a result of illegal abortions. Now, abortion is 11 times safer than giving birth, a statistic that really drove home for me how important to women’s safety legalizing abortion has been (for more statistics, go to NOW).

Other societal benefits that can be attributed to the Roe v. Wade ruling are less apparent. Economist Steven Levitt believes that the legalization of abortion in the 70’s led to the substantial crime drop that occurred in the 1990s. Crime rates in the eighties were on the rise, and most people expected another spike to occur in the following decade. But what happened instead was a 30% decrease. Explanations for the sudden change included more innovation policing methods, harsher sentencing of criminals, a crack-down on the crack market, tighter gun control, a strong stable economy and more police. But based on Levitt’s calculations, these factors only contributed to half of the decrease in crime. What other explanation could there be? Abortion. If it wasn’t an option for parents not ready to start families, there would be a lot more children born into the world whose parents weren’t in a position to give them the proper care and attention. The first wave of unplanned for kids born in the seventies would be the prime age for crime in the nineties, but since they were never born, crimes they may have grown up to have committed didn’t happen. Thus the drop in overall crime activity, according to Levitt.

When I at first watched a FreakEnomics YouTube video about Levitt’s findings, I wasn’t buying it. In the heated debate still surrounding abortion, Levitt’s argument would definitely add ammo to the pro-choice side. Because let’s be honest, politicians, and most people for that matter, care most about and focus most on money. So an argument that shows that we could save dollars on law enforcement by having people police themselves with abortions could persuade a lot of folks to join the pro-choice side. While such an argument is indeed persuasive, is it true? I remember from a former statistics class to be wary that apparent correlation does not always mean causation. It seemed so far-fetched to me that I thought it was a farce, but then I researched the various effects of Roe v. Wade and what Levitt is saying began to make a lot more sense.

Children born to families that planned on having them are usually raised in a more caring environment. Mothers with unwanted births have a harder time forming a healthy relationship with their child; they spank and slap their children more often, according to a study posted on Planned Parenthood’s website. In addition, children born after 1973 in states that are pro-choice are less likely to be born in single-parent households, live in poverty or receive welfare. Hence, the option for legal, safe abortion that Roe v. Wade has made possible gives women the freedom to choose when they are ready to start a family, and when they are in the best position in their lives to do so. Although it is sad to think about children being neglected and mistreated because they weren’t “wanted”, it is more uplifting to think that less children are being born into this situation since the legalization of abortion, and that our entire society is benefiting from this in the form of less crime. 

Kappa Sigma Email "Targets" Women

by Nikki Allair

Clearly, feminism is still needed in this world. No matter what one person tells me, I will always stand beside my feminist ideals and especially during times like these.

Recently, the USC Kappa Sigma fraternity sent out an e-mail explaining how to target women as sexual conquests. Women in this context aren't real humans. If you think I'm joking or going overboard, read the e-mail that was sent out. The fraternity brother has been quoted as saying, “Note: I will refer to females as "targets". They aren't actual people like us men. Consequently, giving them a certain name or distinction is pointless.” He doesn't even give her vagina any credit (even though that's the only part these fraternity brothers should care about, right?). He calls it a “pie”. Something to be eaten, to be bought, to have brought to you, to be served to.

The woman clearly has no agency and has no part that is even remotely female (not even her title). She is placed in a ranking system by comparison to celebrities who are airbrushed. If a brother gets even close to this he “should be lynched”. Lynching is something that is racially charged and was a tactic used to scare other African Americans in the deep south from pursuing any avenue that deals with getting ahead in life. It was used by white supremacists. This shouldn't be something taken lightly or joked about.

Cheating seems to be something that is taken lightly with these men. What if someone they deeply cared about (say a 7 or better known as “wife material”) cheated on them? Oh but they're men … they can take it like they dish it out, right?

Another thing not to joke about is rape. Rape is such an emotionally charged word and one that can affect not just women in particular, but also men.

