HomeYour VoiceHerStoryYour MultimediaResource LibraryAbout WVMCode of ConductRegisterLog in

  • Latest Post
  • Post index
  • Archives
  • Categories
  • Latest comments
  • Contact
  • About Your Voice
  • Raise Your Voice
  • 1
  • ...
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • ...
  • 44
  • ...
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • ...
  • 48
  • ...
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • ...
  • 65

Sign today! The time for the ERA is NOW!

Posted by jj on Jan 25, 2022 in Home Page, ERA and CEDAW
Sign today! The time for the ERA is NOW!
Sign today!   The time for the ERA is NOW!

More important than ever! There will be a Facebook Live event covering the delivery of YOUR petition.

Make sure YOUR petition asking that the ERA be put in the US Constitution is delivered -- sign it today -- and then watch it being delivered on January 27th.

National Organization for Women (NOW) 

Yeg0ts4tSerpdaya goaft7 s92t:33 A1dM  · 

NOW is joining with the ERA Coalition to ask Attorney General Garland to remove the OLC memo that is stopping the U.S. Archivist from publishing the ERA to the Constitution. Join this effort by signing on to the petition - we want to hit 100,000 signatures before we deliver it to the Department of Justice on January 27. You can help get us there!

Link: https://bit.ly/3n58h7d

Leave a comment

BOLD MOVE BY GIRLS' GLOBE

Posted by jj on Jan 20, 2022 in Home Page, Social Justice
BOLD MOVE BY GIRLS' GLOBE
BOLD  MOVE  BY  GIRLS'  GLOBE

Girls’ Globe is the digital media platform that amplifies the voices of changemakers and supports them to make a greater impact for gender equality, human rights and social justice.

Recently this organization made the bold move to suspend it's use of Facebook and Instagram.  What follows is the statement of the organization's founder Julia Wiklander explaining why this courageous stand was made.

 

Why Girls’ Globe Is Suspending It’s Use of Facebook and Instagram

By Julia Wiklander

 

Tech giant Facebook Inc., recently renamed Meta, has for a long time known of its detrimental effects on people. This includes negative effects on teen girls, women, minority groups, entire societies and democracies. Despite their knowledge, they have done very little to improve the safety of their platforms. Facebook and Instagram, which is owned by Meta, continue to prioritize profit over people.

This is what an investigation into leaked internal documents – called The Facebook Files – studied by The Wall Street Journal finds. Whistleblower and ex-employee Frances Haugen leaked these files earlier this year. The investigative series by The Wall Street Journal finds that Facebook knows the issues with its platforms. Yet, continues to fail to take action to fix them.

The Facebook Files report a number of disturbing truths from inside the company.

  1. Treating users unequally by “shielding” celebrities from accountability

Although Facebook says that their rules apply to all, internal files reveal that “Facebook routinely makes exceptions for powerful actors”. These exceptions continue to be made because Facebook values engagement and time spent on the platform (in other words profit) over the safety for the users of the platform.

This is a privilege that many have abused. Powerful users have posted hate speech, incitement to violence and much more, and little action has been taken.

Users with large audiences may become a part of the XCheck program, previously called shielding or The Whitelist. This includes celebrities, politicians, or other high-profile users that have become important to the company’s revenue streams. This gives them the power to post almost anything on the Facebook and Instagram platforms – without the same accountability put on other users.

Following a rape accusation, high-profile football player, Neymar, live streamed a video of himself. He revealed the woman’s name and broadcasted revenge porn to his over 100 million followers. Although his post clearly went against Facebook policies, it continued to go viral on the Facebook platforms. It hit more than 50 million views before it was taken down. Instead of banning this user from its platform, which Facebook would’ve done if it was a smaller account, they just deleted the post. Neymar continues to have a powerful presence on Facebook and Instagram.

Although Facebook knew that this program undermines their fairness and legitimacy efforts, it continues to put profit before people.

  1. Knowingly harming teen girls’ mental health and doing nothing

“We made body image issues worse for 1 in 3 teen girls”. Internal documents show that Facebook’s own research discovered the harmful effects of Instagram on teen girls’ body image. Despite this knowledge, it did nothing to share this research with the public.

Facebook tried to fix this issue with something called Project Daisy. It was an effort to decrease social comparison by removing the like count on posts. Results showed that this project did not work to reduce worse mental health on the Instagram platform.

Although Project Daisy didn’t have a statistical impact on teen’s mental health, the roll out continued. Why? Because it was good PR.

Facebook shows that it’s reputation and keeping users on the platform is more important than the mental wellbeing of its young users.

