EdenSoy, Roots Bistro, and Constructive Next Steps

Was I outraged over the sign at Roots Bistro? You bet. Do I feel my energy was wasted sharing my outrage, or that I or others overreacted?

No. I’m a little stunned that my blog post has received over 9,000 hits so far, but when you consider how many people have been affected personally by domestic violence, it is not surprising at all. The outrage comes easy when the offense is so obvious.

I appreciate that the owner has recognized the error of his ways. Whether he’s sorry, or sorry he got caught, I don’t think this business will ever put up another sign making light of a very serious issue like domestic violence. I would like to see them start a genuine relationship with the Houston Area Women’s Center, which offers both workplace training about domestic and sexual violence, and opportunities to provide financial support.

If you, as a reader, want to do something constructive, you might make a contribution to HAWC in honor of Roots Bistro. They’ll get notified, you’ll be supporting survivors, and everyone will get the message that our community—citywide, nationwide, worldwide—believes we can all play a role in ending domestic violence.

What good has come of it publicizing it? Is there any way to look at what happened as constructive? I’m not entirely sure anyone at Roots Bistro feels that way yet, but I hope they get there. As it stands, more people have been brought into the conversation about the appropriate time and place for jokes, the appropriateness of joking about violent crime, the risks of delegating outward-facing business responsibilities, and the need for thinking twice in the internet age. I don’t buy the early arguments from the restaurant that they were trying to “bring awareness” to the issue of domestic violence, and it is clear that they didn’t consciously try to go viral being idiots and provoke healthy conversation that way. Ultimately, though, the backlash over their tone-deaf sign did trigger some honest conversation, awareness, and sensitivity that survivors are everywhere.

Will I ever eat there? Probably not, but I didn’t eat there before this happened. Do I think they need to be boycotted? Probably not, because I’m not sure that they are engaged in a systemic assault on common decency. Is it OK if you want to boycott them? Sure. You have the right, as I do, to patronize or not patronize any retail establishment out there.

By the way, I don’t hope they go out of business—an opinion that might change if they were to keep putting up offensive signs or otherwise treating people wrong. I suspect that if they do go out of business, this snafu might be blamed, but would wind up being one of many reasons. It is hard to run a successful restaurant.

Now, Eden Foods. Different story. The short version: claiming that birth control  ”procedures almost always involve immoral and unnatural practices,” and wanting to defend his religious beliefs, the CEO has filed a lawsuit against the new healthcare law.

This is someone who wants to impose his religious beliefs on all of us by changing policy and legislation through litigation. If he prevails, he gives other employers more leverage to claim that by offering medical insurance as part of an employee compensation package, they can dictate what kind of medical care employees can or cannot seek.

He has dug in on his position. He believes, and is entitled to believe, that he is right. From the Salon article linked above:

I asked him what he was hearing from customers about the lawsuit. ”As you can imagine we’re getting a lot of feedback,” Potter said delicately. Indeed, since the story, Eden Foods’ Facebook page has been inundated with complaints and boycott declarations. “Your company’s unfair, judgmental and misogynistic treatment of your employees has lost you yet another customer,” was a typical comment.

He did sound annoyed to be receiving emails telling him to stay out of people’s bedrooms. “I’m not in your bedroom,” he clarified. “Obama’s in your bedroom.”

Did he worry about the impact on his bottom line? “Oh my god,” he said, “from what we’ve seen the last couple of days, it’s a big deal.”

But he isn’t prepared to back off. “I worked my ass off at figuring out what to do on it. I worked hard on it and I made a decision,” he said. “The federal government has no right to do what they’ve done. No constitutional right, no standing.” Apparently, his apology only goes so far.

I say, boycott away.  This is not a thoughtless employee putting up a sign, and a manager not catching immediately that it is inappropriate. This is someone who is committed to enforcing his gender essentialist and religious beliefs on his employees, and, though his litigation, on the rest of us who stand to lose if his position is validated in court.

Because You Never Know When Adultery Will Inspire Great Art

My new favorite state representative, Jodie Laubenberg, (ha! not really!) got a mostly true from PolitiFact Texas on her complaint that state money is funding a show that glorifies adultery.

During floor debate, a Republican legislator complained that state expenditures on TV and film productions have extended to a long-running series celebrating cheating spouses.

Really?

Rep. Jodie Laubenberg of Parker initially asked a House colleague about his proposed amendment to the House version of the 2014-15 state budget.

