anythings.org

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous defenses in a rape trial that I have ever heard, emphasis mine:

The attorney representing a Lansdale man in a high-profile rape case wants a mold made of his client’s penis to prove to jurors that he couldn’t have committed the crime.

Attorney Marvin Gold wants Montgomery County prison officials to give Ronald A. McDade, 33, the privacy and a special kit to make a cast of his genitalia before he’s tried on charges that he raped a 13-year-old girl in January.

Gold said McDade’s accuser didn’t suffer injuries consistent with someone who had been assaulted by his client, whom he described as a “freak of nature” who is “extraordinarily large.”

Prosecutor Todd Stephens called the request an outlandish attempt to create a sideshow. […]

Gold said he came up with the idea for the mold on his own after learning about the extent of the girl’s injuries. He said they weren’t as serious as one would expect.

Gold said he plans to show the mold to the jury to bolster his case that the girl should have had more injuries.

Stephens said he’s unaware of any medical experts who would testify that every rape victim suffers injuries.

Gold initially received permission from Judge Paul W. Tressler to take a camera and yard stick into prison to photograph his client.

“While I was in the process of making arrangements, it occurred to me, wouldn’t it be better if I had a three-dimensional, life-size casting?” Gold said.

The prison refused to comply with the request, and on Thursday Stephens filed a motion opposing it as well.

Gold said McDade is “embarrassed” about the possibility of having to get a mold of himself, but “he doesn’t want to spend the rest of his life in prison.”

Ok, seriously? You want to make a cast of your penis to prove to the jury that the 13-YEAR-OLD victim’s injuries were inconsistent with the size of your gigantic penis? You’ve got to be kidding me. While I’m sure there is some correlation between penis size and vaginal/anal injury in consensual intercourse, the act of rape does not require a large (or small) penis to cause severe injuries: a rapist causes emotional and physical damage even with the smallest penis in the land. If this is the rape suspect’s only defense, I’m going to have to side with the victim here and say GUILTY. Especially when the suspect is awaiting trial for luring a young girl into his car less than a year ago.

Who is to say that the rape victim should have had more injuries in order for this to be her attacker? I get that defense attorneys still find it fairly easily to attack the victim and blame her for being raped, but to say that she’s lying and that the wrong person has been arrested because of his penis size and her “lack” of injuries, now that’s just hateful. What kinds of injuries of the defense expecting? Permanent damage to vaginal tissue? Tearing? Shredding? Scars? Did it ever occur to the defense attorney that his expectations were over exaggerated and completely off base? The prosecution agrees with me on that one:

Stephens said he’s unaware of any medical experts who would testify that every rape victim suffers injuries.

Not every rape victim suffers from physical injuries, but many of them do. Focusing on her lack of vaginal injuries is like focusing on the lack of evidence in an embezzlement case. Just because it is not there, or it isn’t what you expected, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

If a judge grants his request, that opens a floodgate for rapists and their defense attorneys. “No, your honor, my client could not have raped that woman because his penis is too small to have caused such severe vaginal injuries.”

I’m pretty sure that all defense attorneys are scum, but this one has to be a real gem. Requesting permission to photograph and measure your client’s penis is a little out there, but then having the epiphany to create a three-dimensional model of it? That’s one sick bastard, let me tell you.

Now, this article is supposed to be about the debate as to whether or not the alleged victim is actually the person shown on the R. Kelly child pornography sex tape, but the author of it decided to go for a catchy hook line, rather than starting the story off with what it was really about: R. Kelly is a pedophile, and he got caught on camera, but nobody is certain  who the victim was. I’m not even going to go into the fact that the article should be about the fact that R. Kelly is at trial for many counts of child pornography and not the victim’s identity.

She’s been described over several weeks of testimony as a Christian singer and a point guard, a participant in three-way sex and as the goddaughter to one of the music industry’s biggest stars.