  1. Allowing criminal networks and human trafficking to conduct business

The Facebook Files, released by Frances Haugen, show that the company knew that its platforms was used by criminal networks – including human traffickers. Sex trafficking and domestic servitude has been organized and conducted entirely on the Facebook platforms alone. Frances Haugen also says that Facebook has been used to incite violence against ethnic groups.

Yet, time and time again, Facebook fails to make its platforms safe for users. Young women and girls continue to be at high risk for trafficking. It’s a criminal activity that has moved online in the recent two years, largely because of the Covid-19 pandemic. The Facebook platform is making it easier for criminals to conduct their business, and the UN is calling social media companies to act.

The only time Facebook has taken any action was in 2019, when Apple found out about human trafficking on Facebook. Apple threatened to remove the Facebook and Instagram apps from the iPhone App Store. That would’ve been detrimental for the business of Facebook.

Facebook took down posts, accounts and devices. It launched an automated system to detect human trafficking and pledged to go further. Even so, human trafficking continues to take place on their platforms.

When making Facebook safer conflicts with the business priorities of the company, it continues to put profit before people.

Photo by Annie Spratt on Unsplash

  1. Creating an “Outrage Algorithm” that spreads toxic content

Facebook constantly changes its algorithm which decides what you see when you open its apps. In early 2018 Facebook made a big change to its algorithm.

“It’s not enough to just connect people, we need to make sure that those connections are positive. It’s not enough to just give people a voice. We need to make sure people aren’t using it to harm other people or spread misinformation.”

– Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook said at a Congressional hearing in 2018.

Zuckerberg informed the public that the big algorithm change was an effort to make Facebook a better place. It was to improve the platform for humanity and for the mental health of their users. This did not turn out to be true.

The Wall Street Journal discovered that the change was actually made because of a big decline in user engagement. It was due to a crisis for the business.

The algorithm change was announced to increase meaningful social interaction. It was a success for Facebook’s own metrics. However, this big effort failed at doing what they said it should. It failed at increasing user wellbeing. Studies showed that people were less happy about what they saw in their newsfeeds on the apps.

The change led to an increased virality of sensational posts and “the very worst kind of content”.

Internal Facebook research showed that the algorithm change was actually pushing misinformation and toxic content like nudity, violence and hate speech. It also showed that the likelihood of something being false was consistent with a high level of reshares.

Fixes were suggested from Facebook’s own integrity team. However, it was only implemented in places like Myanmar and Ethiopia, and only on certain topics.

The Wall Street Journal’s investigation digs a lot deeper into the issue of the Facebook algorithm. It continues to show how Facebook is not doing enough to combat the spread of toxic content to the billions of users on its platforms.

  1. Experimenting with AI while hate speech continues to spread

Although, Facebook’s artificial intelligence (AI) has been failing to take down content that spreads hate, the company’s executives continue to praise it externally.

In 2019, hate speech was the company’s most expensive problem. The company decided to combat this issue by investing more heavily in its AI. This was decided despite its failure at finding and taking down posts that include hate speech. Internal Facebook research estimates that the amount of hate speech that the company’s AI is able to take down is only around 2-5%.

There is so much work that needs to be done before an AI can do what the company hopes it will be able to do. This is what a Facebook employee from the Integrity Division wrote to a colleague before leaving the team:

“AI will not save us. The implicit vision guiding much of integrity is a world where human discourse is overseen by perfect, fair, omniscient robots owned by Mark Zuckerberg. This is clearly a dystopia. It is also so deeply ingrained, we hardly notice it anymore.”

Staying true to what we believe in

Girls’ Globe can’t condone the behavior of this monopolistic company that knowingly prioritizes profit over the safety and wellbeing of people in our world. We are a media platform that amplifies voices for gender equality, human rights and social justice and we will take no part in supporting a company that knowingly does the opposite.

Facebook and Instagram help us stay in touch with loved ones, connect with our neighbors and mobilizes changemakers. It helps raise money and solve collective problems.

With the amount of people on these platforms, Facebook and Instagram may be seen as the most important social media platforms to use. However, given the realizations from the Facebook Files investigation by the Wall Street Journal, we also know that we have little say over who sees the content we post. It is also something that may change whenever the company sees a risk to their business.

Facebook isn’t the only problem in our globally connected world – similar issues most probably exist on other platforms too. Yet, it is a private sector company that continues to monopolize our online spaces and fails to do its best to keep us safe.

Taking action to not use Facebook and Instagram is not an easy decision.

In the following months we will consult with our members and partners on how best to move forward.

We know that to create change, we must stay true to what we believe in. That is a world where everyone is treated equally and one that is free from discrimination and violence.