Rep. Jeff Leach, R-Plano, said he sought to shift money from the state’s film and music marketing fund to teacher pensions. When last we wrote about the fund, overseen by the governor’s office, we noted the 2011 Legislature had agreed to spend $16 million each year to “market Texas as a film location and promote the Texas music industry,” according to the May 26, 2011, House-Senate conference committee report.

Laubenberg asked Leach: “Would you like me to give you a couple of examples of things being funded with this money?” At Leach’s go-ahead, Laubenberg replied: “How about ‘Bad Kids Go to Hell,’ ‘Cheaters,’ …a TV series on spouses cheating on their wives, kind of glorifying the act of cheating–yeah, entertainment for some, unless you’re the one cheated on.”

It turns out that state funds have subsidized the late-night caught-on-camera dramedy (drama for the people involved, comedy with a side of moralizing for the viewing audience) Cheaters.

Is using state funds to glorify adultery wrong? If you want to find a person who will put up a robust defense of this show, look elsewhere. And, let me say that if I had to make an either-or, the gun is pointed at the heads of one of these programs and one must die, I’d pick teacher pensions over film and music promotion.

I don’t think, however, that it is fair to pit those expenditures against each other quite so dramatically. The arts are a critical part of society, and promoting film and music in Texas is an investment that pays dividends not only in the creation and performance of some great art, but in the more prosaic arena of job creation.

If you need Exhibit A on how I can turn government funding for television with no nutritive value whatsoever into making the case that adultery can inspire great art, I give you the great Hayes Carll, with an assist from the fabulous Jesse Dayton, good Gulf Coast boys the both of them:

It is a video and song that only get better with repeat viewings/listenings. Something to ponder on a Monday morning!

Apologies: You’re Doing It Wrong (Roots Bistro Edition)

Update:
You can read my thoughts on Roots Bistro’s response to this whole situation. I hope you’ll also consider making a donation to the Houston Area Women’s Center in honor of Roots Bistro. It is a way for you to show your outrage over their insensitivity and help survivors of domestic violence who live in the Roots community. I think everyone would love for this sign to trigger some constructive, positive action, and a donation seems just the thing!

Original post:
This sign went up at Roots Bistro in Houston:

As you might imagine, it did not go over well. People called to complain, and a news crew even showed up to do a story.

Did they apologize? Well …

And a report from someone who called in to complain:

I just called. The (shift?) manager did this with their sign intentionally in a misguided attempt to draw *attention* to the issue of domestic violence. He said they’ve donated food and money to fight against domestic violence for a long time.

It was taken down “immediately,” in response to complaints.

They also said that it’s going to be covered on Channel 2 News tonight.

I shared my opinion that it was abhorrent and ill-conceived, but that i would share what he told me about their intentions on Facebook.

As another friend said, wanting to “draw attention” to an issue doesn’t give you license to be offensive. Or plain stupid, I would add.

The next sign to go up? An apology? A we’re sorry? Well …

The tone of this sign, needless to say, doesn’t suggest genuine contrition so much as ‘get over it, ladeez, we’re just making a joke, so focus on what really matters, ‘mkay?’

Apologize. Here’s how you do it. I’m sorry. It was offensive and harmful. It was wrong of us to put it up. We will institute policies and procedures to make sure we do not do something like this again, and we will make sure that all who were involved with putting it up understand why it was wrong to do so.

I’m pretty sure Roots Bistro has now lost the benefit of doubt with most people who see this.

Top Twelve Most Outrageous Moments from the HB 2364 Testimony in Texas

The Texas House of Representatives State Affairs Committee [or what was left of it after a long day of testimony about airport scanners that can see you nekkid, fireworks, and whether abortion causes breast cancer (spoiler: it doesn't, but the State of Texas will lie to you about that)], heard testimony Wednesday of this week on HB 2364, relating to abortion at or after 20 weeks post-fertilization.

HB 2364 would ban abortions at 20 weeks, allegedly because that is the point at which fetuses can feel pain. The only credible peer-reviewed studies on fetal pain suggest that fetuses might be able to experience pain* in the third trimester, which begins in the 27th week, not the 20th.

These are some—some—of the most outrageous things that happened during testimony. Twelve is an arbitrary cut-off, which you will understand if you read the live-tweet history of the hearing in this Storify from @quicksilvre.