As far as opening lines go, that’s pretty catchy. Sex! Scandal! Three-ways! Christianity! And then you read the next sentence, and you start to wonder what this article is really about:

Even the family of the alleged victim in the R. Kelly child pornography trial doesn’t seem to agree about her, especially about whether she’s on a 27-minute sex tape that could send the R&B star to prison for up to 15 year if convicted.

Continuing on with the story, they make it sound like the victim is on trial, rather than a pedophile:

Prosecutors say she was as young as 13 when the tape was made. Now 23, the woman has been identified at the trial. She has not spoken publicly about the case.

Prosecutors said they would not ask the alleged victim to testify. The defense hasn’t said whether they will, though Kelly attorney Sam Adam Jr. asked jurors in opening statements why prosecutors chose not to call her.

“One answer,” he said, his voice booming. “One: It’s not her on that tape.”

Let me say this now before my head explodes: it shouldn’t matter whether or not it is her on the tape. R. Kelly is at trial for having sex with a minor, and if the prosecution can prove that without being sure of the victim’s identity, then he should be convicted.

Not once does the entire article mention the word “pedophile”, which I find extremely shocking since the alleged victim was 13 at the time the tape was made, making her just on the cusp of puberty, which in the medical sense of the word, would make R. Kelly a pedophile.

So we can call (potential) child sexual abuse victims “vixens”, but we can’t call their attackers pedophiles?

I’m going to go with a huge resounding no, but some people seem to think that feminism has convinced women that their careers are more important than children, and that women are losing out on motherhood because of it. I’m more inclined to believe this is people blaming feminism for their poor decision making skills. Rebecca Walker, child of Alice Walker, wrote the most god awful article I’ve ever seen, where she effectively blames feminism for her bad relationship with her mother, and for all the problems women are having when they try to conceive later in life:

Then I meet women in their 40s who are devastated because they spent two decades working on a PhD or becoming a partner in a law firm, and they missed out on having a family. Thanks to the feminist movement, they discounted their biological clocks. They’ve missed the opportunity and they’re bereft.

Feminism has betrayed an entire generation of women into childlessness. It is devastating.

But far from taking responsibility for any of this, the leaders of the women’s movement close ranks against anyone who dares to question them - as I have learned to my cost. I believe feminism is an experiment, and all experiments need to be assessed on their results. Then, when you see huge mistakes have been paid, you need to make alterations.

Now, see, this is what bothers me. Feminism has not told women to forgo having babies in favor of their careers. It has suggested that they take their careers into consideration when planning a family - and this is not a suggestion they have made only to women, they have made their suggestion to everyone. As with many other movements, the ideal is not necessarily executed properly when practiced by the masses.

In the end, it really does come down to make a choice: taking the time off to have a baby in the middle of your career and risking the loss of promotions, etc, or waiting until you’ve reached your goal and then taking the time off, risking that you won’t be able to have a baby. No matter how equal our society becomes, this will still be an issue for women that isn’t necessarily one for men. Feminism hasn’t forced women to wait until they are 40 to have children, it has simply made them realize that children do not have to come first. Their marriage, career, or other aspect of their life can come before children, as long as they have had the common sense to plan it out ahead of time.

Of course, that’s a totally different situation than deciding to have a child at 42 when you never wanted one before.

Via Feministe.

Not shockingly, each of the presidential candidates issued a statement yesterday about the California Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the gay marriage ban. Even less shocking: all 3 candidates oppose gay marriage. Which, to be honest, is a position I understand for Obama and Clinton because the percentage of people in America who support gay marriage fluctuates to be a little more or a little less than 50%. But nevertheless, here are their statements in the court’s decision.

Sen. Obama:

Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as President. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.

Sen. Clinton:

Hillary Clinton believes that gay and lesbian couples in committed relationships should have the same rights and responsibilities as all Americans and believes that civil unions are the best way to achieve this goal. As President, Hillary Clinton will work to ensure that same sex couples have access to these rights and responsibilities at the federal level. She has said and continues to believe that the issue of marriage should be left to the states.