Right now, Facebook – or Meta – is not taking action to help create the world we want to see.

 

For more information about Girls' Globe see our Resource Library.

 

 

 

 

 
Leave a comment

GIRLS ARE BEING SOCIALIZED TO LOSE POLITICAL AMBITION

Posted by jj on Jan 14, 2022 in Home Page, Politics & Elections
GIRLS ARE BEING SOCIALIZED TO LOSE POLITICAL AMBITION
GIRLS ARE BEING SOCIALIZED TO LOSE POLITICAL AMBITION

Girls are being socialized to lose political ambition — and it starts younger than we realized

New research shows that as girls age, they’re conditioned to lose interest and ambition in politics. The opposite happens for boys.

Barbara Rodriguez  Statehouses Reporter

Published   September 23, 2021, 2:26 p.m. ET   by The 19th* News

New research shows girls are being socialized early in life to believe they don’t belong in politics.

A research article published this month in the scholarly journal American Political Science Review found that young children perceive politics to be a space dominated by men. Girls’ perception of this is enforced as they grow older.

From late 2017 to early 2018, researchers interviewed children around the country to capture their understanding and interest in politics. More than 1,600 1st through 6th graders were handed crayons and paper and asked to draw a political leader at work.

The children were given open-ended prompts to describe what the political leader is doing in their drawings, what words describe them and what such a leader does on a typical day.

The drawings and responses ran the gamut, particularly for the youngest children. But older girls in particular were more likely to draw people with masculine traits. Research assistants sorted responses by noting whether children drew known political leaders, included clothing like skirts or used pronouns in describing the political leaders. They also coded the adjectives children used as masculine traits or feminine traits. (The study states there are limitations to its use of terminology and does not address gender identity or include nonbinary people.)

Women remain underrepresented in elected office, making up just 31 percent percent of statehouses and 26.7 percent of Congress, but researchers argue it doesn’t have to be this way. Mirya R. Holman of Tulane University, one of the article’s authors, spoke to The 19th about the most surprising aspects of the research and the ways in which early intervention in how society teaches children about politics could make a difference.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

Barbara Rodriguez: Why did you set out to explore this topic? Is it underreported?

Mirya R. Holman: This big research team that’s involved are all people that, before starting the study, mostly studied adults. Everybody studies gender and politics, and a lot of us study questions around political ambition: Why are some people interested in running for political office? Why are other people less interested?

[The team] kept having these conversations over and over again — there’s a lot of interventions that we’re seeing that are often very successful in trying to get more women to run for the state legislature level or local office. But we are not seeing dramatic changes in the actual overall level of women’s representation in the United States. By all accounts, we’re looking at maybe 2100 before we’re anywhere close to gender parity if we’re the most optimistic about levels of women’s representation.

We kept thinking maybe this actually starts much earlier than trying to recruit people that are in their 30s. So we set out to try to understand whether or not these gender gaps, in particular, in interest in politics and interest in holding political office, exist already among younger children, and we find that they do.

The research tests this new theoretical framework called “gendered political socialization.” What is that, and why is it important in understanding the effects of girls’ and boys’ interest in politics?

We theorize that as children learn about the world, they go through two processes at the same time. The first is that boys and girls learn about gender in the world. And this is very well established in the literature that boys and girls, as young children and then through primary school, observe how men and women act in the world, and through those observations learn what kinds of roles men and women are supposed to occupy in the world. So if you only ever see women as elementary school teachers, for example, and you’re a young child, you start to think, “Well, this is a role that women occupy in the world. And if I, a girl, am interested in having a role that is consistent with my gender then being an elementary school teacher is something that I might be interested in doing because it’s consistent with the messaging that I’m getting about who belongs in the world.” And we know from gender role theory that there is both internal and external pressures on kids to conform with these gender roles.

At the same time that this is happening — kids are learning about gender — they’re also learning about politics. So one of the things that comes out from our studies is that kids are paying a lot of attention to what’s going on in the political world as early as 6 years old. They know who political leaders are. They know who the president is. They’re learning about who holds positions in the politics world, and through the social studies curriculum … they learn that, “Oh, we’ve only ever had men as presidents,” for example.

In doing so, we argue that this process of gendered political socialization occurs, where they learn that politics is a space that’s primarily occupied by men. And in learning that, that reinforces to them that politics is this masculine space and girls start to believe, “Well that’s not really a place where I belong.” And boys start to believe, “Oh, this is the place where I belong.” And so we start to see these gaps emerge between boys and girls.