1. As Rep. Laubenberg (R-Parker, which is near Plano) laid out the bill, Rep. Farrar (D-Houston) asked for clarification on how gestational age was being calculated, to which Rep. Laubenberg could only respond “post-fertilization.” If it doesn’t make sense to you, don’t worry. It clearly didn’t make sense to anyone else in the room, including Rep. Laubenberg.

2. When the date of the last menstrual period, commonly abbreviated LMP, came up in the discussion about how gestational age is calculated (which is relevant when you are talking about banning a procedure at a specific week), everyone started apologizing about talking about LMP in front of the boys. Meaning the grown men on the committee, who surely understand basic reproductive biology by now, right? I mean, they are in the legislature. Laubenberg: “I’m trying to be sensitive with the men in here.” Farrar: “You brought the subject up, so we are going to discuss it.”

3. Laubenberg went on to explain that women rarely know, really, when the date of their last menstrual period is, saying, among other things, that not many women really use a calendar. She wrings her hands and suggests that it is one big mystery. So, we can measure fetal pain at 20 weeks, but we can never, ever know when LMP or conception happens, except that it happens “post-fertilization” or something. Again, if you are confused, you should’ve heard Laubenberg.

4. The first witness, an ob/gyn from Austin, Patrick Nunnelly, was positioned as the anti-choice/Laubenberg expert witness. He actually then said, several times during his testimony, that he is not an expert on this. As @quicksilvre and several others point out, when your expert explains that he’s not an expert, you’re doing it wrong.

5. Dr. Nunnelly called fetuses “vulnerable citizens who have no voice.” Show me the founding fathers’ document conferring the legal status of citizen on fetuses, please? Yeah, I thought so.

6. Another ob/gyn suggested forcing women to carry non-viable pregnancies to full term, instead of giving them the option to terminate, so those fetuses can be used for organ harvesting. Yes. She thought that would be a great option for women who didn’t want to be pregnant.

7. An anesthesiologist who flew in from Phoenix, Arizona, was the next expert on fetal pain. Except he’s never actually conducted or published any studies, or participated in any fetal surgery, so again, we suspect that some people may be unclear on exactly what constitutes an expert. Well, he’s observed some surgery. Oh, great. He also suggested that peer-review isn’t the only standard for evaluating medical research, because he’s in a journal club. Is that like peer-review, but with wine and kicky shoes?

Could they not find a doctor from Texas with any expertise in this area? Because, you know, we do have a world-renowned medical center in Houston.

8. A former Oklahoma state legislator, who still lives and practices law in Oklahoma, testified that this law is just like the one they’ve got in Oklahoma, except the penalty in the Texas bill isn’t as harsh. In Oklahoma, the crime warrants a felony. Man up, Texas, he didn’t say, but was clearly dying to say. As @andreagrimes said, call me when Kevin Calvey is a pregnant Texan. And when he registers to vote here, I would add.

Who, by the way, is paying to fly witnesses in from out of state?

There’s a narrative that terrorists who attack abortion clinics are lone wolves, acting totally alone with no help, support, or encouragement from the larger movement. There’s now a parallel argument for fetal pain and other anti-abortion bills being proposed in state legislatures, just coincidentally at the same time, because suddenly everyone has spontaneous revelations about abortion. Trust me, those narratives are false. When witnesses are being flown in from other states, and the bills all pop up at the same time, you can bet there is a concerted effort to restrict rights and force a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

9.  During testimony, we heard about little critters, ducks, geese, grasshoppers, and kittens. And pudding. We also had a witness use a banana to demonstrate something about a fetus. It was odd.

10.  One witness told the story about the fetus who reached his hand out of the womb to shake the doctor’s hand during an abortion. As @fullfrontalfem pointed out, this is a story that has been definitively debunked. The photo was taken during fetal surgery performed  for a woman who was desperately trying to keep her pregnancy. The same witness also mentioned videos on YouTube as a great source for facts. 

11. Trying to one-up the YouTube cite, another witness points to the hard-hitting journalism of USA Today, which “exposed” the author of one study about abortion as being a medical director from an abortion clinic. This is like the argument that you don’t believe in career politicians. No one looks to citizen-cardiologists to do their cardiac stents, or weekend neurosurgeons to conduct brain surgery. It is hardly scandalous that a medical doctor who has performed abortions would participate in a medical study about abortion. It actually is a little scandalous when the only evidence you can cite refuting a peer-reviewed study from the JAMA is USA Today. 

12. Rep. Harless shared the fact that she and her husband, unable to conceive, tried for five years to adopt a baby, both in the states and abroad. She used this experience to suggest that women should be forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term because someone else might really, really want the baby.