“Non-consent and rape are two different things. There is a fine line, so make sure not to cross it.” Let's get one thing clear; not receiving consent for a sexual act one is about to commit is rape. Don't think that just because she's too drunk, too drugged out, or is too scared to actually say no means that the person can move forward without asking for consent. Consent needs to be coherent and it needs to be sober.

The descriptions of the “pies” here are not only racist, but also very creepy. If someone were to describe me (and particularly my vagina) by a type of pastry, I would be very freaked out. I don't want anyone eating my vagina like a piece of desert. It doesn't taste like pie so don't treat it like that. Treat it like you're supposed to – with respect.

This idiot also thought that it was smart to tell his fraternity brothers to not “fuck middle-eastern targets. Exhibit some patriotism and have some pride. You want your cock smelling like falafel? Filth.” I keep thinking we're past this specific racist ideology, but I guess not. Racism like this leaves a gross taste in my mouth. I have no other words other than that … they can speak for themselves.

Luckily the authorities at USC have described this as “repulsive”, “ridiculous”, and “insulting”. These words can't even begin depict my facial expression while reading this e-mail.

It sucks that all that I know about fraternities is negative press. They really need to get back to their foundations and start regulating those who are ruining the image of fraternities and the Greek system in general. 

My First Take Back the Night Will Not Be My Last

by Kaitlyn Azevedo 

Wow, where do I even begin?? Take Back the Night was so awesome, I can only help but feel like we touched and impacted so many people by putting on this event. This semester, I am not only lucky to be an intern, but I was on the TBTN committee as well. This was super cool because I had never been to a Take Back the Night before, and so putting it together and getting to see it turn out so well was really special.

Although it only lasted for three hours, I learned how much effort, time, and detail really go into the coordination and preparation in order to make the event run as smoothly as it did. Having an experienced mentor such as Kerrie also helped, as she was able to guide us new interns, and teach us the ropes of putting together TBTN.

During class talks and tabling I could see the different reactions people would have regarding the focal point of Take Back the Night. There were tons of people who said they wanted to come and were interested in what the event is about, while others wanted nothing to do with it. This struck me as interesting, and just further exemplifies the need for education regarding the frequency of sexual assault, domestic violence, and rape. It was also empowering to see people come who were initially hesitant about the event, but still stretched their boundaries.

We had two great days of tabling; there was a wide spread variety of organizations that came, and lots of interest was shown by people passing by. I felt like these two days were a great way to kick off the event, and to have interaction between the campus community and some of the clubs.

Another awesome thing to add to an already wonderful event, was the fact that our event was used for a movie! The anthropology professor Jesse Dizzard and a fellow student are making a documentary regarding people's knowledge of sexual assault, and to further educate and enlighten people of its prevalence. They took footage of us tabling, the speech that our keynote speaker Kate Transchel gave, as well as the actual march. I also had the experience of being interviewed for the film, which was really cool. I think the subject of their movie goes hand-in-hand with our Take Back the Night, and was so glad they were able to catch our event on camera. Now, hopefully, our message can be passed even further along.

Before Tuesday night, I was really anxious to see how many people were going to come make posters during tabling, how much the Toms we were going to be auctioned for, and ultimately, how many people would show up. As a student, I know it can be intimidating or uncomfortable to go to club's events for the first time (which could potentially be the reason I hadn't attended TBTN until Tuesday) but that night we had a really great turn out of people, including returners and first-timers alike. The overall energy of the event was really powerful, and it was clear to see that the people who came out to participate were there for one main reason: to end violence against people!

I am so grateful I not only attended Take Back the Night, but being able to help administer and facilitate this amazing event was something I will always remember. There were a lot of firsts during this experience, but now that I've put my foot in the door, I plan on Taking Back Many more Nights!