The research article concluded that children perceive politics to be a male-dominated space, and with age, girls increasingly see political leadership as dominated by male leaders. Was that surprising to you?

It confirmed my already existing expectations about what the world is like. One of the things that was surprising to me is sort of how early on this begins. We as a group had sort of discussed, “Well, maybe one of the things that happens is this starts to occur when we start to see student council elections. Maybe it’s middle school or maybe high school when kids start to think of themselves as political actors, maybe that’s when this begins.” But what we see is that this begins in 3rd and 4th grade among kids. Under the age of 10, girls are already sort of opting out of thinking about themselves as political actors.

Separately, the research indicates that as children grow older, they internalize gendered expectations. You’ve already talked about this a little bit, but can you explain it a little bit more in terms of what ramifications that has?

When we think about these gendered expectations, we might think about this as constraining our sort of daily behavior, right? What do people wear? How do they act? How do they treat other people? But it also constrains what they think about in terms of their potential roles in the future in society. 

One of the bodies of scholarship we draw a lot on is from research from science education that’s really been trying to think about how to get girls more excited about STEM [science, technology, engineering and math]. And in that literature, they show over and over again that basically girls can’t conceive of themselves as being a scientist and doing the things that they want to do in their life. One of the sorts of components to this is that girls are socialized to be more interested in communal activities. 

These are socialized roles that girls internalize over time. And they can’t necessarily see themselves as occupying those roles doing that work in a position like politics, because politics is seen as masculine. It’s not going to have those communal characteristics.

As part of the research, you and your colleagues asked children to draw pictures of political leaders. For boys, the probability of them at age 6 drawing a male political leader is 75 percent and drops to just 71 percent at age 12. At age 6, the probability of a girl drawing a man as a political leader is 47 percent; by age 12 that probability increases to almost 75 percent. What has happened in-between?

The drawings represented for us one of the more exciting pieces of the research, because the drawings themselves are very interesting and honestly incredibly cute. But they also represent for us a really clear example of this idea of, you can’t be what you can’t see. As girls learn more and more about the political world, and they learn more and more about who occupies the political world and who has occupied the political world, they see themselves less and less in it. So, as children age, boys just go along and they draw mostly pictures of men, no matter what their age. But girls increasingly draw images of men as they learn more about the political system. So as their political knowledge grows, they’re more likely to see politics as a space that’s dominated by men.

What are the consequences of girls losing political interest and ambition at such a young age?

One is, if we’re thinking sort of generally as a society … we’re going to have to think about interventions to get girls interested in politics at a far earlier age than we’ve been aiming so far. Often what we see is, maybe college students, sometimes high school students, but often adult women, we’re trying to convince adult women to be interested in politics or engaged in politics. And our research would suggest we may actually want to start far earlier on in the life cycle to get women interested in politics.

The other piece of it too, though, is thinking about sort of how we talk about politics and how we talk about who’s in politics. A lot of social science curriculum uses this really traditional historio-political context where they sort of go through the major political events in American history and point to who was involved in those. So we have many drawings of Abraham Lincoln in our sample because kids learn about Abraham Lincoln as an important political figure. Of course, Abraham Lincoln is an important political figure, but if kids are only learning about men as important political figures, we’re not going to have an easy way of sort of changing people’s ideas about who belongs in politics.

Was there anything else about the research that you found surprising or that you think would be important for readers to consider?

One of the things that we found that was pleasantly surprising is that kids think about political leaders as engaging in things that academics would consider communal activities: helping other people, caring for people, solving problems, going into the community — these things that are what we would want political leaders to be known for. And so we hope that means that people that are interested in hearing broadly about others in the community could see themselves as potential political leaders and kids that are interested in communal activities and potentially caring for other people could see themselves as growing up and being a political leader that helps change things for the better. 

What are the potential solutions here? The research indicates that early intervention is necessary. What should that look like?

We’re trying to figure that out. That’s one of the sort of next steps for us. One of the things that we think is key is thinking about what these social science curricula look like and what kinds of lessons are kids getting in the classroom about who belongs in politics. The other piece of it, though, is thinking about making sure that kids are exposed to a wide range of political role models. We very much have a political system where we talk a lot about what is happening in the White House, and we have for the first time ever a woman as a political leader of the White House. So thinking about the opportunities that Kamala Harris’ position affords us might be something that’s really interesting. The other piece of it is making sure that, we know, for example, fathers are less likely to talk about politics with their daughters as compared to their sons, and girls’ political interests are more likely to be dismissed by their parents and role models, so making sure that parents and role models are thinking about the ways that they can have conversations about politics with their daughters as well as their sons, to make sure that their daughters are getting the full exposure to information about politics.