This, to me, is one of the most offensive things that happened. If you want a baby, and you cannot have one, that is tragic. Adoption can be difficult and expensive. Still, there is no constitutional right to having an infant child, and no human or humane value that suggests you can force another person to act as your unwilling surrogate.

What of the children in foster care? What, exactly, are we to say of the people who claim they were unable to adopt a child, who clearly ignore the already-born but no longer infant children in foster care? Are people like Rep. Harless suggesting that they want some modicum of control over the terms of becoming a parent? That they want some children, but not other children? That perhaps they aren’t emotionally or financially able to care for an older child with special needs, but will only take a chance on parenting if they get a healthy infant?

It isn’t actually my right to question the terms under which Rep. Harless might or might not want to become a parent, but because she brought up her story in the context of denying that right to other Texas women, it seems relevant.

The best news of the night was that the bill was not voted out of committee, but was left as pending business. The women of Texas deserve better than arbitrary legislation that tries to subvert their right to choose whether or when to end a pregnancy. Women are more than empty vessels waiting to be filled up by fetuses. We are not life-support systems for uteruses. We are actualized, already-born citizens with actual rights, full stop.

*[It should be noted that "experience pain" is somewhat misleading, because pain, itself, cannot be objectively measured. Studies look at various physiological responses to stimuli that are similar to responses measured by the already-born who can express that they feel pain. Some studies, moreover, focus on the issue as it relates to anesthesia during in utero medical procedures other than abortion, and later in fetal development than 20 weeks.]

Make Emergency Contraception Available Over the Counter for All

Emergency contraception, also known as the morning after pill or by its brand name, Plan B, is currently available only with a prescription to people 16 and under.

Not for scientific reasons, mind you, nor because of medical concerns. Scientists at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommended that EC be made available over the counter, no prescription necessary, for all ages. Leading and very well-respected medical organizations including the American Medical Association, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics all agree.

In the face of overwhelming evidence of safety and efficacy, the U.S. Secretary Health and Human Services overruled the FDA recommendation. This was the first time a Secretary  ever publicly overruled the FDA. You can read what a federal judge had to say about the behavior in this article.

It is time to stop playing politics with reproductive health.

If contraception offends your religious beliefs or moral sensibilities, you are not obligated to use it. You can forgo it completely, but you cannot dictate the terms for anyone else.

Advocates for reproductive justice, reproductive rights, and reproductive health, join me. It is time to make a  safe, effective tool in the campaign to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies available to all who seek it.

Sign this petition to ask President Obama and his administration to make emergency contraception available, without a prescription and over the counter, to anyone who needs it.

Is Consent Part of What We Teach Children?

We’ll get a verdict in the Steubenville rape case on St. Patrick’s Day, in just two hours. The defense attorneys have provided their clients’ a robust defense, which is their constitutional right. That defense has been downright disgusting.

The attorney attempted to persuade the judge to let the boys off the hook because the victim “didn’t affirmatively say no,” and therefore, they could safely assume her consent.

If we applied this logic to any other aspect of our lives, it would be incumbent upon us to affirmatively tell the waiter we didn’t want dessert, because otherwise, the fact that we “didn’t affirmatively say no” to the tiramisu and carrot cake listed on the menu would obligate us to eat them and pay up at the end of the meal.

ONLY YES MEANS YES.

Maybe doesn’t mean yes, and most assuredly doesn’t mean yes. This is easy stuff,  y’all. You can teach it to your kindergarteners and they’ll get it.

Here’s a description of part of the trial today, March 16th:

The 16-year-old girl at the center of the rape trial of two Steubenville High School football stars said in court today that she has almost no memory of the events until she woke up on a basement couch – naked, scared and embarrassed.

She told the court it didn’t take long though to grow concerned about what happened to her as she became the topic of discussion on social media.

She also testified that she did not want to go to police. She said it was her parents’ idea. She sent a text to one defendant, 17, saying, “We know you didn’t rape me.”

Prosecutor Marianne Hemmeter asked her that when she sent the text, did she know that digital penetration was also rape. The girl said she didn’t know that. She also said she didn’t know she had been digitally penetrated. (Cleveland Plain Dealer)

When I read about the prosecutors asking this question about digital penetration, I had a hunch. In Ohio, the sex education curriculum is decided district by district:

In Ohio, state law and guidelines from the Ohio Department of Health say schools should teach about venereal disease and drug-abuse prevention during health education, but they do not specify what should be learned and when.