History of Take Back the Night

by Jessica Arriaga

The anxiety women feel when walking alone at night, the potential fear that they can radiate the body, the danger people say “they are putting themselves in,” and the fact that a women simply cannot feel safe when the sun goes down are all reasons why Take Back the Night began

According to takebackthenight.org the first Take Back the Night in the United States occurred in October of 1975 in Philadelphia. People partook in the event after Susan Alexander Speeth, a young microbiologist was stabbed and murdered while walking home alone. The first Take Back the Night to take place over seas happened in Brussels, Belgium March 4-8 in 1976. In Belgium the event was huge, two thousand women representing 40 countries attended. Both in Philadelphia and in Belgium there was a candlelit progression; these were the first documented Take Back the Night Marches

In Europe the event is called Reclaiming the Night and it started in Rome in 1976. The reported 16,ooo rapes that year are what fueled Reclaim the Night, that is a lot of women, a lot of individuals that were affected by violence. This brings me to the point that rape does not solely affect the individual but also affects so many people associated with the victim. From Rome, the event took place in Germany, on April 30 1977, which was a place where women suffered constant harassment both during the day and at night. This important movement began to grow and become acknowledged, and the next city to hold the event was Leeds, England in November of 1977. Leeds put on the event in response to many, many women being attacked, raped, and killed. These women were all prostitutes, but that was not a welcome to violence against them

Australia and India also began putting on Reclaim the Night events. Australia’s events first aimed to raise awareness against abortion and contraception. In Bombay, India after a pregnant woman was gang raped women put on a Reclaim the Night in March of 1978

In New York, the first march for women was held in 1976 and it was not until 1977 that the slogan “Take Back the Night” was brought to light by a woman named Anne Pride. In 1978 San Franciscans put on a Take Back the Night in protest to pornography, which I find interesting being that so many of us see this event used to mainly protest violence usually of a sexual nature against women. In Canada, The Canadian Association of Sexual Assault Centers declared the third Friday of September the official evening for Take Bake the Night marches nationwide

For over 30 years women have been speaking out at these Take Back the Night events attempting to combat and raise awareness of violence against women. The event seeks to eliminate all forms of sexual violence. Thousands of colleges, universities, Women’s Centers and rape crisis centers have sponsored these events all over the country, and the AS Women Center is extremely proud to be one of those organizations

Please come and join us Tuesday night for our spring Take Back the Night Event! We will be tabling both Monday and Tuesday morning. On Tuesday at 7:30pm The Women only Survivor speak out will take place and the Gender Inclusive Workshop will be going on simultaneously. We encourage women to come tell their stories, read a poem, or anything they feel comfortable sharing. The Gender Inclusive Workshop will cover bystander awareness, how we perpetuate rape culture in our society and tips on how to combat it. At 8:30 the Keynote address will be given by Kate Transchel who is a professor in the History Department on campus and has done extensive research on sex trafficking. Following the keynote will be a silent candle-lit march at 9:00pm. This event is extremely empowering and strives to promote change. So please come out and support the cause.

Planned Parenthood: Contact Your Congressperson

by Trina Walker  & Lisa Ricchio

As most people probably know by now, or at least should know, there is an amendment which has passed the House of Representatives and is on its way to the Senate, called the Pence Amendment. The Pence Amendment would strip Planned Parenthood and 102 affiliated organizations of all federal funding which includes money for contraception, cancer screening, STD testing and treating, education, family planning counseling, and much more. This Amendment would cut off 48% of Planned Parenthood patients, which is approximately 1.4 million people. Planned Parenthood and other organizations like it have provided many resources to women and men across the country for decades; I know I have personally taken advantage of the services offered, as have many of my peers. What is interesting about this amendment is that it seeks to defund Planned Parenthood because it provides abortion services to its patients. However, only 3% of Planned Parenthood services are abortions and none of the federal money Planned Parenthood receives is used for abortions. The Pence Amendment is just another attempt to push anti-choice legislation onto citizens in an effort to take away a woman’s right to choose guaranteed in 1973 under Roe v. Wade. One important step citizens can take to make sure this amendment does not pass the Senate is to contact their elected officials whether by phone call, email, or letter.