*********************

The Resource Library on  womensvoicesmedia.org provides you with sources of information and help on this and many other issues, concerns and interests by, for and about women.

 

 

 

Leave a comment

"I don't Feel Safe"

Posted by jj on Jan 05, 2022 in Home Page, Violence, Health and Safety
"I don't Feel Safe"
"I  don't  Feel Safe"

"I don't feel safe": A year after January 6, women in Congress still fear for their security

By Candice Norwood and Mariel Padilla  originally posted on the 19th, Jan. 5, 2022

 

Rep. Nikema Williams does not like to talk about that day — she’s still dealing with the emotion and fear.

What should have marked a celebratory first week in Congress will be remembered for an attack on democracy, and elected officials, as hundreds of supporters of then-President Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol in an attempt to stop certification of the election. 

On January 6, 2021, the new Georgia representative hid in her office as the building went on lockdown.

Since then, Williams has hired personal security and made safety changes that she won’t discuss in detail in order to protect her family. But even with that — plus a year of public outcry, internal investigations and congressional hearings to examine the security failures during the Capitol attack — Williams still feels unsafe.

“I try to not think about it often, and I’ll be honest with you, I didn’t want to do this interview today,” Williams told The 19th in December. “I am still wary of the security of members at the U.S. Capitol, especially as a Black woman. I know that some of my colleagues, when incidents happen, they can blend in and people won’t actually know who they are or what sides they’re on. But I don’t have that luxury as a Black woman in the United States Congress.”

In recent years, more women in public office have spoken out about the harassment they experience and threats to their safety. For women of color in Congress, like Williams, the sense of danger is heightened by threats and abuse that are both racist and sexist. In many ways, January 6 was the most extreme in a string of escalating threats.

The 19th reached out at least three times to all 24 women senators and 120 women voting members of the House to discuss the one-year anniversary of the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol.

Thirty-eight of them, all Democrats, spoke to us, and many expressed continuing fear for their own safety, both at the Capitol and at home. Some women in Congress said their Republican colleagues exacerbate the danger they face. For all of the women, the shadow of that day looms large.

Many said it has led them to be hypervigilant, often adding security and being more aware — and frightened — of people around them. 

“I’ve never really thought of my job as a dangerous type of job, but I remember in the days after my parents were asking if I really had to be in that position, couldn’t I find another job?” said Rep. Grace Meng of New York. 

Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, who has represented a suburban Philadelphia district since 2019, knew safety considerations would be part of the job when running for public office. But, she said, she “really didn’t think it would be this bad.” She thinks about potential threats every day, while going for a run or meeting with constituents.

“My family home never installed a security system before this, but we have taken a number of security measures that I won’t discuss, including having things available in the office to fight back with. Having to think about those things is pretty awful,” Scanlon said.

The fallout of January 6 is compounded by a rise in threats against public officials around the country. U.S. Capitol Police reported last year that threats against Congress members increased by 119 percent from 2017 to 2020. In 2021, Capitol Police said, threats against lawmakers hit a new high: 9,600 over the year.

Women of color in particular are subjected to more threats than men or White women, and those threats are often racist and sexualized, research shows. Last year, the Wilson Center, a D.C.-based think tank, examined the online conversations about 13 women politicians and found that “over half of the research subjects were targeted with gendered or sexualized disinformation narratives, with women of color subjected to compounded, intersectional narratives also targeting their race or ethnicity.” 

Similarly, a 2017 study of abusive tweets targeted at women journalists and politicians in the United States and United Kingdom by Amnesty International found that Black women were 84 percent “more likely than white women to be mentioned in abusive or problematic tweets.”

For many women of color in Congress, this reality has forced them to reexamine how they operate in their positions. The attack on January 6 reinforced what Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri already believed to be true: She was not safe or protected even as a member of Congress. Now, a year into her first term, she still feels vulnerable, she said.

“I don’t feel safe,” she said. “I would feel differently if it felt like we had learned something here and we could see change. If there was more happening as far as what the security looks like for members, especially those who are Black people, or other people of color; if there was active work happening to build a protocol, then I could say maybe, but there’s nothing. There’s nothing.”

Similar feelings were echoed by other women of color in Congress. “I’ve never been more terrified,” said Rep. Veronica Escobar of Texas. “I am more aware of my surroundings. I definitely engage in a different way publicly. Because of COVID and because of threats to my safety, we’ve not yet returned to in-person town hall meetings. That, to me, is absolutely tragic. I love engaging directly with my constituents.” 