“It’s really a local decision on what (schools) do in terms of health education,” said Patrick Gallaway, a spokesman for the Ohio Department of Education.

Ohio has more-specific guidelines for academic subjects such as math and reading because it gives standardized tests on those subjects, he said. But the state does not have a proficiency test in health.

Ohio Department of Health spokeswoman Tessie Pollock also cited local control. “It’s up to the individual districts to decide what they want to do for a curriculum,” she said, “and they can adapt it to what their community needs.”

Whichever curriculum they pick, however, must be abstinence-only or abstinence-based, which creates a whole set of problems because of the things that aren’t addressed.

Rape is rape. It doesn’t matter if you call the police or don’t call them. It doesn’t matter what you say, or what you text, after the fact. It doesn’t matter if you really liked the boys who assaulted you, if they were your friends, if you went to the party because you wanted to see them. It doesn’t matter if it is a penis in a vagina, or a finger, or a broomstick. It is a crime of power, privilege, and entitlement. It is never about sex or love.

If a person does not consent to sexual contact, and you proceed anyway, that is rape. Period.

There’s so much in this case. Football culture. Underage drinking and how people assume it applies consent—which it does not. The confusion and harm that social media brings to the situation. Small-town rumor mills and fear. Bloggers and reporters have written some great stuff about all of those things. Google away.

What I’d like to raise is the question of whether sex education has any role to play in teaching people not to rape.

What if the students in this town had been participating in age-appropriate, medically accurate, comprehensive sex education since elementary school? What if they started in kindergarten with what I learned in kindergarten, which was keep your whole self to your whole self? That concept stuck with me, and helped me learn more difficult concepts about good and bad touching as I got a little older, and my own right to bodily integrity as I got older still. Thanks, Mrs. Richards!

What if teachers were allowed to talk about when it is OK to have sex, which is an important part of understanding when it is NOT OK to have sex? What if teachers were allowed to explain that sex isn’t just a penis in a vagina, but about multiple ways of touching and sharing your body in a consensual way.

What if kids role-played consent? What if they learned to ask for affirmative consent?

Why is it a radical notion that we might try to teach children not to rape? Why does it make people angry to consider it?

Let me be clear. I’m not saying that but for comprehensive, reality-based sex ed, these boys wouldn’t have behaved the way they did. I’m certainly not excusing them for their behavior by suggesting they hadn’t been taught what was wrong. They knew. That is clear. Their coach knew, too.

I’m just saying that we can’t continue to set our kids up for failure like this. We have to do everything within our power to teach children not to rape, and one thing that means is talking frankly from a very young age about what is and is not OK so that the concept of consent will be crystal clear.

The Outright Hypocrisy Boggles the Mind

The Attorney General of Texas announced a settlement with a tanning company over their false and misleading claims about tanning and cancer. The company had claimed tanning was good for you because increased vitamin D levels decrease your risk of cancer.

Meanwhile, crisis pregnancy centers are getting state funding and legitimate medical clinics that provide abortion are being forced to provide false and misleading claims about breast cancer and abortion. From page 17 of the state’s official publication, A Woman’s Right to Know Information Material:

While there are studies that have found an increased risk of developing breast cancer after an induced abortion some studies have found no overall risk. There is agreement that this issue needs further study. [emphasis added] If you have a family history of breast cancer or clinical findings of breast disease, you should seek
medical advice from your physician before deciding whether to remain pregnant or have an abortion. It is always important to tell your doctor about your complete pregnancy history.

Those studies that have found an increased risk? They’ve been debunked, and multiple medical authorities have disclaimed any connection:

American Cancer Society: Linking these 2 topics creates a great deal of emotion and debate. But scientific research studies have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer.

National Cancer Institute: Considering the body of literature that has been published since 2003, when NCI held this extensive workshop on early reproductive events and cancer, the evidence overall still does not support early termination of pregnancy as a cause of breast cancer.

The American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists: The relationship between induced abortion and the subsequent development of breast cancer has been the subject of a substantial amount of epidemiologic study. Early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk were methodologically flawed. More rigorous recent studies demonstrate no causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk.

So, I’m waiting for Attorney General Abbott to fine everyone for the false advertising in the state-mandated literature. I know you think I’ll wait a long time. I suspect you are right. But, I just want to put it out there, because we must not stop calling out the continuing hypocrisy of our state officials.