The only thing positive I found in Clinton’s quote was the bit where she claims that she will work for access to rights on the federal level for gay couples who can’t marry because their states are too conservative. Clinton and Obama’s statements are the reason I can’t consider them “liberal” candidates in this election. I’m disappointed in them both, but I had to get behind the lesser of two evils.

And, the most painful, Sen. McCain:

John McCain supports the right of the people of California to recognize marriage as a unique institution sanctioning the union between a man and a woman, just as he did in his home state of Arizona. John McCain doesn’t believe judges should be making these decisions.

My favorite part is the bit where McCain says he doesn’t believe that judges should be making these decisions. But you know, something tells me that if this decision upheld the gay marriage ban, he wouldn’t have made that statement. If the California Supreme Court had ruled that abortion could not be performed in California (which would never happen), he would have issued a statement thanking the judges for making the “right” decision. I’m sorry, but, how is someone running for president when they don’t understand the function of the judicial branch of the government?

Check out the LA Times article here.

In a 4-3 ruling, the justices rule that state marriage laws are unconstitutional.

SAN FRANCISCO — – The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.

The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.

Finally, some decisive action on this!

Here’s a quote from our shitty, shitty Governor, Mr. Schwarzenegger, that makes me feel a little more secure in today’s ruling:

“I respect the Court’s decision and as Governor, I will uphold its ruling. Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling.”

If you’re going to make an endorsement because you’re trying to help a candidate win an election, that’s fine with me. But when you make an endorsement, make it clear why you’re selecting candidate A in favor of candidate B, don’t just simply state that you’re endorsing candidate A.

My favorite part of the endorsement had to be when Nancy Keenan said the following two sentences in the same paragraph:

Further, I believe Sen. Obama is going to be the Democratic nominee.

Sen. Obama will be our next president.

It’s nice to know that you aren’t letting your personal beliefs cloud your judgment and make endorsements on behalf of an entire agency. Why didn’t she just say “I like Obama better than Clinton, ne-ner-ne-ner-neeee-ner!” - because that’s what it sounds like.

If you read one thing on the entire internet today, make it this article (which I definitely stole the subtitle from, but I couldn’t have put it any better myself). And, if you’re going to buy one book this month/year/whatever, make it his. I haven’t read it, but I will. And soon.

You’d never guess that Dr. Kenneth C. Edelin played a leading role in one of the most tumultuous episodes in recent Boston history, that he was at the center of an abortion case that propelled him into the national debate over Roe v. Wade - a debate that rages to this day.

And so, in his quiet way, does Kenneth Edelin, at least when he thinks about his 1975 manslaughter conviction - eventually overturned - and the way his life was turned upside down for what he sees as political and religious reasons.

Edelin has written a searingly angry account of his trial and conviction titled “Broken Justice: A True Story of Race, Sex and Revenge in a Boston Courtroom.” Tonight from 7 to 9, Edelin will be at Barnes & Noble at Boston University to read from his book, in which he argues that he was targeted by antiabortion forces determined to make an example of him.

“I had to get this book done,” says Edelin, 68. “I’ve been trying to do it for 30 years. It was burning to get out.”

Prior to reading this article, I had no idea who Edelin was. Kenneth Edelin was an African American doctor who was convicted for manslaughter after performing a legal abortion in Massachusetts.

In 1973, Edelin worked as the chief resident in obstetrics at Boston City Hosptial. Performing abortions after the Roe v. Wade decision, Edelin was indicted for manslaughter in 1974 when he surgically terminated a pregnancy. Convicted on February 15, 1975 and sentenced to a one-year probation, Edelin’s case drew national attention. Edelin appealed the decision and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts overturned the conviction on December 17, 1976.