Escobar noted that some Capitol rioters had ties to white supremacist groups, intensifying the sense of danger she and other women of color experienced January 6. Like Williams, Escobar understood that her skin color could make her more of a target for violence. “My colleague and dear friend Pramila Jayapal and I both have stated it, but when members were asked to remove their pins, one of the things that kind of went through our minds is: ‘I can remove my pin, but I can’t remove the color of my skin.’”

That inability to blend in easily among White colleagues “raised a level of awareness and fear,” said Jayapal, of Washington state. 

Multiple lawmakers said that some of their Republican colleagues are making them more vulnerable. “I don’t feel safe in the halls of Congress anymore,” said Rep. Norma Torres, who has represented California’s 35th Congressional District since 2015. “I do not feel safe now, or immediately following that incident because our colleagues continue to call on this violence by the words that they use.”

By embracing conspiracy theories, defending those who attacked the Capitol and demonizing Democrats, particularly women of color, they are creating a toxic environment that endangers other lawmakers, some lawmakers told The 19th. A few pointed to Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and Paul Gosar specifically. Greene, Boebert and Gosar did not respond to a request for comment.

Greene and Gosar have both faced consequences from House leadership. Last February, House members voted to remove Greene from her committee assignments over social media posts indicating support for conspiracy theories and violence against Democrats. House Democrats in November voted to censure Gosar over an animated video he posted to Twitter depicting him killing New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and attacking Biden. So far, Boebert — who at least twice suggested that Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota is a terrorist — has not faced official consequences. Omar has linked Boebert’s comments to threats she has received.

That type of behavior is dangerous, multiple women members of Congress said, and it continues to stoke the hatred that led to the Capitol attack. They said Republican leaders need to do more to stop the behavior that puts their colleagues in danger. 

“There are certainly colleagues who continue to threaten the safety of members. You know, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene and others who then don’t call them out, and aren’t willing to call them out, or aren’t willing to say that what they’ve said or done is wrong,” Jayapal said.

“We’re still going through metal detectors to get onto the House floor to vote. I hope that doesn’t change, because there are some crazy things being said by certain members,” said Rep. Kathleen Rice of New York. “I think as long as that kind of language and those kinds of threats are going to be made, we’re going to be going through metal detectors forever.” 

Hostility on Capitol Hill adds to a broader conversation about what should be done to better protect lawmakers and their staff. In December, the inspector general for the United States Capitol Police told a Senate committee that 30 out of 104 recommendations he made to the department had been implemented so far. On Wednesday, the chief of the Capitol Police told a Senate committee that the department has completed or worked to address about 90 of the recommendations.

Multiple women members of Congress said that overall they do not fear for their safety since the attack, but others expressed pointed concern about security preparedness in the aftermath. Capitol Police did not respond to a request for comment.

Virginia Rep. Abigail Spanberger, a former CIA officer, said that the security response could be better, noting the involvement of elected officials with political motivations in that process.

“I don’t think that any elected member of Congress knows the security parameters of how to best fortify a building, provide for backup, any of these sorts of things,” she said.

Rep. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, who served in the Navy, said basic security precautions have not been “adequately” communicated to members of Congress, even while praising the Capitol Police officers for their work. “I remain concerned about the lack of communication to members about safety concerns and the lack of a plan,” she said.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois is a veteran and uses a wheelchair. She has recently done simulations to map out how she’d evacuate the Senate in the event of another threat. Last year, Duckworth ended up hiding on her own rather than join her colleagues. 

The attack has changed her preparations with her family, as well. The day rioters stormed the Capitol, she received a threatening text message that listed her address and family by name, she said, which prompted them to make personal security changes. They are more vigilant and have installed a new security system, she said. 

“We have much more of a bunker mentality,” Duckworth said. “My kids are certainly no longer free to ride around in the driveway on their bikes without an adult nearby who can quickly grab them and put them in the house.”

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R

Leave a comment

DISABLED PEOPLE AND PREGNANCY

Posted by jj on Jan 01, 2022 in Reproductive Rights, Health and Safety
DISABLED PEOPLE AND PREGNANCY
DISABLED  PEOPLE  AND  PREGNANCY

Anne Branigin, Washington Post

December 28, 2021

People with disabilities face much higher risks during pregnancy. Researchers are only beginning to understand how.

A new study fills in gaps about the health risks pregnant women with disabilities face.

Alarming maternal mortality rates in the United States have received increasing attention from researchers, lawmakers and journalists in recent years. But while racial and ethnic disparities have been a central concern for many — Black women are three to four times as likely to die of pregnancy and birthing complications as White women — less research has focused specifically on people with disabilities.