Keeping in contact with elected officials is one of the best ways people can make sure their voices are being heard and that their representatives are actually doing the will of their constituents. It is an easy process to find out contact information for Congressional members. One can easily type into Google “Congressional Directory” and find the government site which provides information on any and all Congressional members, even which elected officials represent them in the House and Senate. There is also a U.S. Capitol switchboard number to call (202) 224-3121, if constituents prefer, where one can be connected to the office of their representative and speak directly to a staff member. With all these resources available at our fingertips there is no excuse to not let our voices be heard in regards to the Pence Amendment. We need to call, write and email our representative and let them know how we feel about this outrageous attack on reproductive services. Without funding to Planned Parenthood and similar organizations, they will not be able to provide the important services which help so many women and men. We need to let our Senators know that we want them to vote NO on the Pence Amendment, and we need to contact our House members and find out how they voted on this bill, (if we don’t know already) and let them know, if we agree with that vote or not. This is the motivation behind what the AS Women’s Center is doing in its next three tabling events. We will be providing students with access to sign the pledge against this amendment, as well as showing students how to get in contact with their representatives.

If the bill passes the Senate, which is a doubtful prediction in the Democratic led Senate, it will go on to the President for signing. If he vetoes the bill it will go back to the House where it can be overruled with a 2/3 majority. We cannot afford to be silent, we need to take action.

Help Save Planned Parenthood! Contact your Lawmakers now!! 

DOMA and the Repeal Reaction

by Kate Finegold

President Obama’s policy reversal of the 1996 Defense Against Marriage Act (DOMA) last Wednesday is both “a victory” and one big step in the right direction says Dan Choi, a gay rights activist who is known for his discharge from the military under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

By finding DOMA unconstitutional, the Justice Department no longer has to defend the act in federal court. This is significant, considering that there are currently two cases challenging the legality of DOMA being heard in the federal court system. Although Section 3 of DOMA still stands, laws that curb the rights of same-sex couples will now have to satisfy a higher level of scrutiny in the courts.

Put into effect during the Clinton administration, DOMA states that the federal government will not recognize same-sex marriages and that states won’t be forced to acknowledge same-sex marriages from other states. The part of the law that’s been most contested in recent court cases is Section 3, which makes unavailable federal tax returns and other federal spousal benefits to same-sex couples.

In discussing his reasons for supporting DOMA, Attorney General Eric Holder observed that the legal climate towards the issue of homosexuality has changed over the last 15 years, becoming much more progressive. Since DOMA was put into effect, laws criminalizing homosexual acts have been found unconstitutional and earlier this year Congress repealed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Lower courts have already for some time now been ruling that DOMA is not constitutional. Holder said that the Justice Department has for a long time now not seen the DOMA as “reasonable.”

Obama, who still does not support same-sex marriage but is open to the idea of civil unions, said that his reason for reversing the act is that it "contains numerous expressions reflecting moral disapproval of gays and lesbians and their intimate and family relationships - precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus the (Constitution's) Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against."

Obama realizes that these laws are an unjust treatment of a minority group, calling such policies as DOMA “unnecessary and unfair.” He commented that his view on gay marriage might change as current policy towards same-sex couples also changes and becomes more egalitarian.

While the Obama administration has in the last few months made an admirable attempt to recognize that homosexuals and those of a sexual minority have rights too by reversing both DOMA and the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell legislation, there is still a lot more to be done. While the end of DOMA is a good step forward, gay activists do have some criticism regarding how Obama went about winning the repeal. Activists including Choi say that the “the new stance would have been unequivocally historic if it were published in 2009 or 2010 as it could have then certainly fueled momentum for a full legislative repeal by a Democrat bicameral majority. It also would have saved many disappointments (including mine) if Obama and Holder used less rancid arguments about bestiality and gay inferiority in their incendiary DOJ DOMA briefs these past two years. Same goes for DADT appeals.” Yet, it is refreshing that at least the topic is finally deemed worthy of politicians’ attention, and it looks hopeful that this is just the beginning of more changes to come.