There’s nothing more powerful than a story like Dr. Edelin’s, especially considering the current political climate and the fervor of the anti-choice movement. Stories like Dr. Edelin’s may remind us of the past, but they are also a glimpse into our future if McCain takes the White House in this presidential election. Doctors will be prosecuted for doing their jobs as medical professionals: they will be sent to prison for performing a medical procedure with the patient’s consent.

In the world we live in now, I think it is worth remembering the heroes like Dr. Edelin because if we don’t, it can only happen again. There is no doubt in my mind that he wasn’t targeted simply because he performed an abortion, but because he was a black doctor. This is definitely a book I’ll be picking up on the way home. Hearing about this man’s life, his story, and what happened after the trial are all equally interesting to me, especially since the book was written later after he’s had time to reflect on it.

If you’re in Boston, you should definitely go and see him read. Don’t miss the chance!

Via Pesky Apostrophe. More about Dr. Edelin here and here.

The feminist blogosphere has been up in arms lately (rightfully so) about an Oklahoma bill that requires a woman to get an ultrasound, and look at the images, one hour before she gets an abortion. The bill says that the woman will be required to get either an vaginal or abdominal ultrasound, whichever shows the best picture. Aside from this being a completely pointless and unwarranted medical procedure, most women in early pregnancy will have to get a vaginal ultrasound, since that provides the best picture:

The bill combines many new abortion regulations. The most invasive and unprecedented provisions of the bill relate to mandates for an ultrasound before a pregnancy termination can be done. The bill states that either a transabdominal or transvaginal transducer, whichever gives the clearer picture of the embryo, must be used. For early terminations that will mandate an ultrasound done with a probe placed in the vagina. There is no provision for the woman to opt out of this procedure. My main concerns about the bill are the following:

1) The bill dictates how doctors obtain informed consent in a way that does not conform to medically-accepted practice. Current state law already requires the doctor to refer patients to information about development of an embryo or fetus twenty-four hours before a pregnancy termination. The website is one required resource. She must also be notified about facilities that will offer her a free ultrasound.

2) This compels a physician to perform an invasive, vaginal procedure — not for the benefit of the patient, and possibly against her wishes — before the requested medical procedure can be done.

3) The fines for failure to follow the requirements begin at $10,000 go up to $100,000 or more for subsequent violations. The highest fines for negligent homicide or driving under the influence in Oklahoma are $1,000.

4) The bill defines “unprofessional conduct” if a physician does not perform this unnecessary procedure and suggests that the medical board may remove the physician’s license. This violates the standard medical practice that any patient has the right to refuse medical procedures or treatment.

This bill dictates how a doctor obtains informed consent, violates the patient’s right to refuse unwanted medical interventions, and places disproportionate punishments on physicians who do not comply.

Now, just wondering, but has anybody else noticed that a forced vaginal ultrasound is more than a little akin to rape? Last I checked, rape was defined as unwanted oral, anal, or vaginal penetration, regardless of what object was doing the penetration. Almost makes me want to go to Oklahoma, get pregnant, have an abortion with a vaginal ultrasound against my will, and then file charges against the state for rape. But let’s be real, that would never happened in a state that is even considering passing this legislation, especially after they brought it back to life after the governor’s veto.

Most amusing to me, however, is #4: if a doctor doesn’t perform the ultrasound but does perform the abortion, the doctor is at risk for losing his/her license to practice medicine, simply for following a patient’s wishes to not perform a medical procedure. Last time I checked, it wasn’t a crime for a physician not to perform a procedure at the patient’s request, but apparently, Oklahoma has decided to make it so.

This headline is absolutely grotesque and inexcusable: Victim ‘had sex with captor willingly’

While the contents of the article are a little more divulging with the details than the headline, it’s obvious that the headline was created purely to attract attention and raise a shock factor. Which, congratulations, it has. However, I don’t think it’s the kind of attention any paper wants: degrading a victim’s suffering and her exploiting her experiences while being held captive to get more attention. That’s not ok.