A study published this month fills in crucial gaps about the health risks pregnant women with disabilities face, finding that they have a significantly higher risk of dying from pregnancy and childbirth than their non-disabled counterparts. They were also more likely to experience all the most severe illnesses associated with maternal mortality.

The research, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Network Open, a peer-reviewed, open-access medical journal, found pregnant women with disabilities were at higher risk for a slate of pregnancy complications, including blood clotting, infection and hemorrhaging. They were also 11 times as likely to die of pregnancy or birthing as their non-disabled counterparts.

[ A nurse assumed a disabled woman wasn’t sexually active. That stereotype is dangerous, advocates say.]

Jessica Gleason, a research fellow of perinatal and pediatric epidemiology at the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, led the study.

To Gleason, the findings highlight the systemic barriers women with disabilities encounter getting medical care — before they ever get pregnant.

“We can’t just put this all down to personal, individual health choices,” she said. “There are a lot of societal factors that contribute to these poor health outcomes and prenatal care.”

To learn more about the risks women with disabilities face during their pregnancies, researchers combed through a large, comprehensive data set of medical records for deliveries from 19 hospitals across the United States between January 2002 and January 2008. They compared the medical charts of 2,074 pregnant women with a documented disability (including physical, intellectual and sensory disabilities) with 221,311 pregnant women who did not.

Earlier studies found women with disabilities had higher risks for a number of pregnancy complications, including preterm birth, hypertensive disorders, gestational diabetes and Caesarean delivery, but not much was known beyond those conditions, said Gleason.

Gleason cautioned that some of the findings, such as the elevated risk of maternal mortality, could be inflated because the total number of women with disabilities in the study was relatively low. But the overall results were consistent across the board: Pregnant women with disabilities faced more severe health outcomes than their non-disabled peers, she said.

Not only were disabled women at higher risk for pregnancy and delivery-related complications — including preeclampsia (a pregnancy-related hypertensive disorder that could be fatal) and gestational diabetes — they were also more likely to have conditions that can lead to death during childbirth, such as heart attacks, infection and blood clotting.

Pregnant women with disabilities also had higher risk of obstetric intervention: Medical professionals were more likely to give patients oxytocin to stimulate labor; use forceps, vacuums and other devices to extract the fetus; or deliver babies via Caesarean sections.

According to Gleason, this data lines up with previous qualitative studies in which pregnant women with disabilities described their pregnancy and birthing experiences to researchers.

“Women with disabilities often are not allowed to attempt vaginal delivery,” noted Gleason. While the data doesn’t explicitly find a provider preference for C-sections, which generally have greater health risks than vaginal births, Gleason said medical records showed women with disabilities were more likely than those without to be given Caesareans without a clearly defined medical reason.

[ 3 women on being disabled in America, in their own words]

This combination of factors — a delivery method that is riskier, plus higher rates of severe maternal illnesses — can create a “perfect storm” that could endanger the lives of pregnant people with disabilities, Gleason said.

In an accompanying paper, Hilary Brown, an assistant professor at the University of Toronto at Scarborough, called the research an “important contribution” to existing knowledge about pregnant women with disabilities.

“Even when these complications do not result in death, they have significant implications for families,” wrote Brown, “including separation of mothers and newborns at a time that is critical for bonding and breastfeeding, as well as potential long-term negative impacts on women’s well-being.”

According to Brown, whose research focuses on maternal and child health for people with disabilities and chronic disease, “women with disabilities have long been ignored in obstetric research and clinical practice.”

“Their invisibility stems from a history of eugenic practices, including institutionalization and sterilization, imposed on people with disabilities throughout the 20th century,” Brown wrote. Today, women with disabilities are still stigmatized when it comes to their sexuality, reproductive health and desire to raise a family, she added.

Research has shown that people with disabilities get pregnant at a similar rate to those without, and that about 12 percent of women of reproductive age have some kind of disability.

But some medical providers have told researchers that they aren’t trained to treat pregnant patients who are disabled. Patients often do not know how their disability or related medications could impact their pregnancy and vice versa, and could have difficulty figuring out the cause of their symptoms. Worldwide, pregnant women with disabilities have reported feeling as though health-care workers dismissed their concerns, lacked the knowledge to help them or seemed unwilling to help.

There are other significant barriers to prenatal care for women with disabilities, Gleason noted. Their families may not support their pregnancy, and when they attempt to get care, their medical provider may not have the facilities, materials or staff to treat patients effectively. The office space or exam table may not be accessible to disabled patients, Gleason said. And some women with visual, speech and hearing impairments have reported that their providers couldn’t communicate with them effectively.