The back story includes many more details than the New Zealand paper. Natascha was kidnapped when she was 10, and escaped when she was 18. During that time, she held captive in a small basement cell with no windows and a locked door, with books to keep her company (after the first two years anyways). She was also beaten and coerced into taking sexually explicit photographs and having sex with her captor. While the dynamics of a situation such as this are never simple, it more complicated than a victim having sex with their captor “willingly”. Putting the word willingly in air quotes doesn’t make it ok, and it’s not enough to explain the multi-layered situation that exists here.

From The New Zealand Herald:

Austrian police are at the centre of a storm after interrogation reports were leaked showing that the kidnap victim Natascha Kampusch admitted she “willingly” had sex with her captor, Wolfgang Priklopil.

She also indicated that Priklopil - who killed himself in the hours following her escape - had accomplices; something she later denied. And the papers also reveal she was examined by a gynaecologist and left a suspicion that she may have become pregnant by Priklopil while in captivity, prompting speculation in Austrian and German media that she had a baby while being held. […]

The newspaper Heute received witness statements testifying about Priklopil’s love of S and M and how he routinely hurt females dressed as schoolgirls. Photographs of Kampusch being used as a sex slave by her kidnapper were hidden by police.

In the leaked documents, Sabine Freudenberger, the first person to interview Kampusch at the police station, said: “I only really asked her three questions - whether she had had sex with her kidnapper, how it is that after all this time she seemed to be so educated and whether there were accomplices.

“She admitted that she had had sex with him and that she had done that voluntarily. She had been given books by him to read, could listen to the radio and was given videos to see. When asked if there were any accomplices she said: `I do not know any names.”‘

Of course the photos of Natascha being used as a sex slave were hidden by the police, they had every right to hide those photos. She was a victim.

I think that interviewer needs some sensitivity training if you ask me. My three questions would not be if she had sex with him and how is it that she became so educated! Those questions were asked at the curiosity of the office, not out of necessity for the investigation. While it may have been relevant to ask is she was raped or had been subject to any type of sexual assault, asking a victim if their captor had sex with them is an entirely different question: it implies that the victim had a choice in the matter and that there was some enjoyment to be gained from the experience.

Disgusting!

Via The Curvature.

Peace Over Violence is proud to present the 10th Annual Denim Day USA 2008, a campaign to raise awareness and educate the public about rape and sexual assault. It takes place on Wednesday April 23, 2008.

In 1998, an Italian Supreme Court decision overturned a rape conviction because the victim wore jeans. People all over the world were outraged. Wearing jeans became an international symbol of protest against erroneous and destructive attitudes about sexual assault.

Last year, on Denim Day an unprecedented 300,000 people signed up to wear jeans in support of raising awareness about the need to end sexual violence. This year we aim to at least double that amount.

This day in the schools, offices and streets of Los Angeles County we unite against rape of girls, women, boys and men. We stand in support of survivors. We break the silence to end sexual violence.

On Denim Day USA wear your jeans as a visible sign of protest against the myths that still surround sexual assault!

What can you do to make Denim Day USA a success?

• Wear Jeans on April 23, 2008.
• Tell your friends, family and colleagues to wear jeans
• Sign up and receive our Denim Day USA Action Kit.
• Donate Dollars for Denim.

Make a Difference

• When you participate in Denim Day USA on April 23, 2008 you:
• Make it possible for more survivors of sexual assault to reach out and find help.
• Promote prevention through education so that sexual violence doesn’t occur in the first place.
• Encourage men and boys to understand that strength is not for hurting, and the critical role they play in preventing violence against women.
• Encourage institutional and societal change.

Get Started

Please register as a participant and we will send you out a packet of Denim Day material. If you have more than 500 participants, we ask that you come to our offices and pick up your material if at all possible. Everything is also downloadable from the Denim Day USA website by clicking here. Thank You!