The study, which used data from before the Affordable Care Act was signed into law, also found that pregnant women with disabilities were more likely to live in poverty (other research has shown this is true of disabled people generally).

To help ensure people with disabilities have safer, healthier pregnancies, Brown called for mandatory disability training for obstetricians, midwives and other health-care professionals. More research also needs to be done on the intersection of race and disability, she said: Disability was overrepresented among people of color, who already experience stark disparities in maternal morbidity and mortality.

Gleason said additional research is needed to better understand the causes of these risks, as well as to understand how different kinds of disabilities impact maternal outcomes. But healthier pregnancies start well before a person gets pregnant, she noted.

For example, while people without disabilities may get reproductive health counseling from their primary care provider, which helps them to understand their options and individual risks, the same counseling often isn’t extended to women with disabilities, said Gleason. Some health-care workers have wrongly assumed that their disabled patients are not sexually active.

Having health problems is also “very expensive,” she added, and unless there are larger improvements to living conditions and health-care access for people with disabilities, the impact of smaller interventions could be limited.

“There’s this misconception for women entering prenatal care that this can be the time to intervene on all these health issues,” said Gleason. “We should really be focusing on women’s preconception health in general to improve pregnancy outcomes.”

Anne Branigin is a staff reporter for The Lily. Previously, she worked at the Root covering news, politics, health and social justice movements through the lens of race and gender.

Leave a comment
  • 1
  • ...
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • ...
  • 44
  • ...
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • ...
  • 48
  • ...
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • ...
  • 65

Women's Voices Media - Newsletter

Powered by follow.it

Search

Act Now!

  • HAVE YOU CONTACTED YOUR SENATORS AND/OR YOUR HOUSE REP TODAY?

Recent Posts

  • YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE.
  • DESPITE THE OBSTACLES - A WOMAN FARMER SHE WAS DETERMINED TO BE!
  • UNITED AIRLINES, IT'S ABOUT TIME!
  • No , anorexia is not a pretty skelletton !
  • ATTENTION VOTERS of the COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA!
  • ARE YOU READY TO FACE THE TRUTH?
  • BLACK MATERNAL HEALTH AWARENESS WEEK
  • SENTIMENTS EXPRESSED ALL OVER THE COUNTRY MARCH 28, 2026
  • WORLD WATER DAY – ACCELERATING CHANGE
  • A POIGNANT ESSAY FROM HEIDI HENRY: THE NATIONAL DEBACLE
  • Renee Nicole Good
  • Trump’s War on Mail-In Voting Threatens the Foundations of Democracy Itself
  • The GOP Is About To Devour Its Own King
  • WOMEN'S JUSTICE
  • Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance
  • Why Are Men Still Considered the Default?
  • The Animal Feed Industry’s Impact on the Planet
  • How a 20th-Century Family Planning Agenda Fueled the Climate Crisis
  • CALL YOUR SENATORS:   TELL THEM TO VOTE “NO!”
  • WHAT THE BUDGET CUTS ARE REALLY ABOUT

Recent Comments

  • chandlerbaxter on BURN THE BARBIES, PAUSE THE PINK
  • dracorouge on FROM RI TO WI: MORE PRO-CHOICE AND PRO-ERA CANDIDATES
  • jj on OPINION: FEMINISM HAS BECOME TOO EXTREME
  • jj on OPINION: FEMINISM HAS BECOME TOO EXTREME
  • admin on THE 2ND IMPEACHMENT OF TRUMP!
  • andreajoy on VOTE!
  • marthaburk on STAND UP & SPEAK OUT!
  • admin on VOTE!
  • urbancat on VOTE!
  • marthaburk on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Responds to Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL)
  • armandolibertad on Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Responds to Rep. Ted Yoho (R-FL)
  • armandolibertad on DON'T EXPRESS OUTRAGE WITHOUT ACTION!
  • allegra22 on GET SMART AMERICA!
  • admin on My Personal Response To Trump by Lisa Wilson Berkowitz‎
  • admin on THE REAL “WELFARE QUEENS” ARE CORPORATE CEO’s

Wit & Wisdom

Women's history is an assential and indispensable part of the national narrative. By understanding the achievements,struggles, and contributions of women throughout history, we gain a fuller, more accurate. and more inclusive understanding of our collective past.
Hillary Clinton
June 2026
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30        
 << <   > >>

Search

XML Feeds

  • RSS 2.0: Posts
  • Atom: Posts
What is RSS?

Your Voice
This collection 2026 by Janice Jochum
Copyright 2019 United Activision Media, LLC
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
• Contact • Help • CMS + user community

b2
Cookies are required to enable core site functionality.